HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 04/04/1989.................
Cloty of Kent
Culty Council Meetin
Agenda
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Jim White, President
Berne Biteman Steve Dowell
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Judy Woods
Office of the City Clerk
_
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
VINCT April 4. 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. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - 1989 Victim's Rights Week
C. Proclamation - Clean Up of the Century - Spring Rally Week
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. LID 327 West Valley Highway Improvements
t3 ,—B. Van Doren's Landing II Modified Site Plan - Appeal
. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Drinking Driver Task Force Contribution
D. Housing Element Update - Resolution
E. Riverpointe Apartments
F. Latecomer Agreement
G. The Lakes - Division One
H. Council Parking - Ordinance
1 I. Contract Completion - 84th Ave. S./S. 212th St.
J. Contract Completion - 64th Ave.S. Storm Improvements
K. Lot Line Adjustment - Ordinance I►'I�
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Van Doren's Landing - Modified Site Plan
`rB,. Van Doren's Landing Review by SCS Board
E. Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA-89-1)
D. East Valley Zoning Implementation
E. Recycling
F. Transportation Benefit District
G. LID 330 - Interim Financing
H . m Prot-
5. BIDS
-A. Seven Oaks Park
6. REPORTS
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - 1989 Victim's Rights Week
C. Proclamation - Clean Up of the Century - Spring Rally
Week
r �
r. k
1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
Category Public Hearina
1. SUBJECT: LID 327 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The hearing on confirmation of the final
assessment for LID 327 was opened at Council on March 21, and
continued to this date.
3 . EXHIBITS• The Public Works Director will distribute his
response to the protests filed at the March 21st
hearing.
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
hearing be closed and that the City Attorney be directed to
prepare the ordinance confirming the final assessment roll for
LID 327 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
�A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 31, 1989
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom o
RE: LID 327 Response to Protests
We have hired Gary Volchok to develop the before and after
appraisal analyses per both the Keck protest, Assessment No. 63 and
the WCI Realty, Inc. protest, Assessment No. 47 .
Unfortunately, Mr. Volchok' s analysis was not available to be
included in the agenda packet. Thusly, it will be presented at the
hearing.
I would, however, like to comment on the statement made by the
appraiser for WCI Realty, Inc. The appraiser stated that he didn't
think the City would require the improvement of West Valley Highway
in conjunction with the development of the eastern portion of the
property. This statement is critical per supporting his conclusion
that the property derives no special benefits from this LID. His
statement however is totally in error.
The City would require that West Valley Highway be fully improved
for the entire property frontage thereon. Said improvement would
equal that which is presently being done under this LID. The
City' s authority to do so is several. Per a Building Permit
Application it' s either SEPA (Ordinance No. 2494) or the Public
Works Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2224) . Per a subdivision, it's the
City' s Subdivision Code (Ordinance No. 1840) . For the City to
require said improvements is not an uncommon situation. In fact,
it is the norm. Typical examples include the adjacent Park 234
Office/Warehouse Development on the south side of 234th Street.
It executed an LID participating agreement associated with LID 327 .
Another would be Cascade Commerce Park development at 216th Street
& West Valley Highway. Also the Western Electric property just
north of WCI property when it short platted was similarly
conditioned as was the Union Pacific Realty property which lies
just westerly of the WCI property when it full platted. The list
could go on but the point is that the improvement of West Valley
Highway for the entire frontage of the property is a given
requirement for WCI if it were to either develop its remaining
balance, redevelop or subdivide. Since a reasonable and
knowledgeable person would consider the requirement to improve West
Valley Highway along the property's frontage as a financial expense
or obligation, per its potential purchase, the actual value of the
property would, thusly, reflect same. Because the appraiser's
evaluation didn't reflect the obligation associated with the
improvement of West Valley Highway, his conclusion of no increased
value is not representative.
cc: Property Manager
Gary Volchok
.............
................
�y �l Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - VAN DOREN'S LANDING II MODIFIED SITE PLAN
FOR PROPOSED HOMECOURT HOTEL (REZONE NO. RZ-88-2)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal by Union Pacific Realty of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of denial of the Van Doren"s Landing II Modified
Site Plan for Homecourt Hotel (Rezone No. RZ-88-2) . The property
is located on the south side of So. 212th St. approximately 1200
feet west of West Valley Highway.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of Appeal (see additional information under
the Van Doren"s Landing II Modified Site Plan section, listed
under Other Business, Item 4A)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner March 15, 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING•
• A 1,
�F-IIBLI£�'INPUT: �J
CLOSE HEARING:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt or modify the findings and recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner or to remand the matter of Van Doren's
Landing II Site Plan back to the Hearing Examiner.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
-
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
UNION PACIFIC
REALTY COMPANY
A Subsidiary of Ted F.Knapp
Union Pacific Corporation D,rectw
Rea,Estate Operations
March 29, 1989
AR291 .. _
Fy ~€ Fey
Ms. Marie Jensen
Kent City Clerks Office
220 So. 4th
Kent, Washington 98032
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's recommendation dated
March 15, 1989 (#RZ-88-2)
Dear Ms. Jensen:
Union Pacific Realty Company respectfully appeals the
above referenced Hearing Examiner's recommendation.
Attached is our Appeal Statement that specifically outlines
statement of facts as well as our rationale for the appeal.
It is our opinion that the proposed hotel/restaurant
use will be an extremely positive addition to Van Doren's
Landing and the City of Kent. Services uses such as the one
proposed are necessary to support the higher land uses that
are contemplated to be located in Van Doren's Landing.
Your approval of the action is respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
it ✓'�
Ted F. Knapp
Director-Real Estate Operations
dmd
Attachments
cc: Mr. Jim Young
f-j L-,
16400 So.;lhr.cclr
Smile 305 Srrt,l n i;. -r Pla rig
Scalp"(l,.J,vvda I f:d. MI
206 575 4620
1
2
3
4
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
5 OF THE CITY OF KENT
6 In re Site Plan Approval )
Van Doren' s Landing II )
7 Hotel/Restaurant Complex ) APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT
(Application # RZ 88-2)
8
Union Pacific Realty Company, )
9 )
Applicant. )
10 )
11 1. Introduction.
12 The applicant, Union Pacific Realty Company, has filed an
13 appeal of the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner
14 for a denial of a revised hotel/restaurant site plan submitted as
15 a condition of Ordinance 2792 . The Hearing Examiner should be
16 reversed because his action exceeds his authority under the City
17 of Kent zoning code and under Ordinance 2792 , is not supported by
18 the evidence in the record and is therefore arbitrary and
19 capricious. The applicant requests that the City Council approve
20 the revised site plan subject to those modifications to the
21 planning staff ' s recommended conditions discussed below.
22 2 . The proposed uses are permitted both by the Zoning Code
and Ordinance 2792 .
23
a. A hotel and restaurant are the uses specifically
24 approved for this site.
25 The City Council in 1988 approved a rezone for the subject
26 property to M1-C through Ordinance No. 2792 . This ordinance
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 1
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
1208> 382-8840
1
included a conceptual site plan showing a hotel and restaurant
..., 2
complex. Hotels and restaurants are principally permitted uses
3
in the M1-C zone. (Kent Zoning Code 15. 04 . 170)
4
b. The revised site plan does not involve a change of
5 use.
6 Although Ordinance 2792 made provisions to allow for changes
7 in use which would be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner, the
8 applicant' s proposal does not propose any change in use.
9 Concerns were raised both at the Hearing Examiner and staff level
10 as to whether the applicant was considering a multi-family
11 residential development rather than a hotel. The applicant has
12 given numerous reassurances that the proposal is indeed a hotel .
13 The concern and uncertainty on this issue is in all probability
14 attributable to a lack of understanding of recent developments in
15 the hotel industry.
16 One of the fastest segments of the hotel industry is the all
17 suite/extended stay concept. This concept is designed to
18 accommodate the business traveler whose average stay is slightly
19 longer than that of the typical overnight guest and who wants a
20 larger, more comfortable room with more amenities than are
21 provided in the typical hotel room. This concept is being
22 developed nationwide by industry leaders including Residence Inn
23 by Mariott, Holiday Inn's Homewood Suites, the Neighborhood Hotel
24 Corporation as well as others. The prime location for these
25 hotels is in proximity to business, office and industrial parks
26 where they are convenient to use generators. Van Doren' s landing
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 2
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
toll WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 982-95340
1
is just such a location. The revised site plan is for the
2
Homecourt - an all suite hotel.
3
The developer testified at the hearing that he has an
4
agreement with Best Western to utilize their computer reservation
5
network and that the project's financing commitment requires a
6
hotel/restaurant operation. The property is burdened by
7
restrictive covenants which do not allow residential use. There
8
should be no question that the proposed use meets the zoning code
9
definition of a hotel or motel, and that the Van Doren' s landing
10
campus is the perfect setting for an all suite hotel.
11
C. Outright denial of the Site Plan was unlawful.
12
Given that the revised site plan presented uses which are
13
both principally permitted uses in the M1-C zone and were
14
specifically authorized by Ordinance 2792, the outright denial of
15
the application was in excess of the Examiner' s authority. The
16
proposed site plan is in conformance with all requirements of the
17
Kent zoning code. The Examiner cites no provision of the code or
18
the text of Ordinance 2792 with which the proposal is
19
inconsistent. There was no testimony in opposition to the
20
proposal . No evidence was presented of any new adverse impacts
21
which require mitigation. Under such circumstances there is no
22
legal basis for an outright denial of the proposal . The Hearing
23
Examiner's recommendation must therefore be reversed.
24
25
26
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 3
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE. SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96104
(206) 382.9540
1
3 . The Hearing Examiner's objections are not supported by
2 the facts in the administrative record
3 In sum and substance the basis for the Examiner's denial of
4 the proposed revised site plan is that the plan does not present
5 a "grand facade to welcome visitors to Kent", that the complex of
6 buildings "would not stand as a beacon at the heart of this area"
7 and that the revised site plan presents greatly increased site
8 coverage from what had been approved in Ordinance 2792 . In fact
9 the revised site plan includes a greater area of softscape than
10 the original plan, and the architectural design issues upon which
11 the Examiner places such emphasis simply were not an element of
12 the previous City Council action adopting the M1-C zoning at this
13 site. Both plans show 152 units, an approximately 7, 000 square
14 foot restaurant pad in the same location and circulation around
15 the site has not changed significantly.
16 When the applicant sought the City's approval to allow a
17 hotel/restaurant complex at this site, the primary policy issue
18 was whether commercial uses were to be allowed at this site which
19 is slightly beyond the boundary of the commercial node shown on
20 the Comprehensive Plan map for the intersection of the West
21 Valley Highway and South 212th Street. Both the staff and
22 Hearing Examiner had resisted the rezone pending City Council
23 clarification of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
24 rezone application was made with a conceptual site plan which was
25 intended to present basic information such as the contemplated
26 number of hotel units, the required parking and the relationship
27
q:
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 4
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 882-9840
I
to the proposed restaurant. Until such time as the intent of the
2
Comprehensive Plan was clarified and the required zoning was in
3
place, more detailed site planning would have been premature.
4
This was recognized by all parties when Ordinance 2792 was
5
adopted, and the Hearing Examiner admits in his decision that "it
6
is fully understood that the original plans were entirely
7
illustrative. "
8
Review of the record of the adoption of Ordinance 2792 shows
9
no detailed discussion or concern regarding the specifics of the
10
architectural design or layout, which is natural because of the
11
understanding that the plans were only at a very conceptual
12
stage. Yet the Examiner bases his entire negative recommendation
13
on the fact that from an aesthetic standpoint he prefers certain
14
elements of the original plan which will not work with an all
15
suites type of hotel.
16
The type of buildings and the general layout of the
17
buildings are dictated by the all suites format. The
18
calculations submitted by the applicant at the hearing
19
demonstrated that in fact the amount of area covered by building
20
footprints and parking surfaces decreased from the original
21
conceptual site plan by two percent despite an increase in the
22
number of buildings. The amount of site coverage in the proposed
23
plan is forty percent less than what would be allowed by the
24
zoning code for a typical warehouse permitted by the M1 zoning.
25
The reason the site plan attached to the Examiner' s decision is
26
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 5
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96104
(206) 982-9840
1
so barren in appearance is that the landscaping is not drawn in
2
on that particular plan.
3
The concern that the proposed project will be an uninspired
4
apartment-like complex is entirely unfounded. The project is
5
located at one of the major entrances to the Van Doren's Landing
fi
campus and the last thing Union Pacific Realty intends to do is
7
allow the development of a substandard project at its front door.
8
The project will be of the same high caliber as what has already
9
been developed in Van Doren' s Landing and it indeed would be
10
foolish for Union Pacific to do otherwise in terms of protecting
11
the value of the rest of its over 500-acre complex.
12
4 . Conditions of Approval.
13
The Examiner ignored the directive of Ordinance 2792 and did
14
not make any attempt to recommend additional appropriate
15
mitigating measures. The planning staff, however, did recommend
lfi
approval of the site plan with the imposition of certain
17
conditions which are generally acceptable to the applicant
18
subject to those objections set forth below.
19
a. Building Clustering.
20
Staff suggested as a general proposition that the site plan
21
be revised to attempt to reduce the travel distance between
22
parking spaces and hotel suites. The applicant has made every
23
attempt to minimize these distances and believes the current
24
design is well within acceptable limits. Further attempts to
25
reduce these distances will require the elimination of
26
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 6
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE. SUITE 902
loll WERTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 382.9540
1
recreational amenities such as the tennis court, and will
2
necessitate dead-end parking configurations which are
3
undesirable. If staff has some specific suggestions which will
4
improve the parking access within the constraints set forth
5
herein, such assistance is welcomed by the applicant. Otherwise
g
the applicant would like the existing layout approved as
7
presented.
8
b. Pedestrian Circulation.
9
The recommended condition is acceptable and will be
10
incorporated into the site plan.
11
C. Perimeter Landscaping.
12
Staff has requested that perimeter landscaping be increased
13
along the western and southern borders of the site. The
14
applicant objects to this condition. The site plan includes the
15
fifteen feet of landscaping on these borders which are required
16
by the zoning code. It is unfair to impose an additional
17
requirement on this development and not on others within the city
18
without justification. The proposed site plan includes forty
19
feet of landscaping along the street frontages, which is twice
20
the code requirement. The amount of overall landscaping in the
21
plan also exceeds code requirements. There is no identified need
22
for additional screening to the west and the south of the site.
23
In fact the adjacent property to the west and the south is also
24
owned by Union Pacific Realty Company. Under these
25
26
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 7
BUCK & GORDON, P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 382-9840
1
circumstances, asking for the additional five feet of landscaping
.,. 2
on these borders is unjustified.
3
Staffs additional concern regarding landscaping related to
4
the need for landscaping on the shared lot line if the restaurant
5
lot is to be separated from the hotel lot. No such separation is
6
being requested at this time and the applicant expects to meet
7
code requirements if such segregation is sought in the future.
8
d. Joint use parking agreement.
9
This proposed condition also addresses a future separation
10
of the hotel and restaurant lots. The applicant has no objection
11
to this condition.
12
e. Building sprinklers.
13
Discussions are continuing with the fire department
14
regarding appropriate fire protection systems. Sprinklers may or
15
may not be necessary. The applicant would like the condition on
16
this issue to remain what the City Council imposed last year
17
which was that:
18
Prior to the issuance of any development permit,
19 the Fire Chief or his designee shall review and
evaluate all pertinent information and is
20 authorized to require built-in or other fire
protection system as the Fire Chief determines
21 necessary.
22 5. Conclusion.
23 The proposed plan for an all suite hotel complex will be a
24 strong addition to the Van Doren's Landing complex and the City
25 of Kent. The proposed uses have not changed from what was
26 approved by the City Council last year and are consistent with
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 8
BUCK & GORDON. P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 362-9340
1 '
the zoning on the site. The applicant therefore respectfully
2
requests that the Council reject the recommendation of the
3
4 Hearing Examiner and approve the site plan with the conditions as
set forth herein.
5 �--
DATED this day of March, 1989.
6
BUCK & GORDON
7
8
9 'Joel' M. ordon
Attorneys for the Applicant,
10 Union Pacific Realty Company
11 uprc\a03229 .jmg
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 APPLICANT'S APPEAL STATEMENT - 9
BUCK & GORDON. P.S.
WATERFRONT PLACE, SUITE 902
1011 WESTERN AVENUE
SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98104
(206) 382-9540
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Action:
Gw�mom r [k)k i t e move Councilmember mck n rl
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through K be approved ancy
S
Discussion
rervlc�;e< .
Action i r c�
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
March 21, 1989.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through April 6, 1989
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
2 : 00 p.m. on April 14, 1989.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/14 77458-77462 2,978.80
3/15-3/29 77881 -77924 255,387.13
3/30/89 77925-78396 865,543.35
Approval of checks issued for payroll : 1 ,123,909.28
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/20/89 116784-117422 6861,913.21
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
c~
CONSENT CALENDAR N
3 . City Council Action: pp `
Councilmember (A1Y1 moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through K be approved.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
March 21, 1989.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through April 6, 1989
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
2 : 00 p.m. on April 14, 1989 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/14 77458-77462 2,978.80
3/15-3/29 77881 -77924 255,387.13
3/30/89 77925-78396 865,543.35
1 ,123, 909.28
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/20/89 116784-117422 686,913.21
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
March 21, 1989
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00
P.M. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Biteman, Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, Acting City Administrator
Harris, City Attorney Driscoll, Acting Planning Director Satterstrom,
Public Works Director Wickstrom and Finance Director McCarthy. Also
present: Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederiksen, Assistant City
Administrator Hansen and Personnel Director Webby. Approximately 45
people were at the meeting.
PRESENTATIONS Chamber of Commerce Month. The Mayor read a
proclamation declaring the month of March, 1989 as
"Kent Chamber of Commerce Month" . He presented the
proclamation to Past President Ron Ricketts.
City of Kent Profile. Ellen McDonald of the Kent
Chamber of Commerce presented the Mayor with a copy
of the Kent Purchasing Profile and Traffic Computer
Survey. She noted that this had been made possible
by a local development matching fund grant from the
State. She also noted that the City' s Economic
Development Corporaton was one of the contributing
matching funders, along with the Kent Downtown
Association and the Valley Corridor Group. She
noted that the three volume set includes a
residential survey, a survey of business owners and
managers, and a survey of employees.
CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through M
CALENDAR be approved, Johnson seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of March 7 , 1989 meeting
with the following addition: On page 4 , LID 330,
prior to Johnson' s motion:
"There were no further comments and Biteman moved to
close the hearing. Mann seconded and the motion
carried.
•-- 1
March 21, 1989
CITY City Administrator. Mayor Kelleher introduced his
ADMINISTRATOR choice for City Administrator, Ed Chow, noting that
he has extensive qualifications and will make a fine
Administrator. JOHNSON MOVED for the confirmation
of Ed Chow as City Administrator. Biteman seconded.
WHITE MOVED to amend the motion to continue this
item for two weeks, to April 4 , pending a public
hearing on the matter. Dowell seconded. White
noted that he thought this action would clear the
air for Mr. Chow. Biteman noted that the Council
has already received a good deal of background
information. Johnson stated that public hearings
had not been held when selecting previous City
Administrators, and that the Council ' s role is to
confirm or not confirm the selection. White noted
that there is no Council procedure for confirmation
and that is what he would like to clarify. Dowell
pointed out that the Mayor is the top administrator
and has the authority and responsibility to choose
people with whom he can work, and that his
impressions of Mr. Chow are positive. Johnson
pointed out that Washington State law states that
the Mayor will hire the City Administrator, subject
to confirmation by the Council.
White' s proposed amendment failed with only White
voting in favor. The motion to confirm Mr. Ed Chow
as City Administrator then carried unanimously.
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3K)
SANITATION Green River Corporate Park - CPI No. 120.
ACCEPTANCE of bill of sale and warranty agreement
for continuous operation and maintenance for
construction of approximately 11350 feet of water
main in the vicinity of 72nd Ave. S . and S. 204th
St. for the Green River Corporate Park project and
release of the cash bond.
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3L)
Green River Corporate Park - CPI No. 102.
ACCEPTANCE of bill of sale and warranty agreement
for continuous operation and maintenance for
construction of approximately 21043 feet of water
2 _.
March 21, 1989
HEALTH AND main in the vicinity of 70th Ave. S. and S. 200th
SANITATION St. for the Green River Corporate Park project and
release of the cash bond.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3H)
LID 327/328 Agreement with Metro. AUTHORIZATION for
the Mayor to sign an agreement with METRO for their
participation in the construction of bus pullouts in
conjunction with the City' s West Valley Highway
improvements projects, as approved by the Public
Works Committee at their meeting of March 17 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3I)
LID 327 Embankment and Fill. ACCEPT as complete the
contract with City Transfer for the LID 327
Embankment and Fill Project and release of retainage
after receipt of releases from the State.
Bids LID 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements Bid
opening was February 24, 1989 with 11 bids received.
The low bid was submitted by Gary Merlino
Construction in the amount of $3 , 117 , 788 . 32 . The
bids have been reviewed and the Director of Public
Works recommends that the low bid be accepted.
JOHNSON SO MOVED. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
LID 327 LID 327 - West Valley Highway Improvements This
date has been set for the hearing on confirmation of
the final assessment roll for LID 327 for West
Valley Highway Improvements. The City Clerk has
given the proper legal notification to the property
owners. Wickstrom noted that upon notification from
the State Department of Transportation that this
street was to be overlayed, meetings were held with
the property owners resulting in this LID project.
The state has delayed their paving project to allow
time for the City' s project. Wickstrom described
the project in detail, and a complete copy of his
report was distributed with the agenda packet and
has been filed for the record.
3
March 21, 1989
His description noted that :
STRE TS
The project includes additional paving width to accommodate more
lanes, overlay of the existing pavement, drainage, curb and gutter,
LID 327 sidewalk, street trees, landscaping of the U-turn route island
areas, illumination, signal improvements; some undergrounding of
electrical facilities and utility extensions, and relocations.
Wickstrom pointed out that a similar improvement,
under LID 328 will continue this project from S.
212th to S. 189th. The costs and funding sources
were described as follows:
Source Item Funded Total
Currently Budgeted:
T.I.B. Grant Street Widening $ 810,000
D.O.T. Agreement Asphalt Overlay 409,500
Water Utility (88CIP) Watermain Rebuild 47,000
Drainage Utility (88CIP) Storm sewer Rebuild 35,000
City Funds (89CIP) Bus Pullouts 60,000
Metro & State Bus Pullouts 78,000
City Funds (3147) James St. Intersection Imp. 340,000
City Funds (3121) Meeker St. Radii 50,000
City Funds (3121) W.V.H. Buttoning 60,000
Valley Detention (4436) Box Culvert 148, 000 _.
City Funds (89 CIP) Meeker St. Radii 50,000
Proposed to be Budgeted:
Water Utility Watermain Rebuild and 62, 000
Relocation
Total Agency Funds: $2,149, 500
City of Kent Total: 852,000
LID Funds Required (Balance of Cost) : $2,584,248.36
LID Reduction from Preliminary Roll: 28%
Wickstrom further explained the four categories used
for the method of assessments and pointed out that
the payment would be over a 20 year period.
Mayor Kelleher noted a letter from Jack Keck, owner
of a senior mobile home park within the LID. He
4
March 21, 1989
STREETS pointed out the state law providing for deferrment
LID 327 of taxes for farmlands and asked if there was any
provision whereby the Council could provide
exemption for such use. Wickstrom noted that there
was no such law for mobile home parks. It was
determined for White that the LID improvements
should increase the value of the property.
Wickstrom explained that when the benefit to the
property was questioned, his department prepared a
report for the Council.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Robert Hines
of Bogle & Gates, attorney for WCI Realty
Corporation, noted that he had, tonight, filed a
written objection to the assessment. He stated that
the property would not be benefitted by the
improvements and introduced John Boucher, appraiser.
Mr. Boucher noted that he had appraised the property
in June, 1987 ; and that the figures were the same at
this time. A copy of his appraisal was submitted
with Mr. Hines ' letter. MANN MOVED to make both a
part of the record, Biteman seconded and the motion
carried.
Mel Kleweno, attorney for Jack Keck, owner of parcel
No. 63 , the Circle K Mobile Home Park, noted that he
had submitted a letter of protest, along with an
appraisal of the property made by Charles Mattaini.
Both conclude tht the property would not be
benefitted by the LID and both have been filed for
the record. Kleweno also noted that Mattaini was
out of town and asked to have the hearing continued
to April 4, or possibly to April 18, so that he
could attend. It was pointed out that the Staff
recommendation is to continue the hearing to the
April 4 meeting. JOHNSON SO MOVED, Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
LID 330 Formation of LID 330 - 64th Avenue Street
Improvements. It was noted that the public hearing
on formation of this LID was held on March 7, 1989
and that the hearing was concluded and closed. The
-w 5
March 21, 1989
STREETS Council directed that the ordinance be presented
LID 330 tonight along with the mitigating measures
associated with the impacts of this project on the
lagoon.
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department noted
that SEPA compliance is required and urged the
Council to delay forming this LID until a threshold
determination has been made. He clarified this as a
decision as to whether or not an environmental
impact statement will be necessary.
Woods moved to delay action on the formation of LID
330 until SEPA compliance is completed. Biteman
seconded and the motion carried.
Soils Soils Conservation Service. Mayor Kelleher noted
Conservation that he had received a request from the Soils
Service Conservation Service Advisory Committee, a group
charged with the task of monitoring development
adjacent to unique and fragile areas, such as the
City' s lagoon. At the request of the committee, he
has elevated the group' s status from committee to y
executive task force. He pointed out that
committees may make recommendations to City Council
and a task force has the authority to direct staff.
The new Soils Conservation Service Task Force has
asked that monitoring the protection of water
quality along streams and creeks identified in the
City' s water quality program be added to their
tasks.
Solid Waste Solid Waste Task Force. Mayor Kelleher noted that
Task Force the Solid Waste Task Force was established to close
the landfill and to gain access to Cedar Hills.
Both have been accomplished and inasmuch as the
Council no longer considers solid waste a Target
Issue, he is considering changing the status of this
group to executive committee.
6
March 21, 1989
TRAFFIC CONTROL Canyon Drive Improvements. JOHNSON MOVED for
authorization to establish a budget to transfer
$5, 000 to the Canyon Drive project to reinstall the
pylons as a temporary left-turn restriction measure,
and authorization for the Public Works Department to
apply for FAUS funding and to establish a budget for
same for Canyon Drive improvement project. Biteman
seconded. Upon White's question, Johnson noted that
the Public Works Committee recommended including
Jersey barriers as part of the 1990 budget. The
motion carried.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3J)
Harris Rezone Ordinance. APPROVAL of Ordinance 2840
rezoning the Harris property from MHP, Mobile Home
Park, to GC, General Commercial. Council
conditionally approved this on February 7 , 1989 .
The applicant has now fulfilled the conditions.
HOUSING AND Special Populations Resource Center Kitchen
COMMUNITY Rehabilitation. It is necessary to make a revision
DEVELOPMENT to the City's adopted 1988 and 1989 Community
Development Block Grant Programs. The change will
reallocate money from three 1989 Parks Department
projects to the Special Populations Resource Center
Kitchen Rehabilitation 1988 Project. Upon White's
question, Lin Ball explained that these are not
additional funds, that they are simply reallocating
funds within the block grant program. DOWELL MOVED
that $10, 000 from the Kaibara Park Phase III Project
(No. C89073) , $6, 640 from the Special Populations
Resource Center Handicap Access Project (No.
C89123) , and any unexpended funds from the North
Park Tot Lot Project (No. C89070) be reallocated to
the 1988 Special Populations Resource Kitchen
Rehabilitation Project (No. C88123) . White seconded
and the motion carried.
HUMAN SERVICES Human Services Roundtable. The City Council needs
to take action on whether or not the City of Kent
desires to continue as a member of the Human
Services Roundtable and determine what level of
funding support it will commit to as a member. MANN
7
March 21, 1989
HUMAN SERVICES MOVED that the City of Kent continue as a member of
the Human Services Roundtable through December,
1989, and commit to contributing its share of
funding at a maximum level of approximately 4
percent of the total adopted Roundtable budget for
the remainder of 1989 . The City's contribution is
not to exceed $13 ,400. Woods seconded. Satterstrom
noted for Biteman that the current contribution to
the Roundtable is $6, 000. Lin Ball of the Planning
Department noted that the one-year planning project
to identify human services needs has been completed,
and an action agenda has been developed to address
the problems. She noted that the $13 , 400 figure is
the maximum, depending on the action agenda adopted
by the Roundtable on March 29 . She pointed out that
Councilmember Mann will be attending that meeting
and is looking for direction from the Council on
whether the City will continue as a member and the
level of the City's support. She also noted that
the Planning Committee today recommended adoption of
the Human Services Commission recommendation. The
motion then carried. Mayor Kelleher commended
Councilmember Mann on the excellent job he has done
representing the City on the Roundtable.
SOLID WASTE Extra Garbage Pick-up. Acting City Administrator
Harris noted that upon the direction of the Council,
Garbage he and City Attorney Driscoll had met with garbage
haulers in Kent to discuss spring clean-up.
Ordinance 2841, amending Chapter 7 . 8 of the City
Code has been prepared relating to the collection of
extra garbage, trash and yard clippings. Driscoll
explained that the current ordinance provides that
garbage collectors must provide fall and spring
clean-up and collection of city trash free of charge
to the city and the citizens. She noted that the
matter of dispute is the authority of the city to
require this as opposed to what the WUTC allows
licensed haulers to do. She said the ordinance
presented tonight recognizes this dispute and that
there is legislation pending on the matter. She
proposed that the collection fees for Spring of 1989
be at the rates established by the WUTC, and be paid
8
March 21, 1989
SOLID WASTE for by the city, pending resolution of the dispute.
Garbage Biteman suggested that Section 5 be changed as
underlined
5 . This subsection shall not apply to the
residential cleanup of garbage for the
spring and fall of 1989 or the pickup of
City garbage for 1989 . For such cleanup,
the City shall pay to the garbage and
refuse collection company or companies
authorized to operate residential
collection by the Utilities and
Transportation Commission the rates
established by the Commission for such
cleanup.
Driscoll did not favor Biteman' s further suggestion
to make provision for keeping the funds in escrow
until a decision is made by the WUTC, noting that
the City reserves the right to determine on how to
proceed in this dispute.
It was pointed out that Section 1 on page 2 should
also be changed to reflect the added language in
Section 5.
BITEMAN MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2841 with the
changes as noted. Houser seconced and the motion
carried.
OUT OF STATE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3G)
TRAVEL Out of State Trip. AUTHORIZATION for an Engineering
Department employee to attend the Delta Systems
users conference in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Wickstrom noted that funds have been included in the
approved Public Works 1989 project fund, as approved
by the Public Works Committee at their meeting of
March 17 , 1989.
POLICE DEPT. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3D)
Jail Health Services. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor
to sign the contract with King County for jail
health services. The City Attorney has reviewed and
approved the contract for this budget expenditure.
9
March 21, 1989
PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3E)
East Hill Site. ACCEPTANCE of the land preparation
phase of the East Hill Project (Police/Fire Training
Center and Fire Station) as complete and release
retainage upon receipt of appropriate documentation.
PARKS (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3C)
Riverbend Golf Course. ADOPTION of Resolution No.
1197 , as corrected by the City Attorney, allowing
the Parks Department to lease thirty (30) golf carts
from Yamaha Service Equipment to be used at the
Riverbend Golf Course opening on July 12 , 1989 .
ANIMAL CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3F)
Animal Control Services AUTHORIZATION to extend
the interlocal agreement with King County for animal
control services, as approved by the Operations
Committee at its March 15 meeting.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills Approval of payment of the bills
received through March 23 , 1989 after auditing by
the Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 00 p.m.
on March 31, 1989.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
2/27/89 - 2/28/89 77078 - 77087 $ 56,590.06
2/28/89 - 3/10/89 77434-77457 211,451.68
3/15/89 77468-77880 456,533. 26
$724,575.00
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
3/03/89 116148 - 116783 $678,838.92
10
March 21, 1989
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3M)
Credit Card for Travel Expense Expenditures
AUTHORIZATION to use credit cards for official City
travel and subsistence expenses and for the Mayor to
sign a contract with the City' s bank. The City
Attorney has reviewed the contract.
REPORTS Council President. White noted that he and
Councilmember Johnson had spent the previous weekend
in Washington D.C. at the National League of Cities
Congressional Caucus, where he had attended a
Steering Committee meeting on Transportation and
Communications. He stated that they had met with
Senator Adams, Senator Gorton, Representative
McDermott and Representative Chandler regarding
funding for transportation and how to get Federal
tax dollars channeled back to states, counties and
cities.
Public Works Committee. Johnson pointed out that
the Public Works Committee will meet on Tuesday,
March 28, at 4: 00 p.m. in the Engineering Conference
Room. He also reported on the trip to Washington
D. C. , noting that some items he had discussed with
our representatives included opposition to the
Federal fuel tax, support to continuing Block Grant
funding, support for allowing taxpayers to deduct
local sales tax and support for making railroads
responsible for improving the crossings. He also
noted that several topics had been discussed with
the Corps of Engineers.
Public Safety Committee Biteman noted that from
now on the Public Safety Committee will meet on the
1st and 15th following the Operations Committee.
EXECUTIVE At 8 :25 p.m. , Mayor Kelleher stated that, at the
SESSION request of Councilmember Biteman, there would be an
executive session of approximately fifteen minutes
regarding a personnel matter.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened at 8 : 45 p . m . and then
adjourned .
Marie J s CMC
City Cle
- 11
Kent City Council Meeting
l Date April 4 . 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE CONTRIBUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgment of the contribution to the
Task Force of $100 from the Kent Police Crime Prevention Unit to
be used in the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (DARE) .
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4. RECOMMENDED BY•
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
(I
M1 Jn
Kent CityCouncil Meeting
9
Date April 4, 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adopt Resolution No. incorporating
the amendments to the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive
Plan that were recommended by the Planning Commission and Housing
Advisory Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Plannina Commission January 30 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding housing,
amending the City's Comprehensive Plan, by
amending the Housing Element of the Plan.
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 increasing imbalance between
multifamily and single-family housing within the City, and a lack
of availability of a mix of housing options for Kent residents; 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.
WHEREAS, 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 its recommendations and
accompanying addendum for implementing Council Resolution 1123.
WHEREAS, the City Council on July 5, 1988 passed
Resolution 1172 directing Planning staff to conduct a study to
update the Housing Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Ordinance 2788
contemporaneous to Resolution 1172, which amended the Kent City
Zoning Code to achieve a reduction of multifamily residential
housing by 20 percent and that City-wide graduated scale reduction
referenced in that ordinance was intended to be an interim
measure, to remain in effect until the completion and adoption of
an area-by-area residential analysis.
WHEREAS, the Planning Department staff has worked with a
nine member Housing Advisory Committee for completion of the
update to the comprehensive plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Department and the Housing Advisory
Committee have completed the 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, pursuant to
the Council's direction.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the proposed update on January 30, 1989, at which time
the Commission voted unanimously to amend the update to the
Comprehensive Plan as proposed by the Housing Advisory Committee,
and Planning staff; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Housing
Element, is amended as shown in "Exhibit All, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
shall be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the
Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon
request.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of 1989.
2 -
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
7140-250
- 3 -
EXHIBIT A
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERVIEW
The-heusing-preblef-4s-e€ten-re€erred-to-but-Fnany-peep}e-are-unelear-as-to-the-
nature-e€-the-prebleiR:--As-a-natienwide-ceneern;-€he-heus4ng-prebleffl-4s
generally-de€fined-as-a-shortage-a€-deeent-housing-at-prices-peep}e-can
a€€erd:--In-1968;-the-President=s-CeFflf4ttee-en-Urban-Housing-€sund-that-26
niillien-unfits-a€-housing-would-have-€e-be-produced-fin-the-next-ten-years-te
meet-housing-needs-and-that-six-ffiill4en-e€-these-housing-units-would-have-te
be-for-lew-and-Fnederate-4neefe-€af4lies:
Heus4ng-eannet-be-de€fined-as-merely-a-physical-strueture-but-4s-part-e€-a
ne4ghberheed-and-larger-eefFnunity---fit-4s-a-fetal-l4v4ng-envirenfent:
E4kewise;-the-housing-problerfl-is-FAere-than-the-aetual-number-e€-units-that
must-be-predueed:--It-also-includes-the-leeat4en-and-distribut4en-e€-these
units-and-the-var4ety-and-eho4ee-e€-housing-types-and-residential-envireninents:
Housing-4tsel€-4s-a-ceFRplex-€field-a€€eeted-by-such-var4ables-as-supply-e€
FReney;-level-a€-taxat4en;-preperty-tax-assessFnents;-publ4e-serv4ees-sueh-as
transpertatien;-waterT-sewers-and-seheels;-land-cests;-racial-and-ecenef4e
diserifn4natien;-planning-and-wing-een€eels;-bu4lding-and-housing-cedes;-the
eenstruetien-industry;-gevernnient-pregrafs;-and-geegraph4e-and-attitudinal
eens4derat4ens:
Housing-has-been-trad4t4enally-centrelled-by-the-private-market:--Hewever;
th4s-niarket-has-been-altered-by-a-range-e€-gevernfental-pregraFfls-ceneerning
housing.--In-the-193O=s-Congress-es€ablished-the-Publ4e-Housing-Program-and
the-Federal-Housing-Administrat4en-(FHA)-which-insured-henie-inertgages:--A€ter
the-war;-the-Veteran-s-Adf4nistration-guaranteed-heFRe-mer€gages:
The-pest-war-housing-beein-was-sign4€4eantly-fin€luenced-by-these-latter-twe
pregrams-as-they-eneeuraged-single-€aFn4ly-suburban-develepment:--The-1949
Heusing-Aet-established-a-national-goal-a€-2providing-a-deeent-heme-and
su4table-living-envirenfnent-€er-every-Aifleriean-':--In-the-195A=s-and-1969=s-the
€ederal-government-establ4shed-a-number-of-subsidy-heus4ng-pregrains-des4gned
to-provide-housing-€or-these-marginally-abeve-publ4e-heus4ng-ineeme-levels:
The-Heusing-Aet-a€-1968-added-a-new-d4mension-to-government-involvement-with
housing-by-requiring-that-planning-e€€erts-a€-leeal-gevernFRents-wh4eh-were
€ederally-assisted-Onelude-a--'housing-element-'-e€-the-Comprehensive-Plan:
The-He using-and-Cemmun4€y-Bevel epment-Act-of-19?4-(PT U:-93-383)-rad4ealTy
alteyed-nat4enal-housing-pel4ey-by-a€€eet4vely-eurta4l4ng-the-trad4t4enal
public-housing-pregram;-as-well-as-the-varieus-subsidized-fnertgage-4nsuranee
pregrains:--In-their-place;-Cengress-thrust-€award-a-herebe€ere-relatively
fniner-part-e€-the-nat4enal-heus4ng-seenet-publ4e-heus4ng-in-pr4vate
aeeeinFnedations;-er-leased-heusing:--Under-the-1974-Act;-local-governments-are
regu4red-te-prepare-and-adept-a--'Heusing-Ass4slance-Plan''-'-Prier-to-receiving
any-H&CB-bleak-grant-€ands:--The-leeal-Heus4ng-Assistance-Plan-FRust-eentaint
an-accurate-survey-e€-the-eenditien-of-the-heus4ng-seekk;-an-est4ma€e-e€-the
heus4ng-assistanee-needs-e€-lewer-4neeme-persens;-a-real4st4e-annual-Beal-€er
the-number-of-dwelling-units-te-be-ass4sted;-and-the-general-leeat4en-fby
-' census-€raetj-a€-preposed-new-housing-pre3eets-and-substant4al-rehabil4tat4en
pre3eets-€er-lower-income-Persons:--A€ter-acceptance-e€-the-Plan-by-HUB;-all
€ederally-assisted-heus4ng-units-fnust-een€erm-te-the-adepted-Plan;-HUB-and
local-governments-rev4ew-all-prepesed-projects-to-ensure-th4s-cen€erm4ty:
Why-4s-housing-regu4red-te-be-an-element-e€-the-Cofnprehens4ve-Plan-and-why-4s
4t-a-eeneern-e€-urban-Planners?--Cefprehensive-Planning-attempts-to-gu4de-the
fetal-develepfnent-patterns-e€-the-cemmun4ty:--It-reeegnizes-the-interaet4en-e€
varieus-dee4siens-and-seeks-te-achieve-cemfnun4ty-goals-by-establ4sh4ng
pelie4es-te-achieve-these-goals-and-te-gu4de-dee4sien-mak4ng:--Planners-have
long-dealt-with-and-4n€luenced-heus4ng,-however;-not-always-reeegn4z4ng-the
impact-e€-Plans-en-heus4ng-supply;-leeatien-and-envirenmental-su4€ab414€y:
The-heus4ng-eleFnent-e€-the-Cemprehensive-Plan-€erees-the-heus4ng-issue-te-be
deals;-wi€h-eve nly:--Whole-planning-carnet-4n€luenee-many-e€-the-€erces-that
a€€ec€-the-heus4ng-Fnarket-(sueh-as-taxat4en;-ava4lab414ty-a€-€inaneing);-i€
can-in€luenee-the-leeatien-e€-housing;-types-a€-housing;-prev4de-a-range-e€
res4dent4al-envirenfents-and-inerease-the-l4vab444ty-o€-res4dent4al
envirenments:
4853L-3L
HOUSING ELEMENT _
OVERVIEW
The Comprehensive Plan includes a Housing Element in order to
incorporate citizen goals into the design building and
preservation of attractive livable and healthy neighborhoods, and
to encourage provision of housing for all the city's residents.
The Housing Element is perhaps the most personal component of the
Comprehensive Plan for it concerns the immediate environment in
which City residents live and raise their families.
The housing field is constantly changing led by population demand
and the private sector' s response and modulated by public policy.
A major factor in recent years has been rapid population and
housing growth Between 1970 and 1988 the city' s population
doubled from 16,000 to 32 000 • the Greater Rent Area increased
just as rapidly.
The population growth has been led by strong regional economic
forces coupled with Kent' s location The City occupies_ a
strategic position within the region with commuter access to
employment centers from Tacoma to Seattle The City is also a
major focus of employment in its own right Regional and local
employees and their families have created a vigorous housing market
in Rent Barring ma-lor economic downturns housing growth will
continue to be strong in Kent for the foreseeable future.
Rapid growth has raised concerns about the city's ability to keep
up with increased demands on Rublic facilities and services. It
has also raised questions about the impact of growth on existing
residential areas particularly single-family neighborhoods_.
Ultimately these and other questions focus on the kind of
residential community which Kent residents aspire to create and
maintain.
Along with growth, major factors contributing to the dynamics of
the local housing market are the changing nature of the population
and new responsibilities for local government in meeting housing
needs one example is the aging of the population, and the need
for new approaches to housing an expanded senior population. The
new needs are coupled with a retraction in federal housing
assistance during the decade of the 1980s and an emerging
necessity for expanding the local role in housing assistance for
residents with special needs.
This Plan places major emphasis on the following points:
Retention of existing residential areas as livable and
attractive neighborhoods
Promotion of a community and neighborhood spirit,
including a renewed emphasis on single-family housing
Recognition of the relationships between housing density
and circulation, public facilities and services
Emphasis on the importance of preserving the natural
features of the land
Recognition of the need to provide housing opportunities
Tor all persons in the community.
_While growth and the private sector will continue to lead the local
housing market, this Plan Element should be used to guide growth
towards the goals of City residents, to create neighborhood
environments which they will be pleased to call "home."
OVERALL GOAL: T ��g�gCg�g=�11; � ASSURE
TO LIVE IN RENT.
A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING
GOAL I: Preserve, maintain and improve the Cityis
existing residential neighborhoods
PiUbliefaeilities—anel serriees
Objective 1: Actively encourage the retention and
improvement of existing residential
neighborhoods on East Hill, West Hill and the
Valley Floor
Policy l:
all exist , residential—neighberheeds—t-e
determine thelr ' 3t =cam zed
and t6—idnt i f j 9ttegies €er smeIg
lt4ti ipr�
Utilize regulatory measures such as zoning,
to provide both interim protection to existing
residential neighborhoods which will not be
retained, and to protect and improve the
neighborhoods to be preserved
Policy 2 : Utilize re
resiA n 'J.' -feeds -whiei 6ii]:3: net be
and to preteet and exVaTrd---t-�
Through development of area and functional
plans, assure the provision of adequate
circulation and utility services for Cif
neighborhoods including street improvements
water, sanitary sewers storm drainage
lighting, and power.
Policy 3 :
ge;ae=9, —storm drayage, . . y
ree
Undertake a survey of infrastructure
deficiencies and needs in established
neighborhoods and develop a program for
implementing needed improvements
_Policy 4 : Ensure that the needed community services,
�e g. including fire police library
facilities, medical services,
`ie-rzJi_...,, neighborhood shopping opportunities,—
ete.+ and other services are easily accessible
-by to neighborhood residents.
Policy 5: Ensure that rehabilitatien
i -„Y
amendingfeasible by the L nening n a_
I
Protect existing single-family neighborhoods
from incompatible uses and other intrusions,
through open space buffers, fencing, extensive
landscaping, density gradations and other
appropriate means.
Gbleeti mpreve the existing resident
neighberheeds en the East and 1,4est Hills.
easL a L hill neighberheeds.
_
�y
♦ , a _,
serviees L LLese n
`
I
lighting, power,
Ensure that the needed
' iftedleal - /
I
neighberhee residents-
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas where the
needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which
is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods.
Obiective 1: Encourage new residential development on suitable
areas of the Valley Floor close to transportation corridors._
Policy 1: Designate suitable areas for future residential
development.
Policy 2 :
the Valley Fleer.
Expand opportunities for multifamily
development. where feasible near commercial
centers maior transportation corridors, and
major commuter transit routes.
Policy 3 : Review current zening;—eonatruetien,---aila
develepmlent standards are maintained.
Retain agricultural and rural residential
opportunities.
Policy 4 • Permit and ------mecIj:efa and high-defts4t-Y
residen ial-4evel� lytrt ej y as ' L
_ i , ..�,
neeessarl
Provide for mobile home Parks and manufactured
housing.
Policy 5•
• Encourage upper-story residential uses in
commercial and office buildings.
Pell ley= PY I 4i dential uses
in
Objective 2 : Permit new residential development on the East
and West Hills as the necessary services and faeil ties
facilities and services are available.
Policy 1•
Protect existing single-family neighborhoods
from adverse impacts of new development.
Policy 2 g (e.g. geni-g) te
restriet and diseeurage develepment .L_
eantributes to urban '-
Designate suitable areas for future residential
development.
Policy 3 :
anel high density residential develepment in
areas that t `'' e ifith
density deyel-epmef�t-,
Encourage development of new single-family
housing by creating neighborhood environments
attractive to single-family builders and
homeowners.
Policy 4 : Utilize regulatory measures such as zoning,
to restrict and discourage development which
contributes to urban sprawl.
Policy 5: Limit opportunities for multifamily
development.
Policy 6: Limit expansion of multifamily development in
rural residential areas.
Objective 3 : Guide new residential crrowth so that it occurs
in a responsible manner, consistent with neighborhood
objectives.
Policy 1: Limit opportunities for high-density
multifamily developmente where appropriate.
Policy 2 : Provide onlRortuniti.es for low- or medium-
density multifamily development in nodes and
near commercial centers.
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of areas already
served by utilities and transportation systems,
to achieve maximum efficiency in the provision
of services and preservation of natural
features.
Policy 4 : For undeveloped areas encourage densities
which promote efficiency in providing_ needed
utilities and services.
Policy 5: Provide for increased single-family residential
densities as a transition between more
intensive and less intensive residential areas.
Policy 6: Require developments to provide for all
necessary on-site improvements , as well as
their fair share of off-site improvements
needed as a result of the development.
Policy 7 : Through enhanced development standards and
other mechanisms improve the appearance and
owfiti' of multifamily developments_ within the
community.
Policy 8 : Encourage the use of clustering zero _lot line,
Tanned unit development and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of
developments.
Policy 9: Ensure adequate buffering between new
developments where buffering is needed to
mitigate an adverse impact of the new
development.
Policy 10: Promote annexation as a means of guiding
development which may impact existing
residential areas.
GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of housing units
offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost.
Objective 1: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of -.
existing housing units.
Policy 1: Sponsor a housing rehabilitation program.
Policy 2: Provide information on home maintenance and
rehabilitation to homeowners.
Policy 3 : Maintain a strong code enforcement program.
Policy 4 : Support legislation and programs which provide
incentives for maintaining homes in good
condition.
Objective 2 :
dwelling units.
Provide for a mixed residential community with a balance of
housing types.
Policy 1: Emphasize Support .".D. deve eprce t-& Planned
Unit Developments (P.U.D.$) where densities
and dwelling types are mixed.
Policy 2 : Provide for manufactured housing and for mobile
home parks.
Policy 3 :
asseeiazed- inereaseel develepr
minimized.
Encourage mixed use zoning which allows
residential uses to be incorporated into
commercial and office developments.
Policy 4 : Determine what ineentives eetild be pr- : de to
Encourage creative approaches to housing design
and development.
x re iele—fems t a
elderly, lew ,
Objective 3 : Increase the supply and affordability of housing
for low- and moderate-income households.
Policy 1: Review current regulations (e.g. zoning,
building, fire codes) to insure that the
associated increased development costs are
minimized.
Policy 2 : Determine what incentives could be provided to
encourage new construction of units.
Policy 3 : Provide for increased single-family residential
densities in appropriate areas as a means of
controlling costs and providing opportunities
for single-family home ownership.
Policy 4 : Promote affordable housing design competitions
to demonstrate efficient planning and
construction techniques that can be replicated
by other developments.
GOAL 4 : Assure environmental quality in residential areas.
Obl eettivems / -ssure an adequate
level o eemmunity/publie_ serviees fer , , residential -areas
PeiieyL --Provide adequate utility serviee to all
residential
rvsrc��—Previele the enyirenmental health
neeessary te maintain the residential
s-
Pe}i eyz-:�: Premete—needed eemmunity serviees---ana
faeilities sueh as ehurehes,
libraries, reereation and tip
ete.
r'vTrcr-'� where neeessary, establish buffers (e.g. , ^Y
en
spaee, feneing, emtensive /
betifeen existing
residential areas and adjaeent
non residential areas .,a /
er uses.
Paijgy=:E. Premete and
rereuting ef the rallread lines that run.
Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural
environment as possible.
Policy 1: Prohibit residential development in areas
unsuitable for development such as steep
slopes and wetlands.
Policy 2 : Require site design to conserve natural
features such as streams steep slopes, trees,
and wetlands) .
Policy 3 : Utilize regulatory measures to control the
removal of major trees on developed as well as
on undeveloped property.
Objective 2 a
Provide-^ open green ^ areas in the Citv,s residential
neighborhoods.
Policy 1: prohibit resident.a
I r slepes,
swamps,—ee"
Require contiguous open green area in new
multifamily developments.
Policy 2 :
es
features—¢e g � / r ,
Require contiguous open green area in new
single-family subdivisions.
signifieant natural features-.
Objective 3 : Protect sensitive areas including significant
woodlands wetlands meadows wildlife habitats. and waterway
from the adverse impacts of residential development.
Policy 1: Update the Hazard Area Development Limitations
Map to include additional sensitive areas.
Policy 2 : Prioritize sensitive areas as to their
constraints on development their safety and
welfare functions and the environmental health
benefits they provide.
Policy 3 : Study alternative means to prohibit or restrict
residential development in sensitive areas,
including the purchase or transfer of
development rights.
Policy 4 : Encourage, and where necessary require,
developments to design around sensitive areas.
Promote clustering zero lot line and Planned
Unit Developments (P U D s) to this end.
Objective 4 • Promote good water quality in residential areas.
Policy 1: Restrict residential densities in areas
unconnected to City sewer.
Policy 2 : Utilize regulatory measures to limit impervious
surface coverage in new residential
developments.
Policy 3 : Require developments to provide adequate on-
site storm drainage including measures to
protect groundwater and surface water duality.
Objective 5 Encourage the use of emerging and less
conventional technologies to protect the environment.
Policy 1: Survey emerging technologies to determine
aRpropriate applications in residential
environments.
Policy 2: Protect solar access in residential
environments.
GOAL 5 Encourage housing opportunities for persons with special
needs such as senior citizens the homeless, mentally and
developmentally disabled and lower income Rersons and families
Objective 1 Identify and implement strategies to provide
housincr for special oloulations, in coordination with the
development community and other private and public bodies.
Examples include:
1. Funding strategies: identify funding resources
for special needs housing.
2 . coordination strategies: improve coordination
between housing providers and service funders.
3 . Community acceptance strategies: encourage
neighborhood acceptance of community-based
housing through community education and
coordination concerning the location
distribution and safety of such housing.
Policy 1: Promote preservation of lower-income housing_
including rectuiring mitigation measures for
major public and private proiects which cause
the loss of such.
Policy 2 : Develop and maintain a citizen participation
process to involve the community in planning
and developing City housing strategies for
special populations.
Policy 3 : Make special efforts to address emergency and
transitional housing needs of special
population groups.
Policy 4 : Periodically update the Kent Zoning Code and
other development regulations to reflect new
types of senior and special needs housing.
Policy 5: Study using incentives to encourage
develo ments to set aside units for low- and-
moderate income elderly persons.
objective 2 Achieve a geographic balance in siting_ special
needs housing throughout the City.
Policy 1: Work with County and adiacent jurisdictions to
promote regional siting and dispersal of
special needs housing opportunities both in
Rent and throughout the region.
Policy 2 : Insure adectuate notice and discussion of
assisted housing proposals which may affect
specific neighborhoods.
Policy 3 : Work with County and suburban jurisdictions to
Rromote regional financing of housing for low-
income and special needs housing in Rent and
throughout the region.
Y
v >
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RIVERPOINTE APARTMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance , of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuance operation and maintenance of
approximately 966 feet of water main extension, 616 feet of
sanitary sewer extension, 1000 feet of street improvements and
810 feet of storm sewer improvements in the vicinity of So. 259th
and Central Avenue for the Riverpointe Apartments, and
authorization to release the cash bond after expiration of the
one year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
_ I ti.
IST
�•.... ` IZ ' •� 1f'd -. ¢ MS T- 1 --•: j '{1 5 a>r•I S,yt7�f
O ST I-
I,— - i•• C
M WN;l T
WNMa -�lfty
u ST
ii orSATH W rgo
W 1}f 2
T f: q E r 1 0 n
;,.. N►RRIS� •„ EILR :C:'A;;••;, T Tllt ST I
cc T
461" 5T1 raorPAJW
K
r� I • wi � � �� I C+�rfK• C��r• •:�"`�) 1.
I I , RS1
+
• �r. R a 3t w �C{KAGd S! sr... r----... �-�`� a:•
♦ I "' RT ►A SliS • a Lp�Nr T ,s ,.ytti.,. .:t.,•?i ,•.�i.•. ,Yi. . !`:.E
RD 'txl[ ... >. d R"'•'•r� sad�� .R[Mt<. � '�••
UPL
<< ; 1tr. .tAh
a'Si
1 ice. ,>; ,�.° .1' '' �• tyl;t;'_
tM^' I sT S.O1 _ Inc'
•11 ' > ,. { 'jl/)M T L
f ; o fusro :ik j� .0
AAIMA
25 cc
K E T _
:L -s_ 266TK S> t_
I.
{ I • _
M�fI wM(
II m
S SNT� ST 1 , .,J 1
SE
si
Ii I W I T
• i
M I ^ ' N 1 T Y M A P RIVERPOINTE APARTMENTS
µ -
I
4'
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LATECOMER AGREEMENT f
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization -to --.` .e
the Director of
Public Works to sign a Latecomer Agreement for sanitary sewer
extension construct in the vicinity of S.E. 234th Place and
116th Ave. S.E.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. E_XPENDITURE RE UIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
r_-,5v -,/"Y J,CA/(-J ...:................................11,111-11-............................................. ........ ......:....... ...................................
.............................. ........................................................ ................... :....* . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ................
. . ......................................................................... .......... . ....
..................................... ...................................
................................
. . . ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . : : ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .....
........ ................. ............. ........... .....
........... ....................................
. . . . . . . ... . . . . .
Lei
Ui . . .
....... .....................................
CL to
2.Z4_Ti4 PL ............ ......
.........................................
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . j. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S �TE .............m..................... .....
. . . . . . . . . . .
..... . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAP.
........... ......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
................ ...... ....... ...... ................. ....... .................I........................................................................................... ...
...................... ............. . 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
CUFFS SEWER EXTENSION
f : : : � : : : : : ((�� ((�� l
S CUFFS
6 TrA PN E SE
DESIGNED PROJECT NO. SCALES_F-_S
PLPN
DRAWN 94 DATE SHEETOF
-CHECKED
APPROVED FILE NO.
BY DATE I v ENGINEER
w Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4. 1989
Category Consent Calendar
c?
1. SUBJECT: THE LAKES DIVISION ONE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance -' of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuarr6e operation and maintenance of
approximately 2,015 feet of water main extension, 1,473 feet of
street improvements and 1,817 of storm sewer improvements in the
vicinity of Lakeside Boulevard for Lakes Division One and release
of the cash bond.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
n I IV U U:
22gtH i
g
�PonA�
0 .
S. 234 TI
0 0 ST
u) 0
m PROJECT VICINITY
cc LAKES DIV Icl
;
W Y)
N Z\ t4,f� S 236TH S
N GREEN RIVFRl o'ilt v
0
s �, ZN 114 JAMES ST 14 132 a'
It 23124
23
SAM
IU 4\Il
z ''ARK �'" 'Pill
lu
N 4:�' ��•` < W SMITH S.
rY LIMITS po F
7 y/ HAR
g 246TH gT 2 4'
w
St s < W I
ST
a Popp z IN-
0
TH 0\�Eg 181 �
516
Colony Park
N
0
Golf Course ' m
,1ST
r '^ 516 r(�
ND ( N
i S 25PLD - :: ) :':
NDo
ga a ra m �1
1 sr
4TIfa Zt I rc I
a' y 1 231 24
> '► t:<' -
v $ 25=THn5T p 22I23 --- --- ( 25
N
• 'a ° 27126
cn I ) I
to I
y
261ST •�''L •I'A ItX
1 fi-.,
Kent City Council Meeting
Date Aoril 4 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL PARKING - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As ap roved by the Public Works Committee,
adoption of Ordinance No. `o �- amending the existing parking
ordinance to allow exempt parking for Council members in City
parking lots and approval of the draft permit as presented.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes,
sample of the parking permit
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 17, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTIN NIZLEK
JUDY WOODS JIM HANSEN
BERNE BITEMAN ROD FREDERIKSEN
DON WICKSTROM NORM ANGELO
JIM HARRIS JED ALDRIDGE
BILL WILLIAMSON
Council Parking
Jim Harris stated this item was brought to his attention when one
of the Council members was issued a parking citation for parking
in a space designated for City vehicles. Council members currently
have a typed up parking permit they can clip to their mirror.
Harris presented a suggested format for an official parking permit
for Council members. Rod Frederiksen added his concern is that the
y current parking permit has no designation that it is for the City
of Kent. Harris recommended the parking ordinance be amended to
allow this and to develop an official permit for Council members.
The Committee unanimously approved.
Canyon Drive Improvements
Wickstrom explained there are three issues involved in this item -
one would be authorization to apply for FAUS funding which is a
"housecleaning " item; second would be the reinstallation of pylons
and the third issue would be the jersey barriers. Nizlek reviewed
the findings of his study which are detailed in his memo made a
part of these minutes. He added that a different type of pylon
has been tested but has not held up well. He will continue to
investigate other types of pylons but it might be there is nothing
available that might be better than what we have previously had.
The proposed design is to install reflectorized Duncan bars on 5-
6 foot centers with pylons installed every 40 feet. Biteman
inquired about the possibility of using c-curb instead of pylons.
It was determined they would possibly create greater traffic
hazards. Biteman asked what the reflectors would do. Nizlek
responded they would indicate to the drivers not to cross the
centerline. The Committee unanimously approved the reinstallation
of the pylons.
Johnson suggested that staff apply for FAUS funds to include the
Jersey barriers in the project and to also include the funds in the
V
f f
W c
co
ci
lJ
V
O
cn
_.
- � o
r �
0
?d n H
O
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, authorizing the issuance of permits
for Kent City 'Councilmembers and the Mayor for
parking in certain designated parking zones.
WHEREAS, the City maintains certain parking zone
restrictions in designated areas of the City, including municipal
parking lots during the periods of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ; and
WHEREAS, with growth of the City, the City has realized a
shortage of parking stalls; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide for adequate parking
for its Councilmembers and Mayor in order to facilitate their
attendance at Council meetings, committee meetings, and other
official business at Kent City Hall and other City facilities; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Council to authorize
unrestricted parking at designated stalls and spaces for
Councilmembers and Mayor excepting disabled parking; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The Council finds that it is
necessary for a system of special parking permits be administered
by the City's Traffic Engineer which authorizes Kent City
Councilmembers and the Mayor to utilize existing two (2) hour
parking zones and fifteen (15) minute parking zones at or near the
Kent City Hall and other City facilities during regular business
hours between 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. necessary for the
attendance of such officials at meetings and official business
with the City of Kent.
Section 2. KCC 10.06 is amended as follows:
10 06 120 TWO HOUR PARKING ZONES. Except for permits
issued by the Traffic Engineer under KCC 10.06.120, at such times
as the Traffic Engineer shall place the appropriate sign or signs,
it shall be illegal to park any motor or other vehicle for an
uninterrupted period in excess of two hours between the hours of
nine a.m. and six p.m. on the following roadways or portions
thereof:
Harrison Street (Fourth Avenue - Second Avenue)
Meeker Street (Fourth Avenue - State Avenue)
Gowe Street (Fourth Avenue - Central Avenue)
Titus Street (Second Avenue - First Avenue)
First Avenue (from a point two hundred feet
north of Meeker Street - Titus
Street)
Second Avenue Smith Street - Titus Street
Railroad Avenue (Smith Street - Meeker Street,
east side only)
(Meeker Street - Gowe Street)
State Avenue (Smith Street - Meeker Street)
Provided that this Section shall not apply on Sundays or
holidays. (0.1972, §1; 0.2427, §2; (0.2707)
10 06 140 FIFTEEN-MINUTE PARKING ZONES. Except for
permits issued by the Traffic Engineer under KCC 10.06.250, at
such times as the Traffic Engineer shall place the appropriate
sign or signs, it shall be illegal to park any motor or other
vehicle for an uninterrupted period in excess of fifteen minutes
at the following location:
Gowe Street: First two parking stalls east of
Fourth Avenue, south side.
Fourth Avenue: Marked stalls between Gowe Street
and Titus Street, east side,
located off the traveled
roadway. (0.1972, §2; 0.2427, §3
- 2 -
10.06 220 MUNICIPAL PUKING FACILITIES REGULATED
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION.
A. Parking shall be permitted at municipal parking
facilities only in designated parking areas, and in a manner
provided by law, and is limited in time or otherwise restricted by
official signs, including parking permits issued by the Traffic
Engineer pursuant to KCC 30.06.250.
B. Municipal parking facilities for the purposes of
this section mean any public parking area serving a municipal
facility. Such facilities include, but are not limited to, the
Kent Commons, Kent Golf Facility, Kent Senior Center, all parks or
recreation facilities owned or operated by the City of Kent, Kent
City Shops, Kent City Hall, and those public lots between Smith
and Harrison Streets and Second and Fourth Avenues; Gowe and Titus
Streets and Second and Third Avenue; and the southeast corner of
Second Avenue and Titus Streets.
C. Penalty. Any violation of this section shall be an
infraction and punishable by monetary penalty of not more than
25-dollars. Vehicles in violation are also subject to impoundment
as provided by law.
Section 3. A new section of KCC Chapter 10.06 is
provided as follows:
10.06.250. PARKING PERMITS. The City Traffic Engineer
is authorized to issue parking permits for Kent City
Councilmembers and the Mayor on forms cards or stickers as the
Engineer so determines to be appropriate and conspicuous Such
permits shall contain a rendition of the City's corporate seal or
official logo identifying the holder thereof as an authorized user
and Member of the Kent city Council or Mayor and to be exempt from
Parking restrictionsunder this Chapter, excluding disabled parking
stalls. Such permits authorize unlimited parking for official
business at: two (2) hour parking zones provided under 10 06 120
for Meeker Street and Gowe Street• fifteen (15) minute parking
zones for Gowe Street and Fourth Avenue and for fifteen 15
minute parking zones under KCC 10 06 140 for Gowe Street and
3 -
Fourth Avenue and for all municipal parking facilities identified
er KCC 10 06 220 Any permits issued by the Traffic Engine
under this section shall be signed by the Engineer and issued for
such periods as deemed appropriate by the Engineer.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1989.
APPROVED the day of , 1989.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1989.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereo
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
7130-250
- 4 -
t i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
j Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 84TH AND 212TH IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with Gary
Merlino Construction for Phase II, the 84th Ave. and So. 212th
St. improvements and release of the retainage after receipt of
the State releases.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 30, 1989
TO: CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR KELLEHER
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: 84TH AVENUE SOUTH AND S. 212TH STREET PHASE II
The contract for these improvements was issued to Gary Merlino
Construction in October of 1988 for the bid amount of $23 ,920. The
project involved street widening, storm sewer improvements,
sidewalk and related appurtenances.
The final construction cost is $24, 395. It is recommended the
contract be accepted as complete.
II �/ Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
r Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 64TH AVENUE STORM IMPROVEMENTS (JAMES ST. CROSSING)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract between
Gary Merlino Construction and James Street Crossing Limited
Partnership for 64th Ave. So. storm improvements and release of
retainage after receipt of releases from the State and acceptance
of the bill of sale for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 1,519 feet of storm sewer improvements in the
vicinity of 64th and James St. and release of bonds after the one
year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 30, 1989
TO: CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR KELLEHER
FROM: DON WICKSTROM � v
RE: 64TH AVENUE SOUTH STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
(JAMES STREET CROSSING)
This construction contract was developed, advertised, awarded and
administered all according to City of Kent standards by the
developer of James Street Crossing. The contract was awarded to
Gary Merlino Construction for the bid amount of $71,700.
The project consisted of storm sewer improvements on the west side
of 64th Avenue South from West James Street for approximately 1300
feet south. The construction of these improvements was a condition
of the SEPA requirements for the James Street Crossing project and
the Developer chose to proceed with same himself. By doing so, he
will receive credit toward his LID assessment for the 64th Avenue
Street Improvement project.
It is recommended the project be accepted as complete, the
retainage released after receipt of the releases from the State,
acceptance of the improvements for continuous operation and
maintenance and release of the bonds after the one year maintenance
period.
l�
1i �I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 , 1989
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of ,6rdinance amending the
Kent City Code 12. 04 (Subdi;vlision Code) to incorporate
administrative procedures for Xot line adjustment application
submittal and review, and 'to clarify the definition of
accumulative short subdivision.
3 . EXHIBITS: Summary of ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves,fCtouncilmember seconds
L �t/ ? I�i s (16 YVU11
/f
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending Kent City Code Chapter
12.04 (City of Kent Subdivision Code)
(Ordinance 1840), to incorporate administrative
application and review procedures for lot line
adjustments and to clarify the definition of
accumulative short subdivision, by amending
Sections 12.04.020; 12.04.030; amending
12.04 .040 to add new definitions and to
renumber 12.04.059 through 12.04.079; amending
12.04.080 by deleting portions therein;
amending 12.04.110; 12.04 .212; 12.04.222;
12.04.224; and adding a new Chapter 12.04 .1000.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 12.04 .020 of the Kent City Code is
amended as follows:
The purpose of this code is to provide rules,
regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in
the City of Kent, and for administrative procedures for
adjustments of lot lines in the City of Kent insuring that the
highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that the
public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City
of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that orderly growth,
development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of
land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public
facilities (including circulation, utilities, and services) shall
be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be
taken into consideration; that conformance with provisions set
forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan
shall be insured.
Section 2. Section 12.04 .030 of the Kent City Code has
been amended as follows:
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN"S LANDING II (REZONE NO. RZ-88-2) MODIFIED
SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED HOMECOURT HOTEL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This will consider the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of denial of the revised hotel site plan submitted
as a condition of City of Kent Ordinance No. 2792 of August 2,
1988. This ordinance rezoned 7. 1 acres on the southside of South
212th Street approximately 1200 feet west of West Valley Highway
from M1 (industrial park) to M1-C (industrial park-commercial
suffix) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, minutes, findings and recommendation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, March 15 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, councilmember seconds
to adopt or modify the findings and recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner or to remand the matter of Van Doren's Landing
II site plan (Homecourt) back to the Hearing Examiner.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
L}A
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
February 15, 1989
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Fred J. Kaufman, Inmerin H earint
ng
Examiner, on Wednesday, February 15, 1989 at 3 :00 p.
City Hall, Council Chambers.
Mr. Kaufman requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing,
to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports,
agendas, and the description of procedure of the hearing were
available
procedu the
of the hearing. All those who i h sequ
ence
ntended tospeak
and re were
sworn in.
VAN DOREN 'S LANDING II
Rezone
#RZ-88-2
A public hearing to consider the request by Union Pacific Realty
Company, 15400 Southcenter Parkway 4305 , Tukwila, WA 98188 , for
" application was
the development of a hotel/restaurant. dhby the City C unci1
originally heard on May 41 1988 and approve
on July 19 , 1988 . This hearing will be considering a revised site
plan. The subject property is located on the south side of
S. 212th Street, approximately 11200 feet west of West Valley
Highway, in an M1-C, Industrial Park C-Suffix, zone.
VERBATIM MINUTES
(1-498) Lauri Anderson: Good afternoon. My name is Lauri
Anderson and I 'm here representing the City of Kent Planning
Department. The second hearing for the Van Doren' s Landing II
project is to consider approval of a hotel site plan under
tin
conditions of City of Kent Ordinance #2792 which was approved
August of This or rezoned
.1 acres feet westnofh West Valley
south side
of S. 212th Street approximately 1
Highway from M1, Industrial Park to Ml-C, Industrial Park with a
commercial suffix. The rezone was
develop the allow
sit the with a hotel
Union Pacific Realty Company,
and/or restaurant through application of the commercial suffix to
an existing M1, Industrial Park, zone. The conditions
. . .there were
specifically
five major conditions of the rezone. I 'm going
talk about one.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
Condition #3 read, "That the proposed development shall be in
general conformity with the site plan as presented with this rezone
application while minor modifications to the site plan shall be
permitted. The use shall be tied to a hotel and/or restaurant.
Any change in use shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and
additional mitigating measures imposed if appropriate. Any such
modifications of the site plan which will significantly increase
traffic will be subject to further traffic evaluation. " -
The purpose of the Planning Department' s staff report and this
hearing is to analyze the submitted site plan relative to the
original hotel proposal to determine whether the original intent
of the proposal has been met and whether additional conditions of
development of approval are necessary. Before proceeding, I would
like to take a minute to acquaint you with the property itself.
(A video from 568 to 678 was shown)
(1-678) I would now like to show you an overhead of the submitted
site plan. This is the site plan, the most recent site plan.
These are eight-suite buildings here. The development as proposed
would house about 150 guest rooms. The development, as proposed,
would have 150 guest rooms--kitchens, dining rooms, living areas
are available in all of the units and then, one-half of the units
would have a second bedroom in a loft-type configuration. I will
be showing you a floor plan a little bit later. A recreation
building is located here with a tennis court and a swimming pool.
The clubhouse here which fronts off of S . 212th Street would be the
area for the lobby, the meeting rooms and they are going to be
limited--an area for some limited grocery sales. According to the
developer the rents for the rooms in this hotel complex would be
about $85 a night. It' s catering to the business traffic in the
area. Now, we will see how this works---can you. . .
(1-719) (Kaufman) : See your shape one. .um hum.
(1-725) (Anderson) : Right. This is the original site plan that was
submitted at the time of the rezone and then what I want to do is
just sort of make some general comparisons and show some concerns
that the Planning Department had. This original proposal submitted
by Union Pacific Realty showed a large hotel structure in sort of
a park-like setting with the restaurant located up here to the
northeast corner. The most recent site plan, as you can see,
offers a number of changes. While both would support approximately
the same number of rooms, this building which covered about 37 , 100
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
square feet of land has been converted into the 19, actually it's
21 different buildings if you include the clubhouse and their
recreation building which would have a footprint of about 60,400
square feet. So, in terms of building coverage it's about a
63 percent increase. The total floor area for Plan #1 was about
The floor area for the second proposal is much
70, 000 square feet.
we think, due to the fact that the
greater and that is basically,
kitchens and living and dining areas are provided in all of the
units. This shows the floor plans of the units in the' new site
plan. As you can see, well its really hard to see, but there are
living areas, dining areas provided in all the unit and our main
concern in pointing out the second bedroom was that these units,
the stairways up to these loft areas which houses second bedrooms
are internal to the units so it' s impossible to lock them off as
is done in some hotel designs to provide a more limited type of a
hotel room. Anyway one of the suggestions we had was that in order
to reduce the building coverage which, of course, increases the
drainage, the impervious surface on the site, the developer might
wish to consider providing some more of a traditional bed/bath type
of a unit in order to reduce that building coverage down again.
Too many overheads. O.k.
A second concern that we had was about the restaurant. On the
first site plan you can see the restaurant was planned for the
northeast corner of the site of the site and it is also planned for
that area on this new site plan. It' s been reduced minimally in
size; however, it is now clearly indicated that its to be a future
restaurant. And, we think that with the provisions of kitchens in
all units, people are going to be very dependant on their kitchens.
This is an industrial area and there's not a lot of shopping
opportunity nearby the developer has planned to add some grocery
operation to the clubhouse in the area right here. We feel that
the restaurant would be a very nice amenity for this kind of a
situation for people who are coming from out-of-town„ unfamiliar
with the area and who, may not, after a day of business have the
will or the inclination to cook.
(1-848) Kaufman: O.K. Since I wasn't here for the original
request and I don't know the council 's intent, they did include a
requirement that the hotel be tied to a hotel and/or restaurant.
That. . .written specifically that way, was the restaurant really
considered an integral part of the entire development.
(1-861) Anderson: O.k. My impression was yes, I would have to
defer to either Fred or Kathy who were at that hearing since I
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
was. . . o.k. Kathy will address that after I 've finished my
presentation.
(1-874) Kaufman: I don't want to throw your presentation off too
much, but I 'm also concerned is there increased fire hazard with
each one of the 150 units having its own kitchen.
(1-881) Anderson: That. . .I 'm not sure that the kitchen.. I would
think that the kitchen would impact it. The Fire Department didn't
express a concern in that regard. Their concern was over the
ability to respond to more building area. They didn't specifically
mention kitchens and, again, that might be something the Fire
Department, if we have a representative, might want to address.
(1-894) Kaufman: O.k. I will let you precede. Until, I interrupt
again.
(1-895) Anderson: O.k. Another concern that we had with the
revised site plan was that we felt that some of the really
attractive amenities of the first plan were missing or reconfigured _
in the second plan. Specifically, I wanted to point to the sort
of grand entryway here. The fact that there was a large open green
area. It seemed to be an environment that was conducive to
a. . .sort of a community center. In other words, it would be
attractive to residents in the community. In the second site plan,
we don't feel that there's such a strong focal point. The central
area, the grand scale of the hotel, the park like setting, those
are basically missing in the second proposal. Also, we were
concerned about the loss of pedestrian amenities. . .apparent loss
of pedestrian amenities in the second proposal. The first proposal
went to a lot of effort to ensure that people who were walking on
the site would be protected from the elements and a variety of
other things. For example the covered walkway between the hotel
and the restaurant which is missing in the second site plan. Also,
even the distance between the restaurant and the hotel went from
about 100 feet to 150 feet to the nearest building suite.
(1-947) Kaufman: I don't know how detailed the original plans were.
Did it include laundry facilities, did it include all the
traditional amenities a hotel. . .
(1-953) Anderson: It didn't. . .we didn't have a floor plan or a
specific floor plan for the original hotel. O.k.
(1-956) Kaufman: Does the new one.
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-957) Anderson: Yes, and I will be showing that. O.k. Also
there were certain areas that had sort of features where
pedestrians would come in conflict with cars. . .to indicate that
that was sort of a separate area of. . .there was some sort of
surface treatment to indicate that, you know, "beware people are
walking here" , it's a people area as well as a car area. The
number of accesses which here are shown as two accesses has been
increased to four access on this plan, which again is going to
bring more traffic through the site. O.k. Let's look at the floor
plans specifically. This is the floor plan of the clubhouse which
is the main lobby area, actually north is facing this direction,
having turned it this way for ease of reading. The meeting rooms,
again, are reduced in size and the meeting rooms floor areas
described in the original proposal there was a narrative that went
along with this. We also see a problem--the kitchen is located
here, and we were concerned about the ease of providing services
to these meeting rooms when you would have to travel either through
the lobby or through this office and down a back hall to get to the
meeting rooms, so again, there were some functional aspects that
we want to bring up as long as we were analyzing the site. The
facilities that you mentioned that are traditionally associated
with a hotel don't appear to be on this plan. The laundry
facilities and that kind of thing and we mentioned that in the
staff report.
In terms of the Fire Department's concerns, we mentioned those.
They' re concerned that with that many buildings and the way the
site is configured their aerial ladder isn't going to be able to
have access. So they have requested that the site might be
sprinklered to reduce the fire hazard.
Finally, in terms of the Zoning Code itself there are some things
that would need to be looked at. There's a property line that runs
right here and if these are to remain two separate lots, we would
need to meet the code requirements about the landscaping along the
side yard here on both sides and also if the parking of this lot
were to be used by the hotel, a joint use parking agreement would
need to be issued if the lots are going to remain separate. That
was just a minor concern.
(1-1040) Kaufman: That would have existed during the original--
initial site plan.
(1-1043) Anderson: Yes, that's true. O.k. The last point that
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
I wanted to make had to do with the development itself. We've been
assured by the developer that this is not in anyway to be thought
of as a multifamily operation. We bring it up only because of the
number of public concerns that have been expressed over the amount
of multifamily in the City. This is a rendering of what the
proposed development would look like. It has a resemblance to
multifamily. The name of it, "Homecourt" indicates a residential
environment and the only point that we would like to bring up about
this is that we would not, as I said the developer has assured us
that it would not be a suitable place for multifamily, we would
like to point out that we wouldn't want something that would ever
become multifamily in this. . .
(1-1075) Kaufman: What does staff propose doing to provide that
it does not become multifamily.
(1-1078) Anderson: We have looked at some of the design standards
for multifamily. We have thought, well, if it's going to look like
multifamily it should meet the criteria for multifamily in our
Zoning Code and decided that we didn't feel that it should resemble
multifamily; that we wanted to discourage any kind of a long-term
residential use associated with the project.
(1-1091) Kaufman: How do you go about doing that?
(1-1093) Anderson: Well, again, we didn't put some conditions on
that we have talked about in terms of siting of the buildings and
found some other conditions that might be more appropriate to
multifamily development. We had asked that the site plan be
reconfigured a little bit to provide more of a clustering and
parking closer to the units to get away from this sort of
homogenous residential environment appearance. And we've also
asked that the buffering, for example, around the use be back to
what it was originally. Originally it was shown as 20 feet here.
On this site plan here it was shown as 15 feet and we want to
provide a buffer to increase the open green area to make it seem
more like a park. To increase the park-like feeling that we felt
the traditional hotel design. . .
(1-1119) Kaufman: What does the Comprehensive Plan suggest for
this area?
(1-1121) Anderson: The Comprehensive Plan for this area, I believe
is Industrial . Is that correct? And the commercial suffix was put
into place by an ordinance to provide areas for commercial uses to
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
service the industrial customers in the area and that was why the
commercial suffix overlays and was created.
(1-1141) Kaufman: Thank you.
(1-1142) Anderson: Thank you. I should lastly mention that the
conditions were detailed in the staff report. We do recommend
approval with those conditions.
(1-1152) Kaufman• Maybe you could or someone else on the staff
could further assist me in the City Council's intent in imposing
the conditions. I assume the rezone is conditioned upon this being
developed. . .what' s the language. . . .general conformity which is a
hotel and/or restaurant. Would the rezone lapse if those uses were
not placed on the site.
(1-1166) Kathy McClung: Kathy McClung from the Planning
Department. The intent of the Council was that they did not want
it to be a shopping center or something that was far removed from
a hotel/restaurant configuration. I think it. . .had the developer
come in solely a restaurant or solely a hotel it still would have
been within the confines of what the City Council was looking at
the time.
(1-1187) Kaufman: Thank you.
(1-1188) McClung: O.k. And, also I wanted to add on the
staff' s. . .the way we looked at keeping it--not having it go to
multifamily. We emphasize in the staff report that. .that. . . if that
ever did happen it would require a rezone and a change to the
Comprehensive Plan and we could've further emphasized that I
suppose and I didn't think about it until you brought up the
question by just adding that as a further condition--is that it
shall not be used as multifamily.
(1-1218) Kaufman: I imagine there are certain building code
provisions for residential occupancy versus short-term hotel or
motel type occupancy that might be utilized but I 'm not aware of
them.
(1-1227) McClung: I 'm not aware of them either. I 'm not that
familiar with. . .
(1-1228) Kaufman: There are differences in code though, possibly.
Thank you. The applicant or representative if you care to identify
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
yourself for the record. If you could just state your name and
give us your mailing address including zip code so a copy of the
report can be sent.
(1-1241) Ted Knapp: Let me find a place to put these here first.
(1-1257) Kaufman: There's ledges up here which might help.
(1-1280) Knapp: I 'm Ted Knapp with Union Pacific Realty, 16400
Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila. I ' ll make some presentation here on
behalf--we're the land owner. Jim Young here, the person putting
up the displays, will be the actual operator/developer of the
hotel. I 'll let him describe the operations, a little bit more
the concept of the hotel, I ' ll deal more with maybe some of the
background that' s gone up to this point as well as some of the site
plan issues that have been raised here. First of all, this rezone
and this project has been going on for over a year. We started
with a rezone application, at the time we made the rezone
application we were outside of the C-suffix circle that was located
on the Comp Map. We knew there was interest--strong interest in
a hotel in this general location. We felt it was appropriate for
the use to be located on that site so we decided to file for a
rezone to accommodate that. At the time we did that because of
the uncertainty of a rezone, we didn't think it was prudent to do
a lot of time, spending a lot of time of feasibility studies to
fine tune and exactly identify what type of hotel operation should
go out here but merely we knew that a hotel in the range of 150
rooms seemed to make sense. We knew that a restaurant in the range
of 7 , 000 or 8, 000 square feet which is the standard restaurant pad
should be placed in conjunction with the project and, of course,
the parking that is necessary to support both of those uses.
Combining that with a design guidelines we have in our Van Doren' s
Landing Park we came up with the first site plan. Based on .very
little market information beyond, you know, what we knew at that
time. I guess to back up--this is somewhat awkward for you since
you have not been here and gone through the process and you are
probably not familiar with Van Doren' s Landing. The business park-
-I 'm not--unless you want me too--I was not planning on going
through an elaborate description of the Park. It is a 650-acre
business park, this is seven acres of that 650-acre Park. It' s
designed for a mix--or planned for a mix of light industrial
business park uses--office and support retail. We've gone through
extensive master planning and its been presented at some length to
both Hearing Examiner and City Council levels. So, unless you have
some specific questions or you would like me to go into--I was not
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
going to take your time with that now but this is a large master
plan development within the City.
(1-1384) Kaufman: Which way is the rest of the park going from
here--south and west, rather?
(1-1388) Knapp: We own everything from 212th Street's north
boundary, the Green River is on the west, it goes south' to 228th
and then beyond 228th down to about 238th along the West Valley
Highway. It abuts some Centron's, the Lakes, residential project.
We do not own all along the West Valley Highway but for example
REI ' s office building is located within our park. We have an
office building under construction adjacent to it as well as four
R&D buildings.
(1-1403) Kaufman: Thank you.
I guess to star
(1-1406) Kna t with--I think--in the past action
we have not had this second site plan in the colored version. We
wanted to make it so it' s a closer comparison. I think the ning Departmint
nt
is that the first site plan, ironically,
the seems to like it very much, not much time and effort was spent on
developig tat sitke on for
probablynsixhmonthseextensivelyreworking onplan. Wheas this e ingress we e randegress and
so forth.
(1-1423) Kaufman: Sometimes the simplest is the most elegant.
(1-1424) Knapp: Apparently. I guess to start with the rezone was
approved for hotel/restaurant uses and I think the condition that
was read earlier by staff and I will go ahead and state conformity
art of it
again, The proposed development shall be in general
with the site plan as presented with this rezone application.
While minor modifications to this site plan shall be permitted, the
use shall be tied to hotel and/or restaurant" . And, the way I read
that is that the use is what is tied to whether we not changed and
have to come back to the Hearing Examiner for review, the use is
not changed and the scale of the development has not changed. We
had 152 units in the first concept with a 7 , 000 to 8, 000 square
foot restaurant pad and in the second site plan we have 152 unitin
we have a 5 , 000 to 7 , 000 square foot restaurant p
ad
approximately the same location. Circulation around the site has
not changed significantly. (1-1470)
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-1471) Kaufman: Are you suggesting that you shouldn't be here
today?
(1-1472) Knapp: In our opinion, yeah, we are not sure this is
necessary.
(1-1475) Kaufman: Well, what would you do with minor
modifications, then? As I see it, it's hard to view this as a
minor modification. You've doubled the building footprint, you've
doubled the gross or the net square foot--I 'm not sure which it is-
-so, either you belong here or you don't have a minor modification
and therefore, you probably go back to the City Council for a
rezone.
(1-1486) Knapp: Let me address some of the things on the footprint
and so forth. I have a handout here and I will provide it. This
addresses this, I think, the concern number 1 on the Planning
Department, dealing with site coverage, footprint sizes, softscapes
and parking surfaces and so forth. If you look at that, you see
on the original conceptual plan on the left and in the center of
the page is the Homecourt which is the second scenario and the net
difference is there on your right. The site area went from 325, 000
square feet on the first plan to 343 , 000 square feet. I think it
approximately pushed out about 20 feet both to the west and to the
south. The parking surfaces in site plan #1 was 118, 000 square
feet there's a reduction in paved area in the second one to 106, 000
square feet--about 11, 000 square feet less asphalt parking surface.
Building footprint, the first one was about 47 , 000 square feet.
The Homecourt plan--61, 000 square feet and in terms of site
coverage for building coverage, the first plan was 14 .6 percent
coverage and the second plan 17 .9 . The code allows 60 percent
coverage in a M1. Softscape, this would be your landscape areas,
the original site plan, there was 160, 000 square feet of softscape,
the second plan about 176, 000 square feet--an increase of 16, 000
square feet. In the center of the page we did a comparison as to
what an industrial, typical warehouse industrial project which is
permitted outright in the M1 district would allow.
(1-1568) Kaufman: That, I don't think, is relevant since the
Council seems to have tied you to a hotel/restaurant complex.
(1-1570) Knapp: The underlying zoning is still M1 which does
permit, is my understanding permits all the uses that are allowed
in the M1 which are industrial office uses.
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-1572) Kaufman: I 'm confused. I thought. . .
(1-1578) Knapp: This is an overlay zone--so my understanding--so
warehouse use is still allowed on the site.
(1-1579) Kaufman: You would loose the commercial suffix and go
back to the warehouse zone.
(1-1584) Knapp: That is. . .that's a. . .I mean, that's a potential,
sir.
(1-1589) Kaufman: Since that probably corresponds the
Comprehensive Plan. So, I guess, you could leave here and develop
any kind of warehouse you want but, at the moment, I think, we need
a public review of the proposed modifications.
(1-1598) ' Knapp O.k. On the summary, I will drop off the
warehouse comparison. The original plan showed a total impervious
surface of about 51 percent, the total softscape about 49 percent-
-it's about fifty-fifty. On the Homecourt, 48 percent in
impervious surface, 51 softscape, so again, about fifty-fifty which
a slightly more softscape and less impervious surface on the second
scheme and those were based on take-offs from the architects and
land planner. Where. . . I don't think we depart a great deal on the
figures from the Planning Department. The increase was in the
floor area which we acknowledge. It' s gone up because of units and
I can have Jim Young respond to that better. The units did get
slightly larger in square footage but that's still relatively
insignificant coverage of the site with building only went up about
three percent so it' s fairly negligible. The other. . .
(1-1645) Kaufman: Are you planning or is Mr. Young planning on
describing the philosophy of this hotel.
(1-1649) Knapp: I think that I 'll let Mr. Young do that. It' s
basically you are familiar with a residency and this is a residency
concept. It's not a residence in trademark name but that type of
a concept versus this other one maybe considered more of a
courtyard concept. I think the other items that are in here that
deal with Item 2 through 11, I guess, as it relates to the Planning
Department's concerns, I think, I 'll not comment on those. Jim can
go through some of those if he wishes. The only comment that I
might make is that it seems to me that most of those conditions or
concerns relate more to design features and operations of the hotel
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
versus things that are code related and so forth.
(1-1668) Kaufman: Well, I think staff is concerned about an
apartment complex masquerading as a hotel. I think that's probably
a simple analysis of what staff is concerned about.
(1-1678) Knapp: I can let Jim address that as well. For one
thing, I think, the zoning that has been brought up, the Zoning
Code would not allow multifamily. We have no intention of allowing
a multifamily development within Van Doren's Landing. It is
strictly prohibited in our design guidelines and, I guess, you
know, with the price of the land and economics, a multifamily
development could not work here even if someone wanted to build
one here. And, I think, that is just a matter of enforcement of
your Code--multifamily could not be placed here.
(1-1700) Kaufman: Well, that' s a _good point except as I have seen
in other cases, once people have moved in on a sort of permanent
basis, it 's awkward for the City to walk over with an enforceable
order asking them to leave because they now occupy an apartment
rather than a motel room. So, the City could be in an awkward
position if the owner/applicant turned it into an apartment complex
unbeknownst to the City. Obviously, it is an enforcement question
but it could be awkward.
(1-1719) Knapp: Again, I 'm not a hotel operator and I ' ll let
Jim Young describe that but with an enforcement of our CC&R's and
design guidelines, the Van Doren' s Landing would not allow a
multifamily unit within there.
(1-1731) Kaufman: Do you have the CC&R's? Are they part of the
previous record of Van Doren' s Landing?
(1-1736) Knapp: I believe they are. They are not a condition the
City has placed upon us. They are own. . .our own design guidelines
that we have imposed.
(1-1741) Kaufman: Are they recorded with King County, though?
(1-1742) Knapp: Yes, they are.
(1-1746) Kaufman: So, they do preclude multiple family apartments
or any residential other than. . .
(1-1750) Knapp: Yes, definitely. There' s also an issue brought
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
up about driveways and access in and out of the site that wasn't
referred to in the conditions but since it was brought up in the
staff report I will address it. We've been working extensively
with the City of Kent on a number of transportation issues
surrounding this entire 650 acre development, putting together a
number of LIDS, widening the West Valley Highway, 64th Avenue, the
improvement of S. 212th Street and 228th Street. At our discretion
we have. . . in working with the city have opted to put :landscape
medians within 64th Avenue all the way from 212th to down about
238th Street. There will be landscape median in 228th from the
West Valley Highway back to the river and we are also restricting,
at our option, left-hand turn access to a number of locations along
the West Valley Highway into our site. The intent is trying to
minimize as much as possible left-hand turn movements on these
major streets. Also, to align driveways that line up as minor
intersections with neighboring property owners. We've, I think,
accomplished that in the design now of 64th, for example, and
212th. So we are working very closely with the. . .with the. . .not
with the Planning Department on this issue but with the Engineering
Department and resolving all those. Also, trying to make the
buildings and uses function. The. . .on the site plan #2, for
example, the two major driveways off to the west and south side are
designed to provide access to the adjacent lots as well so we can,
again, get joint use out of a driveway and minimize two driveways,
with two left-hand turn movements, for example, into the property
that will also line up with driveways across the street. The two
that are up closer to the intersection would be right-hand turn in
and out only and that was, again, at our discretion. We don't feel
that it' s appropriate to have left-hand turn movements that close
to a major intersection, safety and traffic congestion reasons.
By adding two more driveways, I don't think its accurate that the
traffic will increase through the site. In fact, traffic has never
been an issue on this project. It generates less traffic than a
standard industrial project, so.
(1-1847) Kaufman: I think staffs meaning was that there would be
more traffic passing through what is usually considered the, even
if it is a temporary basis, a residence to access the adjacent
sites. So you invited and encouraged people to cross through the
hotel complex to get to other lots rather than having a quiet hotel
complex on a major corner.
(1-1861) Knapp: O.k. I guess, I guess that I would debate that.
In the conditions. . .I had two concerns with the conditions and
Mr. Young may have one with an additional condition. Item #1,
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
buildings shall be clustered and parking areas arranged so as to
reduce travel distance between parking spaces and hotel suites.
I guess, I guess, I think, we have done that. Apparently the
concern is that walking distance between the parking lots and the
entrance into the rooms is a concern. The (unclear) . .the longest
walking distance between any of those units and the parking lot is
about 140 feet. That is in one unit. There are two other. . .three
other units that range somewhere between 100 and 120 feet with the
third being 140 feet. That' s equivalent to walking across a two-
bay parking lot which is not. . .similar to walking across a parking
lot at the street out here and going into the building. Not much
different than that, so I don't think that's a concern.
Item 43, perimeter landscaping shall be increased to 20 feet along
the western and southern borders of the site. This is one that I
am strongly opposed to. The Zoning Code requirements require 15
feet side yard landscaping, zero feet on a rear yard, they require
20 feet on front yards which would be on the street side. Our
design guidelines for Van Doren Landing require 40 feet on the
street frontages on a major street. So we are requiring 40 feet
on 212th and 64th. Code is 20 feet. Side yard, as I mentioned is
15 feet, by Code--zero on rear lines. We are willing, more than
willing to provide the 15 feet on side yards. The Planning staff
feels that on our conceptual illustrative that we did on scheme
one, that we provided 20 feet. It was never our intention to
provide 20---perhaps, the width of a magic marker, the pen to draw
that, maybe it scales closer to 20 than 15. It was never our
intention to provide 15. . .er. . . 20. Our concern is that a precedent
that may be set out. . .we are. . .we are more than doubling the
landscaping on the street sides. We are providing and paying for
all the landscape boulevards throughout this development at our
cost. We feel that we've landscaped this thing--unprecedented--
not only in Kent but anywhere in the Puget Sound region for this
type of development.
(1-1981) Kaufman: Why aren't you concerned about setting a
precedent with the 40 feet if the 20 feet is such a. . .
(1-1984) Knapp: Forty feet. We feel that the street frontages and
set up a hierarchy of streets--the major streets--40 feet is
appropriate. Along 228th, West Valley Highway, 64th, 212th, and
our future boulevard that we' ll have west of here that will connect
212th to 228th. The interior streets I could mention too. The
industrial streets, our design guidelines require 25 feet of
landscaping on street fronts. Again, Code is 20 . We feel that the
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
R Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
money is better spent and the impact is better on street frontages
versus side yards. Also, I don't see. . .there's no rationale in the
staff report as to why the increase in landscaping from 15 to 20-
--particularly since the softscape percentages has gone up not down
between the two schemes. I think that's all the comments I have.
I 'll be happy to answer any questions.
(1-2038) Kaufman: Is the restaurant a future restaurant. . . is it. . .
(1-2039) Knapp: The restaurant in either. . .
(1-2041) Kaufman: Will this placate staff or. . .
(1-2044) Knapp: The restaurant in either scenario has not been
identified. It was not identified in scheme 1, has not been
identified in scheme 2 . The intent is to have a restaurant there
as soon as possible and this, again, is something that Mr. Young
can address. But, it is certainly his desire to have a restaurant
there as soon as the facility opens, if that's possible. We are
trying to be careful that we get the right restaurant. We as Union
Pacific Realty and developers of the park will have review of who
goes in there. We will not allow a substandard restaurant. We
want a quality restaurant that' s indicative of the development that
we are doing. This is a very key corner for us, we would assure
that it will be done probably.
(1-2078) Kaufman: Thank you.
(1-2084) James Young: The name is James Young, 1024 S. 286th Place
in Federal Way, Washington. I 'm the developer of this hotel
project.
(1-2085) Kaufman: The spelling of the last name.
(1-2086) Young: Y-O-U-N-G, sir.
(1-2087) Kaufman: And would you give the zip code.
(1-2088) Young: 98003 . Thank you. Well, if the concern is that
this hotel project is going to be an apartment I can tell you now,
Hearing Examiner, it ' s not going to be. Number one, the Code does
not allow an apartment project to be developed into a commercial
zoning. Number two, economically it's not going to work. At best
in Kent the apartment rental per square foot is 72 cents. This
hotel , $400 a square foot. Therefore, economically, it' s
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
impossible. The project is going to cost of $12 million to
develop. There's no way that this is going to be an apartment
complex. I think the staff is right that the site plan that we
submitted is entirely different than the first one. Very simple.
The first one--site plan--was supplied purely for rezoning
application to illustrate a 150-room hotel can be developed along
with a restaurant. The site plan that was submitted to the City
for review is after extensive feasibility study as to the demand
of the hotel in the valley. At the time this site plan was
prepared the Mariott' s Courtyard was not develop in the Southcenter
area. Later on, our feasibility study indicate there's a strong
demand for a suite hotel--for longest stay to accommodate those
business executives that' s being transferred from other City to
Boeing or elsewhere which requires a spacious living area plus
kitchen facility to cook in. I think we have done a very good job
presenting nice project which will be the gateway to the Van
Doren' s Landing. It' s a quality product as demonstrated by the
interior designer's selection of color and quality. This project
will be very comparable to a very, very successful chain operated
under the Mariott's name--the residency inn. However, my product
is an improvement over that. I appreciate City staffs concern
about the operation and functionality of the hotel. But,
unfortunately, when the site plan was submitted to them I did not
submit the marketing plan or operational plan. They are concerned
about coffee services and so on, so on has been addressed by my
staff. We are designing a hotel to fill a need which, I think,
will be successful product. Which is within the Zoning Code
insofar as ground coverage, landscaping area, traffic flow as well
as fire protection. It' s hard to believe that when you have 21
buildings separated--15 feet apart--it's more a fire hazard than
a big building that is burning at the same time. There is Zoning
Code--Fire Code requiring sprinkler system. I think this project
is within that Code and does not require fir sprinkler system. I
want to reiterated that I am doing a quality hotel to meet a demand
that is badly needed. It is not my intent to build an apartment
complex. I 'm an apartment developer. I have two apartment
projects under construction in Kent right now. And, if I want to
develop another apartment project it will be elsewhere. Now, I
would like to answer any questions or concerns from the floor or
from the City staff. How about you, sir, can I answer any
questions?
(1-2257) Kaufman: Yeah, I 'm still trying to figure out how we
distinguish this from an apartment complex. The density appears
to be there, lost the focal point and the courtyard which was part
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
of what the Council apparently bought when they bought this rezone
package, and I 'm just concerned that before presenting a modified
plan, which probably does not have to go to the City Council. . .
(1-2273) Young: Sir. . .
(1-2275) Kaufman: . . . .that they are going to be satisfied with the
result. It is a substantial change as you indicated -from your
initial plan they reviewed.
(1-2280) Young: Yes, because this is a different product that
was. . .
(1-2283) Kaufman: That is the concern, that it is a different
product.
(1-2285) Young: Yes, because this product is what is demanded in
the market. As a developer I am profit driven, also, customer
service or the community service oriented. If there is a need for
suite hotel I don't want to go out there and build a courtyard in
competition with Mariott' s courtyard. I am really confused--how
can this be construed as an apartment project. For example there
is a substantial meeting space, lobby area, office which is not
needed or used in an apartment complex. An apartment complex is
rented on a monthly basis. We rent this on a daily basis with maid
service and run it as a hotel . So, it's an entirely different
product, sir, it' s not an apartment complex.
(1-2334) Kaufman: O.k. Those are the things you are saying, but
we have---but, what we have is the physical documentation here that
it looks like an apartment complex and there's concern about that.
(1-2342) Young: There are two or three ways, I think, the City can
enforce that. One is by code. The parking requirement, everything
is different on an apartment project than a hotel, number one.
Number two, when I enter into a loan agreement with the Security
Pacific Bank to borrow the money to build this, they want to make
sure that it isn't an apartment project because the income from an
apartment no way will be able to service the debt load that
I 'm. . .there will be loan agreements, there will be covenants from
Union Pacific that governing the land uses, so, I think this is
totally. I 'm totally confused. Can you illustrate how can a hotel
be construed as an apartment. I have manager, I have daily room
service, I have the maid service. . . I 'm confused.
~ 17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-2384) Kaufman: See, none of those things are documented. We
have a physical site plan which looks like any multiple family
apartment building being built in the City of Kent.
(1-2391) Young: Well, this is why I appreciate this opportunity
to clarify that.
(1-2397) Kaufman: What about the lack of pedestrian amenities to
get people between the meeting rooms and the various units. The
other thing was more conducive as to what looks like a hotel where
meetings will take place--there would be meeting rooms, people
could move between the buildings under a covered walkway. That' s
all been removed in the current configuration.
(1-2412) Young: Yes, sir. Actually, first site plan. . .I don't
even know whether there is proposal for meeting room or where the
location is. But, let me point this out to you. It might not be
too clear but look at internal, integrated walkway. People can
have nice walk--go all the way--if the City is concerned to
approach 64th Street--it' s very simple--we can connect this and --
make pedestrian accessible to 64th Street. We can also do the same
thing from here to 212th. As far as the meeting room--if I have
the money I will probably put a little lid on that particularly
since Seattle is rainy, it 's easier for everybody to walk here to
the buildings. This is just one of the shortcomings of this
product. But, that' s again operational.
(1-2455) Kaufman: I was going to say was it designed for the
Pacific Northwest or the South Pacific?
(1-2459) Young: Well , I guess the track record of Mariott suite-
-you know--residence inn speaks for itself.
(1-2464) Kaufman: That's the one in Tukwila.
(1-2465) Young: The one in Tukwila, one in Bellevue and they have
a couple under construction. They are substantial 20 dollars
higher than average rate, they are about five or six percent higher
in occupancy than any other hotel and, as you know, Mariott does
a very excellent job.
(1-2481) Kaufman: Actually, I don't know that. The future
restaurant?
(1-2484) Young: It' s not a future restaurant. This hotel will be
18
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
W' Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
under. . .will be operated under a franchise/membership of Best
Western. One of the conditions is that a restaurant has to be
opened concurrent with the hotel. So, there will be a restaurant
there. What type of restaurant has not been identified. We are
looking upgraded and if upgraded cannot be found, then I would be
the operator.
(1-2511) Kaufman: Would you be willing to make a condition that
the restaurant will be open concurrent. That the City can impose
the condition rather than Best Western.
(1-2517) Young: Yes sir. The timing might be a couple three-four
months off but there will be a restaurant. Because it's to my
advantage to have the restaurant to provide the services and all
that.
(1-2516) Kaufman: Thank you.
(1-2527) Young: Thank you very much, sir.
" (1-2535) Kaufman: Now, if I can ask staff one or two questions.
What are the site plan criteria under which I am reviewing this
application?
(1-2545) Anderson: The Ml-C rezoning process is a process that
requires submission of a site plan for a rezone. It cannot be
speculative in nature. So, our presumption and probably the
Council 's presumption when the development came in, was that it was
not speculative development and, indeed, it is not, it 's a hotel .
However, with a site specific rezone and a specific development
plan provided, then we have--are given the authority, if that is
changed substantially to review the site plan for a variety of
things under our development plan review process which includes
such things as environmental amenities, the traffic patterns,
certainly the Fire and Engineering Departments make their comments.
We send it out to these City agencies for comments that maybe
affected by the change in building configuration.
(1-2592) Kaufman: O.k. what about the additional landscaping,
what's the basis for that.
(1-2596) Anderson: O.k. , the basis for the additional landscaping
is actually the result of the original site plan. I know that
Mr. Knapp indicated that there was. . .you know, that we had scaled
that out and there is no indication that there was every to be
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
20 feet. However, on the original proposal which we have, you may
not be able to see it right here but the figure, with two arrows,
20 feet is written right on the plan. As it is. . .
(1-2616) Kaufman: It's not a wide magic marker?
(1-2617) Anderson: Over here on the western boundary. O.k. , so
our initial 20-foot landscaping width was based on .'what the
original proposal showed and that is why we requested, for a
variety of reasons, for the benefit of the buffer, for the visual
amenities that, that be redesigned to be the twenty feet as
originally proposed. If I may make one other comments, if this
would be the appropriate time, there seems to be some confusion as
well over the size of the building footprint. I know that the
information that Mr. Knapp provided, they show that the hotel
complex on the original proposal was 47, 300 square feet in size--
that' s the building footprint. The building footprint from our
figures is 37, 100 square feet. I cannot account for the
discrepancy and perhaps, the figure that Mr. Knapp provided also
includes the restaurant, I don't know, but I would like to point
out that there is a discrepancy there which results in the change
in the figures.
(1-2685) Kaufman: O.k. Thank you.
(1-2689) Anderson: Oh, one other comment, do you want rebuttal
testimony at this point, or?
(1-2691) Kaufman: Go ahead.
(1-2693) Anderson: O.k. The comment about the distance that
pedestrians would have to travel--the 140 feet or whatever it was-
-from the parking area. Admittedly that is not a far distance to
walk; however, we are considering hotel guests who specifically
have luggage with them and that' s why we brought up that issue.
Again, since this is our first commercial. . .one of our first
commercial developments. . . it may be the first commercial
development under the M1-C zoning, we are particularly concerned
with the precedent that this project will set. And, I think, that
Van Doren's is known for doing a quality development and we bring
these points up only to improve on what will be a good development,
I 'm sure. That' s all.
(1-2730) Kaufman: What is the justification for sprinkling
buildings if the Fire Code does require it?
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-2735) Anderson: O.k. , Larry Webb from the Fire Department is
here to address that.
(1-2741) Larry Webb: Hi, I 'm Larry Webb, Fire Marshal, City of
Kent. Originally, when this came in, it came in as one building
and we made the comment on a City ordinance 2792, under E, which
said, "Prior to issuance of any development permit, the Fire Chief
or his designee shall review and evaluate all pertinent information
and is authorized to require built-in or other fire protection
systems as the Fire Chief determines necessary" . Now, this started
out as one large building and then turned up into many buildings.
Comments that I wrote on this Van Doren's Landing rezone, I 'll just
read what I wrote on my original report was, Currently, as there
is inadequate pumping and staff capacity in this area for emergency
response. This comment is based on the fact that there is no full-
time staffed engine in the north end of Kent and upon the
completion of the new fire station in the north area, the aerial
ladder will be stationed at the East Hill station which will cause
a longer response time. Also, with the new proposed design we no
longer have an aerial ladder access capability to all the
buildings. With the increased number of calls for services,
simultaneous and back-to-alarms we request that built-in fire
protection, sprinklers, be installed in all buildings" . In other
words, we are only going to have one fire engine in the north end.
At the present time we have an aerial ladder and a fire engine and
it' s being operated as whatever the call that comes in. So it can
be an aid call, the ladder or the engine will go. If it' s a fire
call and it' s a certain area, the fire engine goes. If it' s a
structure fire in a certain area, then it goes as a ladder. The
conditions are going to be worse after the new fire station is
built until manning gets up where we have a full-time engine up
there. The ladder. . .we are building a new station on East Hill and
that' s where the aerial ladder will be. So, we feel that for the
safety of the personnel that are going to be staying in this
complex, that sprinklers would be an additional safety thing that
will take care of anything that could happen. Also, the way the
building is laid out, we have to park on the outside and drag more
than 150 foot of hose to get to all of the buildings and I want a
minimum requirement is 150 feet.
(1-2888) Kaufman: Is there increase fire risk with kitchens in
each one of the 150 units.
(1-2893) Webb: I suppose there' s always because these people are
21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
not familiar with these surroundings so they are going to be new
to this occupancy.
(1-2915) Kaufman: Thank you. Does the traffic engineer have
anything he wishes to add. There is the additional driveways both
to the west and to the south apparently on adjoining lots which
will provide joint access for the current site.
(1-2938) Ed White: Ed White, Traffic Engineering, after reviewing
the development we don't have any strong concerns regarding the
accesses to the development. We do have some concerns, though,
regarding possible site distance triangles as well as developing
some type of acceleration/deceleration type of a lane on S. 212th.
At the present time you are looking at volumes on 212th, anywhere's
between 18 to 22, 000 vehicles. We've estimated that it should go
to somewhere' s between 25 to 30 over the next five years. So, we
would have a concern on 212th due to the possible increase of
traffic in providing an adequate means for people entering and
exiting the development to safely access 212th. It has been
mentioned by Mr. Knapp there is a plan to construct a median on
64th which would restrict left-turns, I believe, at this site. It
current, the access is to the site off of 64th, should operate
efficiently and safely provided adequate site distance is provided
at the accesses and that would be the extent of my comments right
now.
(1-3034) Kaufman: The site plan, does it need extra right of way
then to provide an acceleration/deceleration lane at 212th or is
there standard dimensions of right of way now?
(1-3046) White: O.k. I believe an additional right of way would
be required on 212th.
(1-3053) Kaufman: So, we would be cutting into ' the 40 feet of
landscaping proposed by the applicant.
(1-3057) White: That would be correct.
(1-3071) Kaufman: You know, I 'm not sure how esoteric this is, but
is there, would know of any difference between a standard hotel
occupancy and, as the applicant has indicated, a more permanent
residence for Boeing transferees or whatever. Would that increase
more substantially and approach multiple family, at least in
traffic counts, as opposed to a motel and I can't compare the
difference right now but you might have some figures.
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-3096) White: Well, we did discuss this extensively and I did
a bit of research and I could find really no difference between or
documented information that would differentiate from this type of
use versus your normal hotel or even a motel type
know, the basic
just looking at the site and reviewing, you
justification and concept of the site, I would. . .oh, I would make
an assumption that your traffic volumes or at least the volumes
site
robably
that
n character and the nature would the function b slightly
we functi n ofthiis
due to the site.
(1-3116) Kaufman: Thank you. Was there further testimony in
Pardon? Is there any new testimony?
support of the application?
Are there any questions regarding this site at this time---
Mr. Knapp?
(1-3133) Knapp: I guess just to address just a couple of issues
brought up. One, which is a new one is this
acceleration/deceleration lane on S. 212th Street. I 've been
ears and I have been
involvenig in 1project for over ten years,ty of Kent for over ten yIIve worked very, veryinvolved in
closely with every department in the City of Kent. I think very
closely probably, as close as any developer, I have never, until
this moment heard of a required acceleration/deceleration lane on
212th, I 'm not aware of any traffic studies
I,that
totally floored with
would indicate a need for one. I g guess we've gone
that comment. I don't know where it came from. I g
through and bought the property, it's been through
rezones. . .conditions on 212th Street that relate to street
lighting, undergrounding drainage and sidewalks, but that's it and
I guess. . . I guess I 'm extremely concerned about that condition.
Particularly bringing it up at this state. . .traffic was not an
issue in the first rezone, traffic has never been an issue on
S. 212th Street, suddenly now we've got a development going in that
the traffic engineer admits probably has less traffic than even the
first scenario and apparently suggests there is a need for an
acceleration/deceleration lane. I think that's totally
unacceptable. As far as the landscaping strip, I don't know where
the 20 feet came from. As far as on the site plan, all the blue
lines and every print that you see was based off the original which
you see there. you can see there' s no 20 feet on there so I don't
know where it came from. As I say, it was never our intention to
provide 20 feet. I guess I 'm concerned about precedent that it
sets, not that five feet on this project and the scheme of things
23
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
is probably that big of an issue but again, I think, as we look on
to our developments and how similar developments in the
neighborhood are treated, I think it should be fair. I know
there's an issue of a development. . . .hotel development proposed
across the street, on property that we do not own. They are
proposing to put 152 units and a restaurant, same size scale
project as ours, on three-and-a-half acres of property, we have
seven-and-a-half acres. So, from that, I think, you can gather how
much landscaping that project is going to have. I just want to
have fair treatment particularly with the amount of landscaping
that we are providing in this overall development. As far as the
acceleration/deceleration lane, I guess I can't be any clearer than
that--that' s not acceptable to us.
(1-3302) Kaufman: Thank you. Mr. Young?
(1-3306) Young: Based on my hotel operation experience, I can
attest to that that probably the traffic coming to this type of
project would be reduced. The reason for that is all the hotels
and motels by the airport, the average length of stay is about one-
and-a-half days so the turnover is a lot more. Other hotel is
about two-and-a-half days versus this project which is predicted
to be from five to seven days therefore the same customer will stay
there and generate less traffic, in my opinion.
(1-3345) Kaufman: He' s still going to come and go daily.
(1-3347) Young: But, you know, you don't have the turnover like,
you know, checking in and out in the same room in the same day type
of thing. The second is pertaining to the Fire Marshal 's comment.
I can appreciate the City of Kent has, you know, manpower and
facility problem, but, I don't think that. . .different standard
should be applied to my project if there's already a zoning code
and fire code in place. If I meet the standard that' s established
by the City of Kent then I should be allowed to develop a project
within that perimeter. I will say the same thing on this project.
We're developing a hotel under specific zoning code, therefore,
whatever zoning established for the hotel should be the standard
that we go by.
(1-3401) Kaufman: I fear that the code here is not much different
than Renton where I 'm more familiar with the code, and the Fire
Department when life/safety matters are at stake does have a
ultimate authority to require certain conditions that might not
otherwise be imposed.
24
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(1-3419) Young: That point is well taken. Thank you.
(1-3421) Kaufman: They have ultimate authority. Is there any
further testimony regarding this. Ms. Anderson.
(1-3431) Anderson: Mr. Kaufman, just for the record I would like
to submit the original blueline that we have of the Van Doren's
landing hotel and restaurant which shows the 20 feet landscaping.
(1-3457) Kaufman: Other than one last question or series of
questions for the traffic engineer, Mr. White, you had something
additional to add then? You can step up to the microphone and be
prepared.
(1-3475) White: I would like to respond to two of the comments
Mr. Knapp made. First one in terms of the decision to require an
accel/decel lane. Often times, we do not, during the rezone period
require that or at least mention that. We most. . .majority of the
time we will reserve that to the actual building permit or the
" development process. Whether we, I guess, or whether historically
we have utilized ingress/egress type of a function, I don't think,
has a bearing on whether we require it at this point or not. It' s,
again, we are trying to provide a safe, efficient operation for
that arterial which I, I would presume, that Mr. Knapp would agree
with and in that in our determination if traffic volumes and safety
mandates that we do something of that nature it's our
recommendation that we should do that. In terms of his knowledge
of whether this subject has been brought up before I believe I was
in a meeting with him regarding the 64th Avenue development or
development that was related to that where we had discussed a
right-turn lane in the general location of the potential
ingress/egress in that this development is basically on the corner
of 64th and S . 212th Street. So, I believe that, that subject has
come up. It may have not have been described as in that manner as
an ingress/egress but basically, you know, an extra lane to
accommodate the merging traffic or the right-turning traffic onto
64th was mentioned.
(1-3629) Kaufman: Thank you. That was the question that I had.
Mr. Knapp, we don't need to belabor this issue. . . . something else?
(1-3644) Knapp: Again, on the left-hand turn access and the
conditions that Mr. White described as when building permits come
in. I should point out that an environmental impact checklist was
25
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
prepared on this project. The traffic department
prepared. . .proposed estimated traffic counts and came up with a
mitigation program within that DNS which involves participating in
cross-valley corridors. No mention of any accel/decel lane was in
the DNS. Also, as far as the acceleration/deceleration lane in the
area. The area that Mr. White is referring to is the property east
of us that is owned by Corporate Property Investors. We had
encouraged CPI not to do a left-hand turn movement .' on 64th,
approximately 200 feet south of the 212th/64th Street intersection.
We didn't want to break the median that close to the major
intersection. As a compromise, CPI will only be only that driveway
for right-hand turn access only provided they construct an
accel/decel lane from 64th Street to the east. . .off of our property
where they will enter another driveway into their property. Never
was there any mention of accel/decel lane on our property.
(1-3732) Kaufman: Thank you. If there's no further testimony I
will close the hearing. Unless staff has any final comments on
anything. There was no additional public input at this hearing,
just the applicant, and you worked with his plans prior to this.
The hearing is closed. The report will be issued. There is some
comment. . . One last comment.
(2-154) Gary Gill: Gary Gill, City Engineer, I believe that
Mr. Knapp's last statement regarding the environmental
checklist. . .to clarify it, he's referring to the checklist that was
circulation regarding the rezone of the property. Because,
currently there's a checklist being circulated through the City for
comments right now on this specific site. . .development proposal and
the comments have not been received by Planning Department, they
are under review at this time by the Public Works Department and
that was what Mr. White was referring to as their analyses of the
site plan and their recommendation. . .preliminary recommendation at
this time are recommending exclusive right-turn lane or accel/decel
lane.
(2-182) Kaufman: Thank you. That raises an interesting point if
there's no SEPA determination, is this hearing premature and maybe
I will delay the final deposition of this hearing until I do hear
from staff on the various departments ' comments. Ms. Anderson?
I will note that this item was not initially scheduled at this
point. . .obviously it came along somewhere out of the blue.
(2-191) Anderson: We had circulated a comment sheet on the changes
26
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
in the site to all the city department including traffic
engineering--public works and because of the trip generation issue
no comments were received and incorporated into the report in terms
of the site plan itself. I think that Gary Gill is talking about
is the State Environmental Policy Act review which is a separate
process and we will be looking at such things as traffic mitigation
for the site
(2-214) Kaufman: But, under what auspices, the building permit?
(2-216) Anderson: The State Environmental Police Act review of the
building permit, right.
(2-218) Kaufman: Where does the site plan fit in--shouldn't there
be a SEPA determination on the site plan?
(2-230) Anderson: There will---the determination is actually on
the building permit itself, o.k. What we were asked to do. . .
(2-234) Kaufman: Isn't this a major action that significantly
affects the quality of the environment or may?
(2-235) Anderson: Um-hum. And, I don't know how to respond except
to say that it was routed to our traffic engineering department who
returned it with no comments.
(2-242) Kaufman: O.k. Thank you. I think I will keep the record
open for the traffic information and the applicant will have an
opportunity to respond. We' ll keep it all within writing and I
would like--when does traffic think they will have an answer to the
traffic mitigation measures that are necessary?
(2-260) White: I 'd say within a week.
(2-261) Kaufman: O.k. And is a week after that too much time for
the applicant to respond or, I don't want to delay your application
too much.
(2-264) Voice: A week will be fine.
(2-265) Kaufman: In a week, o.k. Today is the 15th, the 22nd what
is that the first of March.
(2-270) Voice: Right, that' s two weeks from today.
27
Hearing Examiner Minutes
February 15, 1989
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
Verbatim Minutes
(2-272) Kaufman: Pardon?
(2-272) Voice: Two weeks from today is March 1.
(2-273) Kaufman: O.k. The applicant will have. . . .the staff will
have a week to respond, it's due no later than 5 p.m. the 22nd and
the applicant by March 1 at 5 p.m. and the report will be issued
within two weeks of that day. If there's nothing further, thank
you for coming.
End of the verbatim minutes.
28
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: VAN DOREN'S LANDING II #RZ-88-2
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Realty Company
REQUEST: Request for approval of a revised hotel site plan
submitted as a condition of City of Kent Ordinance
2792 . This ordinance rezoned 7 . 1 acres on the south
side of S. 212th Street, approximately 1, 200 feet west
of West Valley Highway, from Ml, Industrial Park, to
M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of S. 212th
Street, approximately 1, 200 feet west of West Valley
Highway.
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE: March 3 , 1989
MEETING DATE: February 15, 1989
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: March 15, 1989
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Lauri Anderson, Planning Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Larry Webb, Fire Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ted Knapp, Union Pacific Realty
Jim Young, developer
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the applicant, all
evidence elicited during the public hearing, and as a result of the
personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the
Hearing Examiner, the following findings of fact and conclusions shall
constitute the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner on this
application.
1
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Union Pacific Realty Company for Van Doren's
Landing II, filed a request for approval of a revised site plan
submitted as a condition of a reclassification of approximately
7 . 1 acres of property from M11 Industrial Park, to MI-C,
Industrial Park - Commercial Suffix.
2 . The subject site is located on the south side of South 212th
Street approximately 11200 feet west of West Valley Highway.
The site is immediately west of 64th Avenue South.
3 . The 7 . 1 acre site is approximately 670 feet deep by
approximately 510 feet wide. The actual development will occur
over a slightly larger lot, one approximately 8 acres in size.
The applicant will utilize Section 15. 03.030 (H) of the Zoning
Code which permits an extension of the zoning district for
contiguous lots under one ownership. The maximum extension is
50 feet.
4 . The site was reclassified by the City Council under
Ordinance #2792 • A number of conditions were imposed upon the
rezone. Two of those conditions have particular relevance to
this review. Condition 3 stated:
"The proposed development shall be in general
conformity with the site plan as presented with this
rezone application. While minor modifications to this
site plan shall be permitted, the use shall be tied
to a hotel and/or restaurant. Any change in use shall
be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and additional
mitigating measures imposed, if appropriate. Any such
modifications of the site plan which will
significantly increase traffic will be subject to
further traffic evaluations. "
Condition 5 stated:
"Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the
Fire Chief or his designee shall review and evaluate
all pertinent information and is authorized to require
built-in or other fire protection systems as the Fire
Chief determines necessary. "
5. The second condition is only relevant insofar as the applicant
objected to the Fire Department recommending that the complex
be sprinklered. Condition 5 cited above would appear to clearly
2
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
condition any reclassification of the site on the Fire Chief's
determination.
6. The original plans showed one generally "U" shaped hotel
building around a central, landscaped courtyard, perimeter
parking and a restaurant. Perimeter landscaping varied from
approximately 20 feet deep along the west and south property
lines to 40 and 60 feet deep along the frontages of S 212th and
64th S. The hotel was to accommodate approximately 150 guest
rooms. The hotel building was estimated to cover approximately
37, 100 square feet. The total floor area of the original
proposal was estimated at approximately 60, 400 square feet.
7 . The modified proposal demonstrates what is termed "residential
character" with the hotel now broken up into 21 separate,
smaller structures. The restaurant is no longer shown as an
integral element and has been labeled "future restaurant. " The
applicant suggests that the restaurant will be part of the
complex. Staff estimates that perimeter landscaping has been
reduced approximately 5 feet in depth, to 15 feet along the west
and south property lines. The hotel is anticipated to
accommodate the same approximately 150 units, but each of the
units will contain kitchen facilities. The building footprints
have almost doubled to approximately 60,400 square feet. The
overall square footage has increased approximately 56, 000 square
feet, from 70, 000 square feet to 126, 600 square feet.
8 . Staff was concerned about the large increase in site coverage
and in total square footage. They cited concerns regarding
storm drainage and the loss of the open space evidenced by the
original site plan. The "park-like" setting was lost according
to the staff analysis.
9 . Meeting rooms have also been modified and reduced almost in half
from approximately 3 , 500 to 4, 000 square feet to approximately
2 , 000 to 2 , 100 square feet. Staff was concerned that room
service and similar traditional hotel amenities would be lost
in the modified proposal.
10. Staff was concerned that the complex has taken on what staff
perceived was an apartment-like character with the small,
separate buildings, the loss of the focal point provided by the
central courtyard, the smaller meeting rooms, the kitchens in
every unit, and the difficulty in providing room service and
laundry facilities. The covered walkway linking the restaurant
and the hotel has been eliminated, again emphasizing the
independence of the two units.
3
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
11. The applicant explained that residential hotels have grown in
popularity and that the units would be too expensive in this
area for the complex to be utilized as apartment accommodations.
The complex will be provided with a club house and small
convenience grocery and sundries store to provide staples for
those who do intend to cook in their units.
12 . Staff noted that if the two aspects of the development, the
hotel and restaurant are segregated, then the Zoning Code
requires different setback requirements and landscape treatment
along the property lines separating the uses. Similarly,
parking requirements for separate uses would be different.
13 . The traffic demands of the current proposal are estimated to be
equal to or slightly less than the original proposal since the
guests of this "residential" hotel would stay longer and be less
transient.
14 . Staff was concerned that the plan was too much like an
apartment, especially given growing concerns about the number
of apartments in the City of Kent. Staff specifically
recommends against approval of any complex which would be
converted to an apartment without appropriate zoning and
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
15. The applicant submitted information which disputes some of
staffs calculations on the landscaped areas and impervious
surfaces. The numbers submitted by the applicant indicate that
the modified proposal will increase landscaped areas by
approximately two (2) percent and have a complementary affect
on impervious surfaces.
16. The applicant also indicated that they did not feel that this
hearing was necessary since they conceived that the proposed
modifications were minor and were permitted under the language
incorporated in the council ' s rezone action and conditions.
17 . The applicant also attempted to compare the modified proposal
with the underlying M1 zoning which would permit industrial park
uses.
18 . Traffic Engineering recommended that an
acceleration/deceleration lane be constructed at the eastern
driveway along 212th, with a possible extension along the
western driveway.
4
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
CONCLUSIONS
1. The applicant originally proposed that the rezone requested and
approved under Ordinance 2792 be conditioned upon a specific
site plan to avoid any appearance that the rezone was
speculative. The rezone was approved and although, the language
of approval was relatively vague, the approval was conditioned
upon a specific illustrative drawing which contained sufficient
information to define the approximate building . footprint,
setbacks and amenities. The modified plans diverge from the
plan which was submitted to and approved by the City Council in
some rather dramatic ways. These new plans certainly cannot be
entertained as minor containing minor modifications as suggested
by the applicant.
2 . Any reading of Condition 3 argues against the applicant's
interpretation of the changes as minor modifications. The
applicant cannot expect changes which increase the number of
buildings to 21, approximately double the building footprint(s) ,
dramatically increase the overall square footage and transform
a unified hotel and restaurant into a series of small
apartment-like units with no focal point, central courtyard or
large facade to be considered minor. The public review required
by staff is appropriate.
3 . Now attention can turn to the merits of the applicant's modified
hotel complex. It is hard to imagine that a residential hotel,
although still a hotel, is what was anticipated by the City
Council when they approved the original proposal. Again, it is
fully understood that the original plans were entirely
illustrative, but those plans showed a rather imposing complex
- a large hotel building and an associated and linked
restaurant. That is no longer the applicant's objective.
4 . As now conceived the complex has little to recommend it, other
than that it is a hotel in some fashion and may incorporate a
restaurant. There is no longer a central courtyard or large
expanse of open space, there is no grand facade to welcome
visitors to Kent. There is no focus or focal point. It
certainly does not pretend to be the centerpiece of a large
dynamic complex as suggested by the applicant. Many new office
buildings present more interesting appearances. It merely
recreates a formulaic scheme found in other nearby jurisdictions
without embodying anything exciting.
5
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
5. If this proposal were to be approved it should only be approved
by opening the compound up and providing at least some focus
internal to the complex. The proposal is very dense and not at
all park-like, and the buildings are arranged in a somewhat
rigid pattern. The feeling of openness presented by the
approved plans is gone. So are the amenities of covered
walkways, close in parking or at least a connecting corridor
within the walls of a hotel. As it is, the city would be better
served by revoking the overlay zoning and permitting routine
office park or industrial uses rather than an uninspired
apartment-like complex in the heart of its dynamically
developing industrial park area.
6. While the Zoning Code does not require incredibly detailed site
plans, it does require a site plan with some imagination,
especially since the property was rezoned on the basis of a more
traditional hotel. The plans while initially sketchy, presented
a more stylistic hotel/restaurant complex which has suffered in
the redesign. It looks very little different from any one of
a number of the newer apartment complexes found anywhere within
the Kent environs. And while some of these apartment complexes
are not without their attractive aspects, they certainly would
not stand as a beacon at the heart of this area.
7 . While one may not expect the applicant to create a vacation
resort in the heart of the valley, a more inviting public hotel
with more extensive conference facilities, dining opportunities
and recreational amenities appears to be what the City Council
originally approved. Now we have individual apartments, suites
if the applicant prefers, where guests retreat after a day of
work and cook meals after shopping at a small commissary,
grocery store or 7-11 facsimile.
8 . While the applicant may be correct that more is not necessary
from a site plan, they cannot expect that the grant of an
overlay zoning which deviates from the underlying Comprehensive
Plan would be granted for a complex as that now proposed. The
site plan is not approved.
6
Findings and Recommendation
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
DECISION
The recommendation of the Kent Hearing Examiner on the above requested
revision is DENIAL OF THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN.
Dated this 15th day of March, 1989 .
FRED J. UFMAN
Interim earing Examiner
Request of Reconsideration
Any party of record who feels the decision of the Examiner is based on
error of procedure, fact or judgment, or the discovery of new evidence
may file a written request for reconsideration with the Hearing
Examiner no later than 14 days of the date of the decision.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to Council is filed by a party of record within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and state the
basis of appeal which may be errors of fact, procedural errors,
omissions from the record, errors in interpretations of the
Comprehensive Plan or new evidence. See Ordinance #2233 and
Resolution #896 for specific information.
7
CITY OF HCNT
planning
a..
W J
� W
fH ST Indu.Ul.l Ro.d
\\S. 204 TH. ST.
- AE.RU SPACE I
INDUSTRY
3Iri
2 _ lodurl.l no.d 1 .
C11
912
i
a t �
C
c
— � c
a —
c
OBRIEN
1 LEMENTAR
>: -�2.12 Tit CT m CHOOL
- SITE
__
/ t fire Station
I \ ® c
• 3 \ S,210 IR. ST.
i
,. I`In•I I ,
PO 1 ll N
7.)nl,l ST
W J
I
-Idl_ 11 12
15 14 14 13
S226 Tit AVE. ,
l
m
W
N 4 T
xRf aW x
> r
a m 2 a
x ^ /L-
e S,
m INDUSTRIAL AR
Z2atH
APPLICATION Name Van DnrPn's l anding_11 LEGEND:
Number R7-n-2 Dale May 4, 1988 .� application site
Request Raznna city limits — - —
Vicinity
SCALE = r - 1,000-
CITY OF KENT
planningrb
n.
,1z;
o ,
e
oa
-212TH-; ---_.ST, ... _ .
kt r
SITE \,
0
M 1
V
' 1
APPLICATION Name Van Doren's Landing II LEGEND
Number RZ-88-2 Dale May a, 1988 application site —
Heque$t Rezone
Topo/Zoning
SCALE = Reduced
1
CITY OF KENT
planning
r.
J
{euP lltN MInI�
' 1 lv 1 •
l
�Tr'�
- z:
CZ
Ii t
• C7 1
�� ,I II1111 III IIUIU III�I��� ��?` .
r
. E111 III I I�! I ' I 11' 'I � ,I � • ___
APPLICATION Name van Doren's Landing H LEGEND
Number R7-Ra-2 Bale May 4, 1988 -�- application site —
Request Rezone
Site Plan (ori9ina��
SCALE = Reduced
CITY OF KENT
planning
a
B
a
�I
..oi .. m-m1 .mT LT.
,
J
_RHIRI-f tU
-LIlLL11J_LJ_Lt J.1_IJ_LIJ11J LI_LLI_I I-i _IILLI_I:L1JJ' _t_=.`._ ....
APPLICATION Name Van Doren's Landing fI LEGEND
Number Rz-88-2 Date February 15, 1989 -1& application site —
Request Site Plan Approval
Site Plan (AC_W 9¢Cq
SCALE — Reduced
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 1989
FILE NO: VAN DOREN'S LANDING II #RZ-88-2
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Realty Company
REQUEST: Approval of a revised hotel site plan submitted
as a condition of City of Kent Ordinance 2792 .
This ordinance rezoned 7 . 1 acres on the south
side of S. 212th Street, approximately 1, 200 feet
west of West Valley Highway, from Ml, Industrial
Park, to M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Lauri Anderson, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The revised hotel site plan is submitted as a condition of
the Van Doren' s Landing II rezone which was approved in
August 1988 . The rezone was granted to allow the applicant
to develop the site with a hotel and/or restaurant through
application of the C-suffix to an existing M11 Industrial
Park, zone.
The conditions of the rezone approval read as follows:
1. Any proposed use of the land within 200 feet of the
Kent City lagoon shall conform to Resolution #922
(attached) .
2 . In addition to other applicable procedures and
requirements, any proposed use of the land, including
but not limited to development, clearing and grading,
and paving shall be reviewed by the Soil Conservation
Service Citizens Advisory Board of the City of Kent.
The report of the Board shall be provided to the City
Council, which shall make any final decisions related
thereto.
1
Site Plan Review
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
3 . The proposed development shall be in general
conformity with the site plan as presented with this
rezone application. while minor modifications to this
site plan shall be permitted, the use shall be tied
to a hotel and/or restaurant. Any change in use shall
be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and additional
mitigating measures imposed, if appropriate. Any such
modifications of the site plan which will
significantly increase traffic will be subject to
further traffic evaluations.
4 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system is
required including access to 212th Street, 64th
Avenue S. and the proposed development to the east
prior to any proposed development permit being issued.
5. Prior to the issuance of any development permit, the
Fire Chief or his designee shall review and evaluate
all pertinent information and is authorized to require
built-in or other fire protection systems as the Fire
Chief determines necessary.
The new site plan and concept for the hotel operation
consists of approximately 150 guest rooms. These units
would cater to business people visiting the area that would
typically be staying longer than one or two nights.
Kitchens, dining and living areas would be provided in all
rooms. Half of the rooms available contain a second
bedroom.
A recreation building with adjacent tennis court and
swimming pool is centrally located within the development.
A clubhouse with the main office, lobby, meeting rooms and
grocery sales will be located at the front of the site near
212th Street. .
According to the developer rents for these rooms will be
around $85 a night.
B. Location
The subject property is located on the south side of
S. 212th Street, approximately 1,200 feet west of
West Valley Highway.
2
Site Plan Review
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
C. Size of Propertv
The subject property is approximately 7.1 acres in size.
The developer intends to utilize a larger area
(approximately eight acres) for the proposed hotel complex
through application of Section 15.03 .030, Paragraph H of
the Zoning Code. This section of the Code permits
extension of the zoning regulations beyond the district
boundary line in cases where such line divides a lot in
single ownership. In any case, this extension cannot
exceed fifty (50) feet.
D. Zonina
The proposed site is within an M1-C, Industrial Park-
Commercial Suffix, zoning district. The property directly
to the east is also zoned M1-C and is the site of Green
River Square--a proposed mixed retail development,
including a hotel and convention center. Surrounding
property to the north, west and south is zoned M1,
Industrial Park. Land to the north is developed with the
Boeing Aerospace Center. Land to the south includes
undeveloped acreage, the King County Humane Society and the
City Sewage Lagoon. The land to the west of the site is
vacant except for an existing recreational vehicle park.
II. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
3
Site Plan Review
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
III. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. Purpose of Staff Report
The purpose of this report is to analyze the submitted site
plan relative to the original hotel proposal to determine
whether the original intent of the proposal has been met
and whether additional conditions of approval are
necessary.
B. Department Concerns
The purpose of the M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix,
zoning district as stated in the City of Kent Zoning Code,
is to "allow certain limited commercial land uses that
provide necessary personal and business services for the
general industrial area" . A hotel/restaurant complex is
a permitted use in this district.
The proposal submitted by Union Pacific Realty Company at
the time of the rezone application and subsequent approval
hearings showed a traditional hotel/restaurant complex.
One large hotel building, in a park-like setting, was
detailed along with adjacent "high-quality" restaurant.
The most recent site plan--the subject of this staff
report--presents a number of changes. Specifically, we
point to the following:
1. While both proposals contain approximately 150 guest
rooms, the original site plan showed a hotel building
covering approximately 37, 100 square feet of land.
The most recent site plan shows a building footprint
of approximately 60,400 square feet--a 63 percent
increase. Total floor area .for Proposal 1 was
approximately 70, 000 square feet. Proposal 2 totals
more than 126, 600 square feet. The need for the
additional floor space in Proposal 2 centers around
the provision of kitchens, dining rooms and living
areas.
One-half of the units in Proposal 2 contain a second
bedroom. As designed, it is not possible to "lock-
off" this second bedroom in the second-story suites
to provide a traditional bed/bath room alternative.
The stairways are internal to the units and the loft
is open to the living space below.
4
Site Plan Review
Van Doren's Landing II
w #RZ-88-2
An increase of site coverage to this proportion is a
concern. Not only do the storm drainage needs
increase, but the contiguous open space shown in the
original plan is lot. one alternative is to
incorporate some traditional bed/bath rooms in order
to restore some of the open space and "park-like"
setting shown in the original proposal.
2 . The meeting rooms, which in Proposal 1 were to include
approximately 3, 500 to 4, 000 square feet of floor
space, have been reduced to between 2 ,000 and 2 , 100
square feet. The ability to provide coffee service
to these rooms (standard in most large hotels) is
severely limited by the location of the kitchen.
Employees would have to travel through the lobby or
the "wrong way" down the back hall to serve meeting
room users.
3 . The "high quality" restaurant shown on the Proposal 1
site plan at approximately 8 , 500 square feet, has been
reduced to 8,200 square feet and is now a "future
restaurant" . It appears that hotel customers are to
rely heavily on their kitchens for food service and
as the site is located in the middle of an industrial
area, limited grocery sales will be available within
the hotel . Travellers unfamiliar with an area and
planning on a short stay often depend on restaurant
fare--particularly if an expense account has been
established for that purpose.
For those residents that don't have the time or
inclination to cook, it is important to integrate the
restaurant with the hotel development.
Proposal 1 paid careful attention to the comfort and
safety of pedestrians. Proposal 1 connected the hotel
and restaurant with a covered walkway. Proposal 2 has
removed the covered walkway and has placed the
restaurant 150 feet away from the closest site.
4. Facilities associated with a traditional hotel
operation appear to be lacking. Laundry rooms and
employee lounges and lunchrooms are not shown on the
floor plans. Room service, without an associated
restaurant and between 19 separate buildings, would
be difficult.
5
Site Plan Review
Van Doren' s Landing II
#RZ-88-2
5. Some environmental and aesthetic amenities under
Proposal 2 have been lost. Under Proposal 1, 20 feet
of perimeter landscaping was shown along the western
and southern borders of the site. Proposal 2 reduces
that landscaping to 15 feet.
6. Under Proposal 1, special consideration is given -to
pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation between the
restaurant and hotel is discussed under #3 above.
Proposal 1 had only two entrances to the site--
limiting flow-through traffic. Proposal 2 has four
entries. The Proposal 1 site plan showed special
surface treatments in areas with high potential for
conflict between cars and pedestrians: near the hotel
entrance and southern access. This special treatment
defined the unique character of those areas and made
them seem less like roadways and more like crosswalks.
This special treatment is missing from Proposal 2 .
7 . Proposal 1 had many pleasing design features,
including the porte cochere, interior courtyard, and
grandness of scale of the hotel building. Proposal 2
has 21 buildings spread over the site. There is no
large-scale focal point for the development. There
is no sense of a commercial center which welcomes the
community to its meeting rooms, open green areas and
high-quality restaurant.
8. The Fire Department is concerned that the potential
demand for Fire Department services is greater under
Proposal 2 . Currently there is inadequate pumping and
staff capacity in this area for emergency response.
With the site as configured, aerial ladder access to
all structures is no longer possible. With the
increased number of calls for services and
back-to-back alarms, built-in fire protection would
be desirable.
9 . There appear to be some conflicts with Zoning Code
regulations under Proposal 2. If the future
restaurant lot is to remain independent from the hotel
lot, with separate ownership, signage, etc. , 15 feet
of landscaping would be required on either side of the
shared lot line to meet minimum code requirements.
6
Site Plan Review
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
10. Although a preliminary review of Proposal 2 indicates
that parking is adequate for the hotel/restaurant use,
compact stalls, if any, are not marked on the site
plan. If the hotel and restaurant are to remain on
separate lots and share parking, a joint use parking
agreement must be signed and placed on file with the
Planning Department.
11. The site plan and elevations for Proposal 2 gives the
general appearance of multifamily development. The
name of this development, "Homecourt" , as well as the
residential atmosphere and operation is cause for
concern in light of current attitudes toward
multifamily development by citizens and the City
Council. The staff has been assured by the developer
that the cost of the land in this area could not
possibly support multifamily housing. In other words,
tenants would not be able to afford the rents the
owners would have to charge in order to pay for the
cost of the land, LID assessments and taxes.
The developer has stated that the average stay at this
hotel will be between four to ten days. It is not
the intent of staff to recommend approval of a
development that will eventually turn into a
multifamily use in this area. If this should ever
happen, a rezone and possibly a Comprehensive Plan
amendment would be necessary.
IV. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and relevant code
criteria, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
conditions:
1. Buildings shall be clustered and parking areas arranged so
as to reduce the travel distance between parking spaces and
hotel suites. Parking areas along the lot perimeters will
be screened by berms and landscaping. The details of the
revised site plan required pursuant to this condition shall
be approved by the Planning Department.
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
constructed to provide access to 212th Street,
64th Avenue S. , and the proposed development to the east.
7
Site Plan Review
Van Doren's Landing II
#RZ-88-2
3 . Perimeter landscaping shall be increased to 20 feet along
the western and southern borders of the site. if the
future restaurant lot is to remain separate from the hotel
lot, 15 feet of landscaping shall be required on either
side of the shared lot line to meet minimum code
requirements.
4 . If the hotel and restaurant are to remain on separate lots
and share parking, a joint use parking agreement must be
signed and placed on file with the Planning Department.
5. All buildings shall be sprinklered.
As of the date of this report, the Soil Conservation Service
Advisory Committee has not made any recommendations to the City
Council. Should any recommendations be made and adopted by the
City Council, additional site plan changes may be necessary.
In addition, this proposal is currently in SEPA review.
Additional mitigating conditions may also apply to the site
plan.
Minor code requirements that have not been addressed within this
report will be dealt with during the development process.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 8, 1989
8
U;
R CEIV D
MAR 2 31991
RESOLUTION NO. �Y� KEN PLANNING pppr
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding the adoption
of "Unique and Fragile" area policies and loca-
tions within a portion of the City of Kent.
WHEREAS, "Unique and Fragile" areas policies and locations
have been proposed in the attached Appendix "A" and is commonly
referred to as "Unique and Fragile" areas, and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Planning
Commission of the City of Kent, after notice of said hearings
were duly'published, and
WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning Commission
on October 21, 1980, the proposed "Unique and Fragile" areas
policies and location map were forwarded to the City Council with
the recommendation that they be adopted, and
WHEREAS, the City Council held hearings on the "Unique and
Fragile" areas policies and locations on December 11 and 22, 1980;
January 12, and 15, 1981, and February 2, and 17, 1981, and
following said hearings either approved, disapproved, or modified
the recommendations of the Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY
RESOLVE:
Section 1: That the "Unique and Fragile" areas policies
and location map; attached hereto as Appendix "A", and commonly
referred to as "Unique and Fragile" areas, be and hereby are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein, and
the same hereby is adopted.
Section 2: That the "Unique and Fragile" areas policies
and location map be filed with the City Clerk and in the office
of the Planning Department and be made available for public
inspection upon request.
PASSED at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council
this 2nd day of March, 1981.
ISABEL HOGAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENS , CITY CLERK
ROVED AS TO FORAM: ,
DONALD E MIRK, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certified that this is a true copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, the 2nd day of March, 1981.
u -� (SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN� CLERK
Appendix A
Unique and Fragile Areas
1. Designate all officially mapped ponds, marshes and/or swamps, -
riparian woodlands, undiked shorelines, flooded wetlands and
200 feet,or equivalent, around the city lagoon as Unique and
Fragile *Areas. Wetlands defined as Dther Wetlands shall not
be defined as Unique and Fragile Areas.
2. Areas officially mapped as Riparian Woodlands shall be preserved
and protected.
3. All areas officially mapped as marshes and/or swamps shall
be preserved and protected.
4. Those areas identified as undiked shorelines shall be preserved
and protected according'to regulations of the Kent Shoreline
Master Program.
5. The City shall maintain and manage the old Kent lagoon as a
duel purpose facility: a) Storm water retention site, b) -
Wildlife habitat area. The City shall consult a wildlife
biologist for design assistance to protect the lagoon's wild-
life habitat value.
6. All officially mapped ponds shall be preserved and protected.
7. Seasonally and Temporarily Flooded Wetlands
a) West Side 'of 'Green River
(1) _ Designate Site L-5 as a Unique and Fragile Area to
be preserved and managed to support wildlife habitat;
specifically, migrating waterfowl.
(2) Maintain RA zoning in Site L-5.
(3) Endorse the SCSIselection of 70 acres within Site L-5
as a portion of the required mitigation for the
East Side Watershed Project and recommend that the
City participate in the acquisition of the 70 acres
with the other East Side Watershed Project sponsors.
' (4) Encourage property owners with property located within
site L-5 to participate in the King County Agricultural
Retention Program.
(5) Present a bond issue to voters to acquire the wetlands
in Site L-5 that are not eligible to participate in
the King County Agricultural Retention Program.
(6) Direct the staff to develop a program to manage
Unique and Fragile Areas acquired by the City.
-i- ,
y
b) South of Green River
(1) Designate sites L-27 and L-29 as Unique -and Fragile
Areas that are to be preserved and managed to support
wildlife habitat, specifically migrating waterfowl.
SR-516 is not to be affected by this designation.
(2) Maintain RA designation for Sites L-27 and L-29 in the .
Valley Floor Plan.
(3) Limit the extension of water and sewer services to
Sites L-27 and L-29.
in
(4) Encourage Sites L-27pandeLt29ot eparticipate inrs with t the located
Xing County
Agricultural Retention Program.
c) East Side •of igreen• Raver
(1) Designate a 200 foot buffer strip or equivalent
around the perimeter of the City lagoon in Site L-15
to be preserved and managed to support wildlife habitat,
specifically migrating waterfowl. This buffer strip
may. be used to accommodate the main trunk channel
for surface water management.
(2) Direct the staff to develop a program to acquire this
buffer strip.
-11- •
UNIQUE FRAGILE AREA � , S
F.l? rovo.l b.,.l +'4c k" ,I Gi}Y CD+JN4i I c p
W
4o..feet-'
ri, I 6o��aar�l Ii naS arc aPProX;►,--f.e and mr&
bm F"'isc. !T.TH LS
'a .l r,6 F.EN 1N 1'I:Y
ol
.. . 1 1J + �•IIN�I I(G + lAM[3• .fT . +' •', • 14 13
� 1CYC lINH! _7. ``..tlY •T• ' 23 24
o Marshes a�1/Pre '••..,••1•. .:
' �: itu.4P •'
ITY LIMITS �V --- -- - w '.SMITH
00
ISty b •. w
1 TM
\•\ 1 7�STN ST Z
S i
Ls
• t wt"a�p Sib516
�.
J
'•1ST � '� ��vo \. y 6s� .+>•�[+r$�i S$'/�_ -'' 1 J
No
2 C� f a 1L
W 1516
HO t ' ( PL
S . .
- 27
� r I
+ ST =I 14 c
:f:. I 1 1 1 �. a •
1T/• TSSTN fT + • y • , 231 2Ri Pak
i o +••1 •ti• wood I=.1%4In
t ,.: • (� e
o l
• SOTN ST=NLeL;,i I ..•":" IV '�• •`I� : I
LN Ar
• sa cr 1 � /
YfFSf •�: •
HA Kp tO t Cr
wer V N.<t. �t
.NHH.AA�N..///YY c SN•f• (s,
w
•I.
•' 1rO W 1 I I -• ..ram ;
w I 1 1 -
i�
1 T04 H ( ST / Industrial Road
s _ -- —
1
t vE . FPAGIL' AREAS
ST.pAiRICKSpj �. U{ `l��
CEMETERY `
�F I�Coo f e roved
r(ot ir1}a�♦, �1}n be pw-r—&Vc.
S-• ..212TH —•ST—.
T •
Fire St.at'
T
216TH S
S
p QO. , Sr.$r..if•'•vti'�•''Y•n':•?;v.; :i::.:
J :tc
14
tiro
1 CZtpo►-Ia~
A
µ
VCloo l
• s
dLLLIli 4
6g,
ZL
c
; i l : l l l l fFi
I1IE0
I". 't I lLl \ I I I I
i
i
a
t rp < � z
z O� z v3 O
45Z
,
v ralr� kl�.Iklllil'i�i.U (rk,lik:aia�-r�li �� i � , � kkkk�., I�► u, j . � . � j i
k r l.i 111 i i I 1.1 I I.C.4(— �: li':I ! k� ' 11 I: !Lj
LI
FAFL
CA
BIT
?•.•-- ::I � i.�al��lll llll�1.11•I` '' ,�' ;;i _._..___�, '1 . s
•, , ti , 4 , 1 ,.'i , .
r r •p 1
n [Iti! [!:
Z ;�; [[ r�.�� 11 [3(i [tlo (� i '• i t i !t r s' t i
I vY-1�: � q••1t••.! 1 , �111i (! [: ;� 1 � � �' 1 I n (
_ T �•��: iii�� y.�;f 1![`- 11 �; `rl E [ f[[f[ � ;_ 111, [r11- ;[[1- [[ ?
� _�:1��w'•r:• � ..� '� 1 '[� �1 [ � !•.! F:�i •;� �; 1':I� : �[1� i k:1� kiif �ik� i ; !
�"(1-:< n " 1,..�.1•� 1 '..`!: 1'ii, �(1 -vf
11
14
�•"{r a- :'E. ' I1�� +f i ,I 111t S 3 er �Li 111 $41s1 S
it
Al
I!j �0 (D 11 DEC 3 01988
ntII F 3�0 •
• N WT
j �• .7• ,......,,,,_ Cis Y t c j'� 1T... .._.
TI-OPO s a -Z
v�
6707
Fl
_ Y
Y
1 �
��� I li ' III ' II � I ! Ill1Ls �' � �•
,...� I a;�i •-� � li � I �'� �ii � lllif)-i '��" II � �I
ors 4,
r — -
i
Y c
D
K
Z O m
Z o
x
Kent City Council Meeting
Ste` Date April 4 . 1989
�. , Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: VAN DOREN'S LANDING II REZONE NO. RZ-88-2
(HOMECOURT) - REVIEW BY SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: City of Kent Ordinance No. 2792, of
August 2 , 1988, provided that "Any proposed use of the land (on
the Van Doren's Site) . . . shall be reviewed by the Soil
Conservation Service Citizens Advisory Board of the City of
Kent" . In this agenda packet are the Board's comments on a
proposal by Union Pacific Realty to develop a 152 unit
"residential hotel" and restaurant on the rezone site.
3 . EXHIBITS: Comments on the "Homecourt" Development Proposal
(see additional information under the Van Doren's Landing
Modified Site Plan section Rezone No. RZ-88-2, Item 4A)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Soil Conservation Service Citizens' Advisory
Committee, February 9 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept/reject the comments of the SCS Citizens Advisory
Committee on the proposed Homecourt Hotel development.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
KENT SCS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 9, 1989
COMMENTS ON THE "HOMECOURT" DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
City of Kent Ordinance 2792 , of August 2 , 1988, provided for the
rezoning of approximately 7. 1 acres situated on the south side of 212th
Street approximately 1200 feet west of West Valley Highway. Section 3
(B) of the Ordinance provides that "any proposed use of the land. . .shall
be reviewed by the Soil Conservation Service Citizens Advisory Board of
the City of Kent. " Pursuant to this provision, said committee has met
to review a proposal by Union Pacific Realty to develop a 152-unit
"residential hotel" and restaurant on the rezone site.
The primary interest of the SCS Citizens Committee is the habitat value
and water quality of the City Lagoon, also known as the Kent Ponds. The
Lagoon is a unique resource on Kent's Valley Floor, with outstanding
values for wildlife. As documented in the 1985 Shanewise Report for
this Committee, migrating and wintering ducks on the Lagoon number in
the thousands. Waterfowl use the Lagoon as a central roosting site.
Nesting occurs in adjacent brush and grassy areas. Beyond waterfowl,
wintering raptors and migrating shorebirds commonly use the Lagoon. A
list compiled by Eugene Hunn, a past member of this Committee and of the
Seattle Audubon Society, identifies some 160 bird species that have been
sighted on and in the vicinity of the City Lagoon. The Lagoon is a
critical link in supporting wildlife in the Green River Valley, and thus
has both local and regional significance.
The City Council recognized the extraordinary values of the Lagoon in
its passage of Resolution 922, identifying all properties within 200
feet of the City Lagoon as "Unique and Fragile Areas, " and recognizing
the continuing importance of the Lagoon as a wildlife habitat area. As
the area surrounding the Lagoon begins to develop, this extraordinary
resource will experience increasing pressures from urbanization. To
preserve habitat values, these pressures, including short-term
construction impacts and long-term use impacts, will need to be very
carefully managed. This includes minimizing noise, light and glare, air
pollution, and providing for stormwater treatment through biofiltration
or other appropriate means prior to discharge into the Lagoon.
The Committee has reviewed the preliminary drawings for the "Homecourt"
proposal, and notes the changes from the earlier "conceptual design"
that accompanied the Ml-C rezone request. The Committee 's intent is to
comment only on those aspects of the proposal which may affect the
Lagoon's water quality and habitat values.
The southern boundary of the Homecourt proposal lies some 600 feet from
the northern edge of the Lagoon. From the perspective of maintaining
a high quality habitat, the Committee is more concerned about the uses
of land closer to the Lagoon, within the first several hundred feet.
The impacts of light and glare, noise and air quality degradation will
be more pronounced within those areas closer to the Lagoon. The more
sensitive species on the site, such as canvasbacks and green-winged
teal, will not be able to withstand substantial urban impacts.
KENT SCS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMENTS ON "HOMECOURT"
FEBRUARY 91 1989
For the 8 acre hotel site, the Committee has two recommendations:
1. Minimize the water quality impacts on the Lagoon as much as
possible. Permanent stormwater drainage from the site is
intended to be channeled into the Lagoon. Typically, stormwater
contaminants from roadways and parking lots include suspended
solids, oils and grease, metals and other toxicants. Stormwater
is a significant source of pollutants. (See the 1989 Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority Plan. ) It is recommended that for this
site, and for all de__lopmne t_which _discharges into "the Lagoon,
special-measures 5e taken to minimize pollution from stormwater
discharge. Coverad_p-arkinS,_ _Oil-water separs, toxicant traps
- ._.__ -
and o�fi&r measures should be employed.
2 . A high standard of landscaping should.__be employed to creates _
-a
visual-screen for -light and glare at the south end of the
development. Screening landscaping (Type I or Type II per the
Kent Zoning Code) should provide a year-round buffer for the area
to the south. Of course, as areas between the current site and
the Lagoon are developed, it will be critical for them also to
employ effective screening buffers.
2
Kent City Council Meeting
'.�,r Date April 4 , 1989
� ` Category Other Business
t"
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - MEAT AND SEAFOOD PRODUCTS
PROCESSING IN M2 and M3 , NO. ZCA-89-1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 27, 1989, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the zoning code amendment to allow meat
and seafood products processing (without rendering) , packaging
and freezing as principally permitted uses in the M2 (limited
industrial) and M3 (general industrial) zoning districts.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report, Planning Commission minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission, March 27 , 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �' �;f x_�� moves, Councilmember �� seconds
to approve the zoning code amendment No. ZCA-89-1 as recommended
by the Planning Commission and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the amending ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 29, 1989
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
SUBJECT: REGULATORY REVIEW TO ALLOW CERTAIN MEAT PROCESSING
OPERATIONS IN THE M2 AND M3 ZONES AS PRINCIPALLY
PERMITTED USES.
On March 27 , 1989 the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council that meat and seafood products processing (without
rendering) , packaging and freezing be principally permitted uses
in the M2 and M3 zones.
The recommendation will allow the processing of previously
butchered meat and seafood products to be a permitted use without
a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits will still be
required for any meat or seafood processing which includes curing,
rendering, canning or slaughtering. Other principally permitted
uses currently in the M2 and M3 zones are the processing and
packaging of food products including dairy, beer, bakery, fruits
and vegetables, etc.
This zoning code amendment was initiated through a regulatory
review by Kings Command Meats, Inc. , to allow for expansion of an
existing operation.
KMcC:ca
RENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1989
FILE NO: #ZCA-89-1 MEAT PROCESSING IN M2
REGULATORY REVIEW OF MEAT AND SEAFOOD
PROCESSING IN AN M2, INDUSTRIAL PARK,
DISTRICT
INTERESTED PARTY: King's Command Meats c/o Food Plant
Engineering
ORDINANCE/REGULATION -
BEING REVIEWED: Section 15. 04.180 (A) , M2, Industrial Park
district of the Kent Zoning Code, which
currently does not permit meat and seafood
processing.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED
ACTION: The action before the Planning Commission
is to consider changes to the M2, Limited
Industrial District, and M3 , General
Industrial District, zones that would make
meat and seafood processing principally
permitted uses in these zones.
I. BACKGROUND
The regulatory review process was set up by the City Council
to permit interested persons to submit concerns and proposals
related to Kent Zoning Code and Ordinances.
The first step in the process is to fill out a form entitled
City of Kent Regulatory Review. A number of questions are
listed on the form. The interested public submits the
completed form to the Planning Department and a staff report
is prepared on the proposal. This staff report is then sent
to the Planning Commission for their review. The Commission
then decides whether or not to proceed with public hearings
on the request. An appeal to the City Council Planning
Committee may be made for those requests with which the
Planning Commission decides not to proceed. Planning
Committee meetings to consider appeals are held every three
months or as necessary.
II. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department considered the following facts in
relation to this regulatory review item:
Staff Report
Meat Processing in M2
#ZCA-89-1
Existing situation in M2 . Limited Industrial District and M3 .
General Industrial District:
The Kent Zoning Code currently states that the purpose of the
M2 District is to "provide areas suitable for a broad range
of industrial activities whose characteristics are of a light
industrial nature. " The stated purpose of the M3 District is
to provide areas suitable for the broadest range of industrial
activities, and to specify those industrial activities having
unusual or potentially deleterious operational
characteristics, where special attention must be paid to
location and site development. "
Specialp permit uses in the M2 District include (1) gasoline
service stations and (2) nursery schools and day care
facilities. There are no special permit uses allowed in the
M3 District.
Accessory uses in both M2 and M3 Districts include accessory
uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to principally
permitted uses.
Conditional uses in the M2 District include (1) any
principally permitted use that is conducted out of doors, (2)
any principally permitted use whose operations involve the
repair, rather the manufacture, of products, (3) retail and
service uses that exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area
of any development, (4) general conditional uses as detailed
below, (5) the manufacture of paint, (6) principally permitted
uses in the M3 District, (7) automobile service centers and
(8) separation and recovery of recyclable materials for solid
waste.
Conditional uses in the M3 District include the manufacture
and processing of such things as chemicals; concrete;
petroleum products; animal and food products, which includes
meat and seafood packaging, freezing, curing and canning,
rendering of animal or fish grease, slaughtering and stockyard
operations and pickling and brine curing processes. Also
listed as conditional uses for this zone is the storage of
petroleum products, explosives and fertilizer or manure.
General conditional uses as outlined below are also
conditional uses in this zone.
General conditional uses, as stated in Section 15. 08 . 030B of
the Kent Zoning Code, are permitted in the M2 and M3
Districts. These uses generally fall into several broad
2
Staff Report
Meat Processing in M2
#ZCA-89-1
categories that include the following: utility,
transportation and communication facilities; public facilities
(i.e. , schools, libraries, governmental agencies) ; open space
uses and uses such as churches, retirement homes and welfare
facilities.
III. DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
An informal telephone survey was conducted of four cities in
the area to determine what zoning districts allowed uses
involving meat and seafood processing. All the jurisdictions
surveyed differentiated between meat and seafood
manufacturing, processing and packaging and uses that involved
slaughtering and rendering. In all of the jurisdictions, the
former was permitted outright and the latter required
conditional use permits in industrial zones.
The applicant has presented several arguments for allowing
meat and seafood processing and packaging outright in the M2,
Limited Industrial District, zone. The arguments are listed
below, with a Planning Department comment after each.
Applicant Argument
The principally permitted uses listed in the Kent Zoning Code
for the M2 , Limited Industrial District, zone are illustrative
of the allowed uses and are not intended to be exclusive.
Since the proposed use is similar in nature to these uses, it
should be allowed also.
Planning Department Comment
It is the opinion of staff that uses involving meat and
seafood manufacturing, processing, packaging and freezing uses
that do not include slaughtering, rendering or curing would
not be counter to the stated purpose of the M2 or M3 zones.
The objectionable characteristics of slaughtering (noise,
sanitary sewer discharges) , rendering (odor, sanitary sewer
discharges) and curing (odor) would not occur to the same
degree in uses where a previously treated meat or seafood
product is processed and packaged.
Applicant Argument
The proposed change would not affect related ordinances,
regulations, plans and policies.
3
Staff Report
Meat Processing in M2 -
#ZCA-89-1
Planning Department Comment
Staff feels that making meat and seafood products processing,
packaging and freezing a principally permitted use in the M2
and M3 zones would not affect related ordinances, regulations,
plans and policies, as these uses would not be more intensive
than other uses already allowed as principally permitted uses
in the M2 zone.
IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A. Staff feels that allowing uses that involve the cooking
and packaging of previously slaughtered meat and seafood
products as principally permitted uses, while retaining
those that involve slaughtering, rendering, curing or
canning as conditional uses would not compromise the
stated purpose of the M2 zone.
B. The M3 , General Industrial District, zone allows as
principally permitted uses all those uses that are
principally permitted in the M2 zone, as well others that
are more intensive than those in the M2 zone. Therefore,
staff feels that meat and seafood processing (without
rendering) , packaging and freezing should be principally
permitted uses in the M3 zone as well.
C. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) would
require a waste discharge permit that would regulate the
amount of animal fats and greases discharged into the
sanitary sewer. Excessive wastes of this kind would need
to be taken off-site for pretreatment and/or rendering.
V. ALTERNATIVES/ACTIONS
The Planning Department staff has considered the request and
offer the following options for review and consideration.
A. Allow as Principally Permitted Use. Under this
alternative, meat and seafood products processing
(without rendering) , packaging and freezing would be a
principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones.
Activities involving slaughtering, rendering, and curing
would remain as conditional uses in the M3 zone. This
is the staff' s preferred alternative for the following
reason:
4
Staff Report
Meat Processing in M2
#ZCA-89-1
Meat and seafood processing, packaging and freezing
does not have the same objectionable impacts as
slaughtering, rendering and curing of meat and
seafood products. The nature of the former is
consistent with other principally permitted uses in
both the M2 and M3 zones.
B. Allow as Conditional Use. Under this alternative, meat
and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing
would be added as a conditional use in the M2. zone. A
conditional use must go through the public hearing
process and review by the Kent Hearing Examiner prior to
being allowed to develop in this zone.
C. No Action. Under this alternative, the uses (both
principally permitted uses and conditional uses) in the
M21 Limited Industrial District, and M3, General
Industrial District, zones would remain the same as
existing conditions. Meat and seafood products
packaging, freezing, curing, canning and processing and
rendering and slaughtering activities would not be
allowed in the M2 zone and be conditional uses in the M3
zone.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing this request, the information available, the
above options and the likely adverse impacts on land uses
located in, and adjacent to, M2 and M3 districts, the Planning
Department staff recommends that the principally permitted
uses in the M2 and M3 zones be modified to include meat and
seafood products processing (without rendering) , packaging and
freezing and the conditional uses in the M3 zone be modified
to delete same. Meat and seafood curing would still require
a conditional use permit.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 13 , 1989
5
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 27 , 1989
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7 : 30 p.m. on Monday, March 27 , 1989 in the Kent
City Hall, City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Raymond Ward
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Badger, excused
Anne Biteman, excused
Carol Stoner, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
Scott Williams, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1989
Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the February 27 , 1989
Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner
Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
MEAT AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING IN M2 AND M3 ZONES
Mr. Williams presented the proposal to amend the Kent Zoning Code
Section 15. 04 . 180 (A) to allow meat and seafood products
processing, packaging, freezing and canning as principally
permitted uses in the M2 , Limited Industrial, and M3 , General
Industrial, zones. Currently these uses require a conditional use
permit in the M3 zone and are not permitted in the M2 zone. Staff
felt that uses involving meat and seafood manufacturing,
processing, packaging and freezing, which would not include
slaughtering, rendering or curing, would not be counter to the
stated purpose of the M2 and M3 zones. The objectionable
characteristics of slaughtering (noise, sanitary sewer discharge) ,
rendering (odor, sanitary sewer discharges) and curing (odor) would
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 27 , 1989
not occur in the same degree in uses where a previously treated
meat or seafood product is processed and packaged.
The Planning staff offered the following options for review and
consideration:
Alternative A: Allow as Principally Permitted Use. Under this
alternative, meat and seafood products processing
(without rendering) , packaging and freezing would
be a principally permitted use in the M2 and M3
zones. Activities involving slaughtering,
rendering, and curing would remain as conditional
uses in the M3 zone.
Alternative B: Allow as a Conditional Use. Under this alternative,
meat and seafood products processing, packaging and
freezing would be added as a conditional use in the
M2 zone.
Alternative C: No action. Under this alternative, meat and seafood
products packaging, freezing, curing, canning,
processing, rendering and slaughtering activities
would not be allowed in the M2 zone and would be
conditional uses in the M3 zone.
! Glen Laney, Architect, Food Plant Engineering, Inc. , 1710 South
24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902 , representing his client, Harvey
Baer of King' s Command Meats, Inc. , commented that the request was
not for processing in the usual sense, but for the preparation of
the meat only.
Commissioner Greenstreet asked if he would be willing to obtain a
conditional use permit for this activity. Mr. Laney had no
objection to the conditional use permit requirement if an appeal
process were available.
Mr. Satterstrom commented that he did not feel that a conditional
use permit should be necessary for this type of use.
Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to amend the zoning code to allow meat and
seafood products processing, packaging and freezing as a
principally permitted use in the M2 zone. Commissioner Forner
SECONDED the motion.
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
March 27, 1989
Commissioner Forner felt that this use would be compatible with
other uses in the area, and a conditional use permit would create
unnecessary paperwork.
Commissioner Greenstreet did not feel that food processing should
be permitted outright in the M2 zone, because it may not be
suitable at every M2 site and the trucking and other support
activities of this use also would not be compatible with other uses
in the M2 zone. He did feel that this use would be suitable as a
conditional use in this zone and that this use was suitable
outright as an M3 use. He supported Alternative B.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner did not foresee any problems in this
specific case but considering future requests, she supported
Alternative B.
Commissioner Ward felt that the conditional use permit process
would be an expensive and unneeded one for food and seafood
processing. He supported the staff's Alternative A.
Commissioner Forner felt that food and seafood processing would be
more desirable than a dry cleaning operation in the M2 zone. She
supported Alternative A.
Chair Martinez felt that food processing would be compatible with
other uses in the area as long as slaughtering and rendering were
not part of the operation. She supported Alternative A.
Motion carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and Greenstreet
opposed the motion. )
Ms. McClung pointed out that the staff recommendation was to allow
food processing in both the M2 and M3 zones.
Commissioner Ward reworded the motion to state that meat and
seafood products processing, packaging and freezing be a
principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones according to staff
Recommendation A. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and Greenstreet opposed the
motion. )
3
a .
l
W
Y J Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION NO. CTZ-88-1
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This proposal includes three recommended
actions:
1. A text amendment of the zoning code creating a new zoning
designation, "Gateway Commercial"
2. Application of the new :ial Zone to an area
bordering the East V.
3 . Application of and �` 19� Lgnation to an area
bordering the SR at interchange. The
proposal stems from n (I , zdments to the Valley
Floor Plan adopted b) Lr t.'8•
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Planning Commission minutes (January 30,
February 13 , and March 20, 1989) , East Valley Zoning Study, staff
memo dated March 20, 1989, traffic summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission March 20 1989
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $NfA
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the East Valley Zoning Implementation No. CPZ-88-1
including a zoning code text amendment and application of zoning
as recommended by the Planning Commission and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
Kent City Council Meeting
' Date April 4 1989
} Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: RECYCLING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their meeting of March 17 , the Public
Works Committee approved a second monthly pick up of recyclables
and the cost of this second monthly pick up has been estimated at
$28, 080 per year. An analysis of the environmental mitigation
fund was completed which determined that adequate funds were
available to offset is program expansion. -The Operations
Committee will reviewyythis expenditure at their meeting on
March 31. „11r"_
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes excerpt, memorandum
to the Operations Committee, memorandum to Public Works Committee
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $28,080
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Environmental Mitigation Fund
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
1
Councilmember 1 moves, Councilmember r 'YI1'1``_seconds
that the Publi4) Works Director direct the City's recycling
contractor to institute a second monthly pick up for recyclables
with the funds for this program expansion to be taken from the
Environmental Mitigation Fund.
�vJ }
L'
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MARCH 22, 1989
TO:' Operations Committee
FROM: Don Wickstro4A
RE: Recycling Program Second Pickup
The attached documentation has been updated for your review. This
updated information includes a financial revenue forecast provided
by the Finance department which is $25,400 (17 .8%) higher than
originally budgeted. In addition, the Spring clean up has been
increased to reflect estimated costs based on current contract
negotiations.
The updated information suggests that Revenues will exceed
Expenditures in 1989 by $55, 878. This excess includes a net
$20, 000 surplus of funds due to a one time Recycling grant.
It therefore appears, a balance of $35,878 would remain available
for ongoing program expansions such as a Recycling program second
pickup.
cc: Mayor
City Council
Finance Director
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION FUND
SUMMARY FUND ANALYSIS
ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE AS PER FINANCE 3-17-89 $185, 000
REVENUES:
GARBAGE UTILITY TAXES (EST. ) $40, 000
RECYCLING GRANT ( oto7, 5704
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES:
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM (BUDGET) $17,515
SARA T III PROGRAM EST) , 611
(BBUDGGEY') $11$9 rG6&/'4,000 7$--
SPRINGSS N UP
`�
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROG. (BUDG $$25, 000
00
CHRIISTMASMTREEAPICKUP (ACTUAL) $2, 300
PUBLIC INFO. PROGRAM SET UP COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH RECYCLING GRANT $20,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
55,878
SURPLUS FUNDS FROM 1989 OPERATIONS $ &
2 y[o,E7 9
ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE 12-31-89 $ 8
aaaao=mac=
* RECYCLING GRANT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ARE A QUASI ONE TIME
GRANT ESTIMATED AT $20, 000 ANNUALLY OVER 3 YEARS. IT IS
ANTICIPATED
ADDITIONAL 4$20o000O REVENUE R 1988 AIS ANTICIPATED ND 1989 WILL ETOEBEI VED IN 9 •
RECEIVED IN
1990.
GARBAGE TAY INCREASED To REFLLLT FiNAr�1cE PK03ECTIDN of t48l
F-STIHATrp ACTUAI- REVENUE
MISC/EMF
C�EgNuP $uDGET FIGURE NAS BEEN �6�I4Ell 7v I'EF"LT A/J
`� SPRING SPRIn16-
ESTfmATE. or- coSTS , SASED oN cURRf.NT n16UoriRTIONS FOR
ANp paL L cLFANOP CONTRACT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 20, 1989
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom o
RE: Recycling Program Second Pickup
As requested by the Public Works Committee, attached is the
financial analysis of the Environmental Mitigation fund for the
1989 budget year.
This analysis illustrates that sufficient funds are available
in 1989 to proceed with the second recycling pickup at a cost
of $28 , 080 annually. This could be achieved in 1989 without
using the reserve fund balance. However, since $40, 000 of the
anticipated 1989 funding is due to a one time recycling grant
(an additional $20, 000 remaining to be collected in 1990) , it
appears in future years it may be necessary to increase the
garbage tax to avoid using portions of the fund balance. This
fund balance was originally reserved to provide for legal and
monitoring cost as well as possible future liability issues
associated with the landfill cleanups.
Since implementation of the second pickup represents a financial
obligation, in accordance with Council direction this matter
should probably go to the Operations Committee for their
concurrence.
cc: Mayor
City Council
f
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION FUND
SUMMARY FUND ANALYSIS
ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE AS PER FINANCE 3-17-89 $185, 000
REVENUES:
GARBAGE UTILITY TAXES (BUDGET) $142, 104
RECYCLING GRANT (EST. ) $40, 000
TOTAL REVENUES $182, 104
EXPENDITURES:
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM (BUDGET) $17, 515
SARA TITLE III PROGRAM (BUDGET) $11, 6ll
SPRING CLEAN UP (BUDGET) $9,000
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROG. (EST. ) $61, 200
LANDFILL MITIGATION (BUDGET) $25, 000
CHRISTMAS TREE PICKUP (ACTUAL) $2, 300
PUBLIC INFO. PROGRAM SET UP COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH RECYCLING GRANT $20, 000
(EST. )
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $146, 626
SURPLUS FUNDS FROM 1989 OPERATIONS $35,478
ESTIMATED ENDING BALANCE 12-31-89 $220, 478
* RECYCLING GRANT REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES ARE A QUASI ONE TIME
GRANT ESTIMATED AT $20, 000 ANNUALLY OVER 3 YEARS. IT IS
ANTICIPATED $40, 000 FOR 1988 AND 1989 WILL BE RECEIVED IN 1989.
AN ADDITIONAL $20, 000 REVENUE IS ANTICIPATED TO BE RECEIVED IN
1990.
MISC/EMF
Public Works Committee
(� March 17, 1989
Page 4
Recyclina
Wickstrom reported the hauler has quoted that if the participation
rate stays the same as current level (61-90%) , the rate to include
a second monthly pickup would be $1.96 per customer per month. The
current rate is $1.35 per customer per month. This would increase
the cost of the program by $28, 080 per year. Biteman moved the
second pickup be authorized and the funding be taken from the
mitigation fund. Woods seconded. Wickstrom pointed out the
mitigation fund was established to address the landfill closure and
cleanup needed. After some further discussion, the Committee
unanimously approved the motion. They requested an analysis of the
Environmental Mitigation fund be provided in their Council packet
for this item.
Budclet
The Committee determined they will review the Public Works proposed
1990 budget at their meeting on May 23 . Harris explained that the
Finance Director will be outlining the budget review program with
them at their workshop meeting on March 21.
Out of State Trip
Wickstrom explained we are requesting authorization for the
department's GIS coordinator to attend the oe Appropriate ems users'
Conference in Fort Collins, Colorado. App p
were
included and approved in our 1989 budget but they were not
specifically identified for an out of state trip. The Committee
unanimously approved the request.
J ham/
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (TBD) PROPOSED
BOUNDARY AND PROJECTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Projects, Priorities and Boundaries
Subcommittee of the Valley Transportation Committee has developed
a proposed boundary for a Transportation Benefit District and a
prioritized listing of needed transportation improvement projects
within that boundary. It is estimated that funds generated by
TBD of this proportion would finance approximately 50 percent of
the cost of those projects with a one or two priority rating.
King County would act as lead agency in the formation of this TBD
with administration (assuming the necessary State Legislation
passes) by a board comprised of representatives of each
participating municipality. This information is presented at
this time to gain concurrence of the Council with the proposed
boundary and project listing. The Public Works Committee has
recommended approval of the boundary and projects.
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the Public Works Committee minutes; a copy
of material prepared by the Projects, Priorities, and Boundaries
Subcommittee and a memorandum from the Director of Public Works.
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $SG-
SOURCE OF FUNDS:—Lay!
_Eay3xattalsz3 ���
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 1 moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the proposed boundary and prioritized project listing
as prepared by the Projects, Priorities and Boundaries
Subcommittee of the Valley Transportation Committee.
DISCUSSION: rk
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
w March 30, 1989
TO: CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR KELLEHER
FROM: DON WICKSTROM I
RE: TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (TBD)
The attached material has been developed by the Projects,
Priorities and Boundaries Committee of
t this ally Transme to ortation
Committee and is being presented to you a
if you concur with the general findings and direction the Committee
is taking toward establishment of a TBD.
Within the proposed boundary as delineated on the map included in
the packet needed transportation improvement projects have been
identified and prioritized. It should be noted that the Council ' s
high priority target issues of the 192nd/196th Corridor and
the
272nd/277th Corridor are included in that I'll, and 112" priority
array. The total cost of those projects given the 111" or 112"
priority is estimated to be $180 million. The revenue anticipated
to be generated from a TBD of this size would finance
app
oximately
half of the costs of the 111" and 112" category projects.
At this time, we are seeking Council concurrence of the proposed
boundary and prioritized listing of projects and general direction
being taken.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MARCH 28, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON BILL WILLIAMSON
STEVE DOWELL JIM HANSEN
DON WICKSTROM MARTIN NIZLEK
JIM HARRIS RANDY FELT
ED CHOW LYLE PRICE
Request to Use Drainage Easement - 4504 Somerset Lane
Williamson explained that Mr. Felt wanted to access the drainage
easement to gain access to his backyard and to possibly park a
recreational vehicle. Williamson referred to another similar
request but which was to use a walkway not drainage easement.
Williamson added there is a drainage flume in the center of this
access area approximately 20 feet in from Carnaby. Mr. Felt
clarified his immediate needs are to access his backyard for
periodic cleanup. At this time he does not own an RV but may be
an occurrence sometime in the future. His long term goal would be
to build a retaining wall about 10 feet from the access road and
level his lot. Williams explained further that the property owners
to the south of the access road actually own fee title to the road.
Dowell asked if it were possible for the City to give permission
if the neighboring owners gave permission for the access.
Williamson stated Mr. Felt would have to, independent of any permit
from the City, get permission from the other property owners or use
it adversely. Williamson brought up the point there were other
property owners who might request the same thing. Additionally
there are potential liability concerns with opening it up and the
City would have to ask Mr. Felt to coinsure us and hold us
harmless. Wickstrom added this is the only access to our retention
pond and any inadvertent blockage of the roadway could present
problems for maintenance. One possibility would be for the
property owners abutting this access road to form an LID for
roadway improvements making sure the road is structurally sound and
addressing the safety factors involving the drainage outlet.
Dowell moved to deny Mr. Felt' s request and that he explore the
possibility of an LID. The Committee approved.
Transportation Benefit District
Wickstrom explained the Valley Transportation Committee is
subdivided into several committees - Steering, Administration,
Finance and Projects, Priorities and Boundaries (PPB) Committees.
The PPB Committee has developed a project boundary for a TBD which
Public Works Committee
March 28, 1989
Page 2
Wickstrom demonstrated on a map for the Committee. The area has
an assessed valuation of $10 billion. Approximately $300 million
worth of needed transportation improvements have been identified
and prioritized within this area. Those projects given a 111" or
112" priority total approximately $180 million. It is estimated the
TBD could assist in funding approximately 50% of the costs of these
projects. The Steering Committee of VTC has approved the proposed
boundary and priority array. Wickstrom continued the intent is to
gain Council concurrence on the boundary and projects. He added
that the 277th Corridor, 192nd/196th Corridor and the 224th/228th
Corridor are included in the 111" and 112" categories. It was
determined to place this under Other Business on the agenda so it
can be opened for discussion. Wickstrom explained further, if
legislation goes through at the State level, King County would form
the TBD and the jurisdictions would determine the makeup of the
administrative board.
LID 330 - 64th Avenue Improvements - Interim Financing
Wickstrom explained in order to maintain the proposed construction
schedule for this project he would like to establish interim
financing prior to formation in order to continue with right of way
acquisition. It is estimated interim financing in the range of
$350, 000 would be required. Normally, interim financing is
automatically set up when an LID is formed. In this instance we
are requesting to establish interim financing prior to formation
so acquisition can proceed while we address the environmental
issues of the project. Dowell asked about the status of that.
Wickstrom indicated we had just hired a consultant to address the
impacts on the lagoon and come up with mitigation measures which
will be building the buffer, develop a plan for the 100 foot buffer
and come up with a plan to offset the habitat that we modify when
we build the buffer. The Environmental Committee seems to concur
with these measures. Dowell asked if there would be any problems
with establishing interim financing before formation. Wickstrom
explained the worst case would be that we would change the scope
of the project to two LIDS. It was clarified there would be no
construction around the lagoon until the buffer is built and the
habitat established. The Committee recommended approval of the
request and concluded to place this on Other Business on the
agenda. It was mentioned the school district wants to open their
new school in the area in the fall of 1990.
*0
King County
Division of Roads and Engineering
Department of Public Works
956 King County Administration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
(206)344-7490
March 15, 1989
TO: South County Area Transportation Benefit District (SCATBD)
Projects, Priorities, and Boundaries (PPB) Subcommittee
ATTN: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, City of Kent
Jerry Schutz, Development Planning Engineer, WSDOT
Mary Seabrands, City Engineer, City of Auburn
John Adamson, Program Development Coordinator, City of Renton
Bill Taylor, Executive Board, VATA
Rob Bernstein, Senior Transportation Engineer, PSCOG
Ross Earnst, Public Works Engineer, City of Tukwila
Carol Thompson, Market Development Planner, METRO
FM: Bill Hoffman, P.E. , Manager, Transportation Planning Section
RE: Display Materials for Agency Review
As promised in the February 24, 1989 meeting, I am sending each of you a copy
of the Projects, Priorities, and Boundaries revised draft recommendations.
The large size map of projects should also help in further review or any
presentations to your elected officials. Please make this information
available to the elected officials from your agency on the South County TBO
Steering Committee.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 296-6550 or Dave
Gualtieri, Transportation Planner, at 296-6593.
BH:DG: lh
Enclosure
cc: South County TBD Steering Committee
ATTN: Greg Nickels, King County
Pat Burns, Auburn
Steve Dowell, Kent
Mae Harris, Tukwila
Rick Walsh, Metro
Jim Billing, PSCOG
Bill Taylor, VATA
Bill Garing, WSDOT
Nancy Mathews, Renton
Kathleen Drew, Legislative Aide, King County Council
Tim Ceis, Legislative Aide, King County Council
Sandy Adams, Program Analyst
Louis J. Haff, P.E. , County Road Engineer
ATTN: Karleen Sakumoto, Manager, Program Development/Administration Unit
Steve Gorcester, Senior Project Manager
David Mark, Transportation Planner
David Gualtieri, Transportation Planner
TBD STEERING COMMITTEE (3115189)
The Honorable Greg Nickels 296-1008
King County Council
402 King County Courthouse
Seattle, WA 98104
The Honorable Pat Burns 931-3000
City Councilmember
City of Auburn
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
The Honorable Steve Dowell 859-3300 (general number)
City Councilmember
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue south
Kent, WA 98032
The Honorable Mae Harris 433-1800 (general number)
City Councilmember
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Mr. Rick Walsh, Manager 684-1619
Service P1ng. 6 Market Dev.
- Metro
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Mr. Jim Billing, Sr, Planner 464-5301
PSCOG .
216 First Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98104
Mr. Bill Taylor 226-3131 (work)
Executive Board, VATA 244-3160 (VATA)
c/o Longacres
Post Office Box 60
Renton, WA 98057
Mr. Bil1 Garing 562-4146
State Aid Engineer
Washington State Department of
Transp.
15325 Southeast 30th Place
Bellevue, WA 98007
The Honorable Nancy Matthews
City Councilmember
City of Renton
-. 200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
•.� Y J
Dist. for March 15, 1989 Memo w/Display Materials
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (SCATBD)
Projects, Boundaries, a Priorities (PBP) Subcommittee
• NOTE: .Does not include all PPB Subcommittee members
R. DON WICKSTROM, Director MR. ROSS EARNST, Engineer LOU HAFT
Department of Public Works Department of Public Works County Road Engineer
City of Kent City of Tukwila Roads Division
220 4th Avenue 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 9 A
Kent, WA 98032 Tukwila, .WA 98188
bM. JERKY SCHUTZ, Development MS'. CAROL THOMPSON, Market KARLEEN SAKUMOTO , Manager
Planning Engineer Development Planner Program Development/
Washington State Department of METRO Administration Unit
Transportation 821 2nd Avenue 9 A
15325 SE 30th Place Seattle, WA 98104
Bellevue, WA . 98007-6538 VALLEY AREA TRANSPORTATION SANDY ADAMS, Program Analyst
ALLIANCE Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 58591 9 A
Tukwila, WA 98188
PLR
STEVE GORCESTER
. MARV SEABRANDS
City Engineer Senior Transportation Planner
City of Auburn 9 A
25 W Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001
JOHN ADAMSON, Program MR. JIM BILLING DAVID MARK
Development Coordinator Senior Planner Transportation Planner
-ity of Renton Puget Sound Council of Transportation Planning Section
200 Mill Avenue S Governments 9 A
.Renton, WA 98055 Grand Central on the Park
}SR. BILL TAYLOR 216 1st Avenue' S DAVID GUALTIERI
Executive Board, VATA Seattle, WA . 98104 Transportation Planner
ongacres Transportation Planning Section
P.O. Box 60 9 A
Renton, WA 98057 -
i
'dF2. KATHLEEN DREW, Legislative Aide
RCB BERNSTEIN, Senior
Transportation Planner King County Council
7uget Sound Council of 4 CC
Governments -'
;rand Central on the Park
216 1st Avenue S TIM CEIS, Legislative Aide
Seattle, WA 98104 King County Council .
4 CC
4
SOUTH COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
DRAFT
Recommendations of the
Projects , Priorities and Boundaries
Subcommittee
February 28, 1989
SOUTH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
PROJECTS, PRIORITIES, AND BOUNDARIES (PPB) SUBCOMMITTEE
Membership: Bill Hoffman, King County, .Chair
Bill Taylor, VATA, Vice—Chair
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director, City of Kent
Jerry Schutz, Development Planning Engineer, WSDOT
Mary Seabrands, City Engineer, City of Auburn
John Adamson, Program Development Coordinator, City of Renton
J. Terry Lewis, Executive Board, VATA,
Rob Bernstein, Senior Transportation Engineer, PSCOG
Ross Earnst, Public Works Engineer, City of Tukwila
Carol Thompson, Market Development Planner, METRO
Purpose: The Projects, Priorities and Boundaries (PPB) Subcommittee was
formed to develop a technical evaluation and provide a draft
recommendation of projects to be considered for a South County
Transportation Benefit District.
Boundary: The original boundary was identified by the Valley Area
Transportation Alliance (VATA). This boundary represented an
approximation of the service benefit area for projects identified
in the GRVTAP report. The committee incorporated minor
modifications to the boundaries and agreed upon a general
boundary. Some minor modification have been added in recent weeks
to "fine tune" the boundary.
Projects: Project identified in the Green River Valley Transportation Action
Plan (GRVTAP) were used as the initial project list for the TBD
list. Agencies were asked to provide a list of major projects and
to eliminate local project. This project list was also
supplemented to include other projects outside of the
GRVTAP boundary but now within the TBD boundary. Metro provided a
list of projects which was coordinated with local agencies. These
projects were consistent with policies identified in the GRVTAP
report. The last addition were projects identified in recent
studies by local agencies and agreed to by the subcommittee.
Priorities The Committee decided it would be beneficial to have
and Costs: all projects evaluated with a common cost model and a priority
process. Several alternatives were explored and a decision was
made to use the existing King County cost model and priority
process. Project information sheets were prepared by each local
agency to assist with cost and priority calculations. When an
agency had more detailed information for costs then the local
agency figures were used.
South County Transportation Benefit District
Projects, Priorities, and Boundaries Subcommittee
Page Two
Project priorities were calculated using twenty criteria in six
main categories. The six main priority categories are: traffic,
safety, physical road character, road service, impact, and growth.
Project scores ranged from a low of 438 to a high of 833,
however, a score of 438 still represents a higher priority
project.
The final procedure was to group projects into five priority
categories. These groupings were initiated by VATA and refined by
the subcommittee.
The final results and draft recommendations of the PBP
Subcommittee are included in this packet. It is hoped this
information will be useful to the Finance Subcommittee and the
Steering Committee. The PPB Subcommitee will be available to
provide any refinements as needed.
SOUTH COUNTY TBD
PRIORITY Model Cumnul. Unfunded
Prof. Resp. GRV K.C. Cost Cost Unfunded Cumin. Percen
No. Agency PROJECT (limits) M TAP Score S(000) S Mill. S(000) S Mill. Funde
102* DOT/HET 1-5 8 SR-516 Interchange 1 0 2500 2.50 2500 2.50 0
105* DOT/MET SR-900 (S 128 St - 1-5) 1 0 1750 4.25 1750 4.25 0
12 Kent W Valley / S 212 St 1 HH 796 309 4.56 0 4.25 100
124* King Petrovitsky Rd (140 Ave 5E-151 Ave SE) 1 614 1528 6.09 1497 5.75 2
16 Renton Oakesdale (SW 28 - Sunset) 1 HH 678 5722 11.81 5722 11.47
18 Tukwila Southcenter Blvd (T-line - Grady) 1 HH 833 8932 20.74 4913 16.38 45
1B KC/ Ren S 192/196 (SR-167 - SR-515) 1 HH 689 6151 26.89 6151 22.53 0
1C Kent S 192/196 (W Valley SR-167) 1 HH 816 21492 48.38 21492 44.03
1D Kent S 196/200 (Orillia - W Valley) 1 HH 828 3704 52.09 3704 47.73
1E King S 200 Connector (Orillia - 1-5) 1 HH 678 3322 55.41 3322 51.05
1G* DOT/MET 1-5 2 SR-516 Vicinity (P&R Lot) 1 0 2400 57.81 2400 53.45 0
2A Aub/ KC SE 277 (SR-167 - 83 S (Auburn Wy N)) 1 HH 710 7435 65.25 6245 59.70 16
29 Auburn SE 277 (Auburn Wy N - Green River) 1 HH 770 2900 68.15 2900 62.60
2D Kent/KC SE 277 Ext (Green River - SR-516) 1 HH 805 12754 80.90 12754 75.35
3 Tukwila W Valley / S 180 St 1 HH 787 4892 85.79 4892 80.24
3 Kent W Valley / S 180 St 1 HH 787 0 85.79 0 80.24
31 Kent W Valley a S 196 St 8 S 228 St 1 H 649 423 86.21 0 80.24 100
36 King SE 277 (W Valley - SR-167) 1 H 579 1665 87.88 1665 81.91 0
42 Renton SW 43 IS 180) / E Valley 1 H 713 979 88.96 979 82.89
5 WSDOT SR-167 / SW 43 IS 180 St) Interchange 1 HH 735 500 89.36 500 83.39 0
54 Tukwila S 180 St RR Overxing 1 0 728 6982 96.34 6982 90.37
5* DOT/MET SR-167 a S 180 St 1 0 100 96.44 100 90.47 0
--..----..'------------------------•----------------------------------
104* DOT/MET SW Grady Wy 9 SR-167 2 0 1000 97.34 1000 91.47 0
108* DOT/MET 1-5 e S 272 St Interchange 2 0 2500 99.84 2500 93.97 0
123* King 132/140 Ave SE (SE 208 - Petrovitsky Rd) 2 518 5300 105.14 5300 99.27 0
126* Tukwila S. 178 St (S.Center Pkwy - 1-5) 2 747 3107 108.25 3107 102.38
13 King Carr (Talbot - 108 Ave SE) 2 HH 596 2702 110.95 2702 105.08 0
17 Renton SW 27 (W Valley - SR-167) 2 HH 759 8833 119.78 8833 113.91
1A King S 192/196 (SR-515 - 140 Ave SE) 2 HH 631 5591 125.37 5591 119.50 0
1F WSDOT 1-5/S 200 Connector/SR-509 Interchange 2 HH 713 10000 135.37 10000 129.50 0
2C King SE 277 Ext (Approx. 108 Ave SE - SR-18) 2 HH 770 15639 151.01 15639 145.14 0
2E WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext Interchange 2 HH 621 5800 156.81 5800 150.94 0
38 King 140 Ave SE (Pipeline Rd - SR-169) 2 H 692 3876 160.69 3140 154.08 19
41 Renton Edmonds (SR-169 - NE 3 St) 2 H 713 2668 163.36 2668 156.75
47 Tukwila Interurban (1.405 - 1-5) 2 H 719 3261 166.62 3261 160.01
6 DOT/Aub SR-164 ER StI, SR-164/SR-18 Interchange 2 HH 655 8000 174.62 8000 168.01 0
7 WSDOT SR-18 (Green River - SR-516) 2 HH 605 4100 178.72 4100 172.11 0
21 WSOOT SR-167 / SW 27 Interchange 2 H 528 5000 189.04 5000 177.11 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Kent E Valley (S 180 St - S 192 St) 3 HH 737 2680 177.30 456 177.56 83
121* King 132 Ave SE (SR-516 - SE 240 St) 3 500 3456 180.75 3456 181.02 0
14 King SE 208 St (116 Ave SE - 132 Ave SE) 3 HH 666 2339 183.09 0 181.02 100
19 Tukwila W Valley (Strander - 1-405) 3 HH 640 943 184.04 943 181.96
23 WSDOT W Valley (29 NW - S 277 St) 3 H 518 1801 185.84 1801 183.76 0
24 WSDOT W Valley (SR-18 - 15 NW) 3 H 482 1555 187.39 1555 185.32 0
Date 02-Mar-89 page 1 K.C. Transp. Planning
SOUTH COUNTY TBD
PRIORITY Model Cummul. Unfunded
Proj. Resp. GRV K.C. Cost Cost Unfunded Cumiul. Percen
No. Agency PROJECT (limits) 0 TAP Score S(000) S Mill. S(000) S Mill. Funde
--- ------- --------------------------------------- ___ -- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----
26 Auburn Kersey (R SE - S C/L) 3 H 667 2860 190.25 2860 188.18
29 Kent W Valley (S 180 St - S 212 St) 3 N 745 4429 194.68 0 188.18 100
2B• Aub/NET Auburn Way 8 S. 277 St 3 0 23 194.70 23 188.20 0
30 Kent W Valley (S 212 St S 238 St) 3 N 754 39% 198.70 0 188.20 100
32 Kent W Valley / James 3 H 684 466 199.16 0 188.20 100
33 Kent Lind SW E88 Ave] (S 180 St - E Valley) 3 H 736 660 199.82 660 188.86
39 Renton SE Puget Dr (Edmonds - SR-169) 3 H 724 10576 210.40 10576 199.44
3' Knt/MET SR-181 W S 180 St 3 0 50 210.45 50 199.49 0
4 WSDOT I-405 / SR-515 Interchange 3 HH 678 9000 219.45 9000 208.49 0
40 Renton SE Puget Dr (Jones - Edmonds) 3 H 675 897 220.35 897 209.39
45 Tukwila Tukwila Pkwy Ext (T-Line - W Valley) 3 H 736 5991 226.34 5991 215.38
48 Tukwila 57 S (S 180 St - S 200 St) 3 H 649 1617 227.96 1617 216.99
52 Tukwila Tukwila Pkwy (W Valley - SW 16 St) 3 0 644 3752 231.71 3752 220.75
59 Renton Rainier S 8 SR-167 3 0 816 5000 236.71 5000 225.75
8 Auburn 12 SE/BNRR Overxing/15 SW (A SE - C SW) 3 HH 770 7600 244.31 7600 233.35
9 Auburn Harvey (Auburn Wy - 8 Ave NE) 3 HH 702 1165 245.47 0 233.35 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Kent S 228 St (Russell - Military) 4 HH 609 8617 252.92 8617 241.96
120' Renton S 3 St Ext. (Main Ave S - SR-169) 4 0 7000 259.92 7000 248.96 0
122• King 132 Ave SE (SE 240 St - SE 208 St) 4 474 4084 264.01 4084 253.05 0
125• King SE 256 St (116 Ave SE - 132 Ave SE) 4 578 2860 266.87 2860 255.91 0
15 King SE 256 St (116 Ave SE - 132 Ave SE) 4 HH 658 1588 268.46 1588 257.49 0
34 Kent SE 240 St (108 Ave SE - 116 Ave SE) 4 H 719 1242 269.70 0 257.49 100
35 Kent S 224 St (SR-515 - SR-167) 4 H 586 8525 278.22 8525 266.02
43 Renton Park Ave N (Bronson Wy N - Garden Ave N) 4 H 719 3650 281.87 3650 269.67
44 Renton Lk WA Blvd (Park Ave N - 1-405) 4 H 649 6643 288.52 6643 276.31
46 Tukwila Interurban (1-5 - N C/L) 4 H 710 1748 290.26 1748 278.06
49 Kent/KC SE 256 St (SR-516 - 116 Ave SE) 4 H 640 1122 291.39 1122 279.18
50 Kent SE 240 St / 104 Ave SE 4 0 731 50 291.44 0 279.18 100
53 Tukwila S 188 Connector 4 0 690 4392 295.83 4392 283.57
60 Renton Lk WA Blvd (NE 44 - N C/L) 4 0 675 1054 296.88 1054 284.63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 WSDOT 1-5 / S 178 St Interchange 5 H 690 8000 303.83 8000 292.63 0
25 Auburn Oravetz (A SE - R SE) 5 H 438 2016 305.84 2016 294.64
37 King SE 240 St (116 Ave SE - 132 Ave SE) 5 H 596 2895 308.74 2316 296.96 20
51 King SE 128 St (138 Ave SE - 156 Ave SE) 5 0 588 956 309.70 0 296.96 100
55 Tukwila Minkler (W Valley - Oakesdale) 5 0 632 6201 315.90 6201 303.16
56 Tukwila S 154 (53 Ave S - C/L) 5 0 605 247 316.14 247 303.41
57 Tukwila Gateway Dr (SR-181 - SR-900) 5 0 690 2113 318.26 2113 305.52
58 Renton S 2 (Main S - Rainier S) 5 0 605 657 318.91 657 306.18
330.33 318.91 306.18
S MILLION
Notes: Projects not in priority order within priority groups
• Denotes new project addition
Date 02-Mar-89 page 2 K.C. Transp. Planning
C.
.0
White C=it
56Y
L
ent
0
Nonnandy M91.
Park I Ie.,
0'
C.
ff
Des MOi T1
L
El 0
FJ1,.j wad
An
DplNc
"
Pad
W
mlion ...
ti
TBD PIPosGlll pmj,,,u and Pr ooritias
TO Highest PrimitY
High Priority
SOUTH COUNTY TBD
Mar-03-89
Project Costs in Thousands
Priority Priority Priority Priority Priority
1 2 3 4 5
------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Auburn 79584 5,700 10,483 0 21016
Kent 31 ,573 0 1,166 179703 0
Renton 91776 11 ,501 16,473 18,347 657
Tukwila 169787 6,368 12,303 61140 8,561
King Co 17,498 32,372 3,456 91093 2,316
a33 ____
Agency Tot 831218 55,9 41 43,881 51,283 13,550
a C S @ a @=Qa
DOT/METRO 7,250 309700 12,356 0 81000
Grand Total $90,468 $86,641 $56,237 $512283 $21,550
AGENCY TOTALS
Auburn 25,783
Kent 50,442
Renton 567754
Tukwila 50, 159
King Co 64,735
WSDOT/METRO 58,306
a=vaaa
$306, 179
South County TBD
Assessed Valuation per Jurisdiction
24%
Auburn
® Kent
13%
20% ® Renton
® Tukwila
® King Co.
34%
9%
High Priority Needs per Agency
Priorities 1 & 2
No WSDOT/METRO Costs Included
Auburn
15% 22%
® Kent
10% ® Renton
® Tukwila
..•.•.•.•....................
® King Co.
17% 36%
i1
South County TBD
Assessed Valuation per Jurisdiction
24%
Auburn
® Kent
13%
20% ® Renton
® Tukwila
® King Co.
34%
9%
Project Costs by Agency
Priorities 1 , 2 & 3
No WSDOT Costs Included
18%
Auburn
20% ® Kent
13%
® Renton
® Tukwila
® King County
20%
29%
South County TBD
Assessed Valuation per Jurisdiction
24%
Auburn
® Kent
13%
20% ® Renton
® Tukwila
® King Co.
34%
9%
Total TBD Project Needs by Agency
Excluding WSDOT/METRO Costs
20%
Auburn
23% ® Kent
11 %
® Renton
® Tukwila
................... ............ King Co
PNq
20% 26%
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO SOUTH COUNTY TBD LIST Jan-20-89
Proj. Resp. PRIORITY Cost Cummul.Unfunded Percent
No. Agency PROJECT (Limits) X Score S(000) S Mill. S(000) Funded COMMENTS
--- =:. ----- ------ ------ ------ ---- -------------------
METRO PROJECTS
1G WSDOT/ 1-5 2 SR-516 Vicinity 1 0 2400 2.40 2400 0 At TBD Boundary
METRO Construct 300 stall P i R lot
28 Auburn Auburn Way 2 S. 277 St 3 0 23 2.42 23 0
/METRO Bus queue-jump lanes and NOV LT pocket
NB to WS
3 Kent SR-181 2 S 180 St 3 0 50 2.47 50 0
/METRO NOV LT Pocket, NO to W8
5 WSDOT SR-167 2 S 180 St 1 0 100 2.57 100 0 Incremental Cost $100 K
/METRO NOV Bypass lane- SO off-ramp from SR-167
102 WSDOT 1-5 2 SR-516 Interchange 1 0 2500 5.07 2500 0 At TBD Boundary
/METRO New NOV Ramp to I-5 center NOV lane
104 WSDOT SW Grady Wy 2 SR-167 2 0 1000 6.07 1000 0
/METRO NOV LT Pocket WS to S8 HOV quetx jump
lane on 1-405
105 WSDOT SR-900 (S 128 St - I-5) 1 0 1750 7.82 1750 0 Requires TBD bound. change
/METRO SO HOV lane (1 mile)
108 WSDOT 1-5 9 S 272 St Interchange 2 0 2500 10.32 2500 0 Requires TBD bound. change
/METRO New NOV ramps to/from North connecting
to I-5 NOV center lane
RENTON PROJECTS
120 Renton S 3 St Ext. (Main Ave S - SR-169) 4 0 7000 17.32 7000 0
Construct new road following RR ROW
KING COUNTY PROJECTS
121 King 132 Ave SE (SR-516 - SE 240 St) 3 500 3456 20.78 3456 0
Widen to 4 lanes, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
122 King 132 Ave SE (SE 240 St - SE 208 St) 4 474 4084 24.86 4084 0
Widen to 4 lanes, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
123 King 132/140 Ave SE (SE 208 - Petrovitsky Rd) 2 518 5300 30.16 5300 0
Widen to 4 lanes, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
124 King Petrovitsky Rd (140 Ave SE-151 Ave SE) 1 614 1528 31.69 1528 0
Widen to 5 lanes, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
125 King SE 256 St (116 Ave SE - 132 Ave SE) 4 578 2860 34.55 2860 0
Widen to 4 lanes, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk
TUKWILA PROJECTS
126 Tukwila S 178 St (SouthCenter Pkwy 4 1-5) 2 747 3107 37.66 3107 0
Widen Roadway
a
p O N r 4
a N LM w m n m
w
ro
H �
I H N
N ►� ►•� w w r Ln O 0
A7 C
N H H
n H C
a K
r ry
O O
C
Z
H
►C
� ro
vtntn .. HH morn a < tn ab 03x 0
� � E oX :3 1 rtwm rtaro rtc � Otol-• I O ro
1 N I O' 1, 1-. 7 n to t7 H O
• r- 0 1-• 5 m \ �- N 1 y H r to G 7 � r► ►• 7 N
�- ON rt O rr K to rt (n tD m n W m 17 f) ►3 m
�I a tD 1 0 SU • �1 I-j r N O m m p r• O H Z O
0 ::r I co _ �I m rt rt 0 to
xl m 5 I► to rr o f 'l a ] H. Z 0 0
c� %a m to•< N•c rr O a
] \ �- CD m :r rr m m O H
~' CD H
O H 0
rt O C4
z t1l
I I 1 t 1 J 1 rr F-+'p I Z C7 m to
0 0 0 m m z
r ^ 5 rt £ r H C1 A Z to O r C $R7 W E't7 x Z L.J. t7 r• rt " E 0 N
a 00c m a l I-• O M z " a O 00 0 m0 OtDc c 5 I w H
5 < < n I O to rt 7 E 1 r•n 7 < n < A < a m rt CL a o H y
rt m m a r 1 m A, 7C a "O tD L.J. = O ro
.n m 0 m r1 A m 5 O, M tT tD r O 1•- 7 .O rt a m I
O c •o I tD rt 0 0 �1 0 0 rt m rr ID a. F-. c 0 n 1 m H H
7 tD O to r• rt. C B = 'C7 • rT " v tD 71 m 1 i rt O N
G n m rr 6•< r 'a a rt rt N 7 C Oi n r• a Z H
H tD 7C fD 5 H N m Z I Z 1 tO M tD 7 rr C1 1-• a
I 1 m 1-• rS £ W Al M tz to Q rt m rt m I W M r H
A LJ. rr tD F" tD l7
Ifa " O ? m 0 0 O rt n y
�00 0 1 < O 7
m
F- N n 3 1-• IJ1 w r N n O N
N m " CoO O 111 .a
M H
r• w rtka 0 o Iy
1-• -- I• o 0 00
0 w =0 Cl y
r r a 0 r rl z C9
b �-' 1-• tii � tJ
O 5
O
t
z ap
O ►- rr 4
r* o 0
m ro
a
r•
... h
(D s
• n
rr
a
a
m
o
n N �7
r• I N
a w P. v+ O
(D VI N
a n ►�
E r K
ry �
r V
O
,T
ti
r
h
� NM O NH VI r+
•O V) ' I z rr 1 O
r( rr rr to r • to I n
o a m N-1 6< to y
•o " �11
O n N O M
to r" 7• N O Q, O
m a s J G v IZ
C+ W = N rr V) n
m ta • rr
M V7 O E
p rr O
7 ¢1 O
ro a
n
u.
(9 n C. z rr z V) p
n M 000 0)
rr c ►t *l \ E •v v
0 r• 0 rr h _
O �S rr - 0 0 O < N
r �G n < Xtj rr
7
• r•
r . 7 E = 7 W Y 7 NO
N R m •O n Z
• .: n to r•
rr r-•
+ r. (D
to W
+� 3 y B y I n Cr!
r• N r r n O N
r r• • c � H
o r 1 r toON
to O•y O• 1
S W 5 7 7 H
O y R Z CT1
N no
O y M
1
y
F+
co
' O
O
O
O
King Count}'
Division of Roads and Engineering
Department of Public Works
956 King count}•Administration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
(206)3"-7490
September 19, 1988
TO: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section
FM: Malva Slachowitz, Transportation Planning Assistant ,V�
RE: South County Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Assessed Values
The total 1988 assessed value of the proposed Transportation Benefit District
(TBD) is just under $10 billion. The table below shows a breakdown of the
value by jurisdiction.
Total Assessed Percent of Total
Jurisdiction Value — 1988 1 TBD Value 1
Auburn2 $1. 302. 3 million 13 7.
Kent $2, 399. 5 million 24
7
Renton $2,057. 1 million 21
Tukwila $ 869.8 million 9
Unincor . King County $3, 363. 5 million 34 7
Total TBD3 $9,992. 6 million 101 7.
MS:lh
cc: Dave Gualtieri, Transportation Planner
NOTES:
1 Figures from the original source were rounded to the nearest
100,000 before summing, and percentages were rounded to the
nearest whole number.
2 Includes the small portion of Auburn outside the TBD, which is of low
assessed value.
3 The TBD boundaries were extended to the nearest whole section line
in order to calculate assessed values.
SOURCE: King County Department of Assessments
j�
Kent City Council Meeting
4j Date April 4 . 1989
�i Category Other Business
7 1. SUBJECT: LID 330 - 64TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS - INTERIM FINANCING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee has recommended
approval of the request to establish interim financing for this
LID prior to formation so that right-of-way acquisition can
continue while the environmental concerns regarding the lagoon
property are being addressed. It is estimated that right-of-way
acquisition costs could approximate $350,000 during this interim
period. The Public Works Committee has recommended approval of
the request.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes, memorandum from the
Director of Public Works
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $350,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Interim financing LID
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_�. Z', moves, Councilmember seconds
that interim finsaCn' cing be established for LID 330 - 64th Avenue
improvements.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4G
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 24, 1989
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don WickstromQJ'Q)
RE: LID 330 - Interim Financing
The normal timing to establish interim financing for an LID is
after the LID has been formed. In this case, the LID has been
placed on hold until we address the impacts of the project on the
lagoon property. We have had no protests from the property owners
on the formation of the LID and the Environmental Committee does
not object to phasing of the construction.
However, in order to be able to do any street construction this
construction season, we need to continue with the acquisition
process. As such we are proposing to establish interim financing
in the amount of $350,000 for acquisition and are requesting the
Finance Director be authorized to establish same drawing from
available City funds.
Public Works Committee
March 28, 1989
Page 2
Wickstrom demonstrated on a map for the Committee. The area has
an assessed valuation of $10 billion. Approximately $300 million
worth of needed transportation improvements have been identified
and prioritized within this area. Those projects given a "1" or
112" priority total approximately $180 million. It is estimated the
TBD could assist in funding approximately 50% of the costs of these
projects. The Steering Committee of VTC has approved the proposed
boundary and priority array. Wickstrom continued the intent is to
gain Council concurrence on the boundary and projects. He added
that the 277th Corridor, 192nd/196th Corridor and the 224th/228th
Corridor are included in the 111" and 112" categories. It was
determined to place this under Other Business on the agenda so it
can be opened for discussion. Wickstrom explained further, if
legislation goes through at the State level, King County would form
the TBD and the jurisdictions would determine the makeup of the
administrative board.
LID 330 64th Avenue Improvements - Interim Financing
Wickstrom explained in order to maintain the proposed construction
schedule for this project he would like to establish interim
financing prior to formation in order to continue with right of way
acquisition. It is estimated interim financing in the range of
$350, 000 would be required. Normally, interim financing is
automatically set up when an LID is formed. In this instance we
are requesting to establish interim financing prior to formation
so acquisition can proceed while we address the environmental
issues of the project. Dowell asked about the status of that.
Wickstrom indicated we had just hired a consultant to address the
impacts on the lagoon and come up with mitigation measures which
will be building the buffer, develop a plan for the 100 foot buffer
and come up with a plan to offset the habitat that we modify when
we build the buffer. The Environmental Committee seems to concur
with these measures. Dowell asked if there would be any problems
with establishing interim financing before formation. Wickstrom
explained the worst case would be that we would change the scope
of the project to two LIDs. It was clarified there would be no
construction around the lagoon until the buffer is built and the
habitat established. The Committee recommended approval of the
request and concluded to place this on Other Business on the
agenda. It was mentioned the school district wants to open their
new school in the area in the fall of 1990.
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date April 4 . 1989
Category Bid Opening
1. SUBJECT: SEVEN OAKS PARK CONTRACT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Five bids were received for the Seven Oaks
Park Development with low bid submitted by Terra Dynamics Inc. of
Seattle. The Department and landscape architect firm, Collie
Hough Associates, recommend award of the base bid and alternates
1 and 2 in the amount of $64,900 to Terra Dynamics Inc.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tabulation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Collie Hough Associates and Park Department
Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $64.900 plus tax
SOURCE OF FUNDS: East Hill Park Capital Improvement Funds
6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember l moves, Councilmember W-00 seconds
that the contrabt in the amount of $64,900 be awarded to Terra
Dynamics Inc. for the Seven Oaks Park Development Project.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: Q-
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
nD I oL m w
o � (D mvwm cOoowfu
r 3 con M� 1 m m
SN £nw O - Mo on 0 ovl M �
O n DO' I70 •7 x x�G I
LO _ N o I
s u� Ip> > rt r1'n a iD 1
DImn r' A £o na 00 n�s a co Gm n�
I
0 N O w covn
0 CD O
' —1
£ OD co p
p I
W < N• n1 O
N M Ol O In 0 1 d
H F
mmmLA
w Oo m Ol w I rm�c m rn cn w I m b OO OO O O A O I O
I
I
I
1
1
tM tH ,
it
Ol of V V 00 (D
-+ O O OD O
C3 1
O to O O In O 1
1
I Z
O1 0 CDw m i
o cn a o �+ CDv f")b
z r I•i SC
-q 7C W
A A A to V A I W —I PI j N 1-4
m O a v
O O O O O O .y,.• m •n �'c a
ca
l< z m C
I A V J p .-1
y A�
1 M�el7
i NJ �c $aO
I 3 0 3 y M 2
tr 0l 2ZCD
iN -O•Im3
N ov
• 1
1
A
I S
. I
I
1 V
I
O
D
I "I
i m
I
1 3
1 N
' I A
I �
1 IV
1 r ao
I
� ao
O 00
1 N m
1 C
i 3
N
I W
I
1
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
KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
March 7, 1989 4:00 PM
Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present
Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson
Steve Dowell Lin Ball
Jon Johnson Fred Satterstrom
City Administration Other City Staff
Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator Cheryl Fraser
Jim Hansen John Marchione
Tony McCarthy
Others Present Helen Wickstrom
Sharon Atkin
Dick Ballinger
Bill Carleton
Judy Clegg
Mary Eckfeldt
Dick Foslin
Kathy Hall, Valley Daily News
Dee Moschel
Leona Orr
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMO PROJECT - RESOLUTION
Chairwoman Woods confirmed that the resolution will move forward to the
Council with herself and Councilman Johnson in favor and Councilman Dowell
opposed. In response to Councilman Dowell, Chairwoman Woods, Fred
Satterstrom, and Dick Ballinger of HUD indicated that HUD would consider the
PUD option concurrent with their study of the project feasibility.
Councilman Dowell requested that this item be removed from the Consent
Calendar at the Council meeting of March 7. Leona Orr requested that staff
provide a brief explanation of the project/resolution at the Council meeting;
she has had several citizens inquire about it. Staff agreed to be prepared
for a presentation. Dick Ballinger indicated that project architect Eric
Campbell would be present at the Council meeting.
FUNDING BASE - HUMAN SERVICES
Chairwoman Woods announced that no action would be taken on this item at this
meeting and that it would be pulled from the Council agenda of March 7 in
order to further examine the issue. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to
pursue a Council resolution rather than an ordinance to establish a goal for
funding human services but at the same time allow flexibility in the budget.
Lin Ball iterated that this item had been continued from the last Planning
Committee meeting. In addition, the Human Services Commission had broached
the subject at a Council workshop last year in order to establish a
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1989
predictable way to fund human services and bring available funding in line
with agency requests and needs in the community. In 1988 and 1989 the
funding level was 47% and 57% respectively of what was requested. The Human
Services Commission has recommended a funding level of one percent (1%) of
the General Fund Budget.
Human Services Commission Chairman Eckfeldt identified two issues: a) the
method by which the percentage funding base would be established, i.e. ,
resolution or ordinance, and b) the threshold level of funding of human
services (1% is recommended by the Human Services Commission) . He indicated
that by establishing a threshold funding level, the Council would be making
a statement of continuing support of human services. In addition, there
would be a predictable base upon which to operate in this area; the process
would be less political by not requiring the Human Services Commission to
lobby for funds each year. This could result in less pressure on the City
Council from various agencies. However, this funding level would not exclude
grants above the threshold level should the need arise. The Human Services
Commission would be able to focus with the agencies on the review process
rather than on justifying the entire funding amount each year.
Human Services Commissioner Carleton stated lie has lived in Kent for over 30
years. The community has a good spirit because of the people's caring
attitude and pride. Kent is a leader in supporting the schools and human
services.
Human Services Commissioner Foslin stated that when one uses revenues, it is
important to focus one' s management ability on using those revenues in the
best way. Having a predictable funding base would allow the Human Services
Commissioners the freedom to focus their skills on how to use the money and
how to best support the human service agencies.
Human Services Commission vice Chairwoman Moschel stated that having a stable
funding base for human services recognizes the importance of those services.
In addition, it allows the Human Services commission to assist agencies in
leveraging other dollars. To lobby and fight for funding takes energy which
could otherwise be used in assisting the agencies in becoming more efficient
in managing their funding. She believes it would be a disservice to Kent not
to reach a point where one would no longer need to go through a political
process to lobby for human service dollars.
Human Services Commissioner Atkin stated the Human Services Commission has
worked hard at making funding recommendations. It is more difficult to make
their recommendations when the Commission doesn't know what dollars are
available. Some agencies believe the Commission is keeping them from having
a specific level of funding and they feel they need to go around the
Commission and directly to the Council to request funding. This presents a
bad atmosphere. Ms. Atkin stated the Commission has had to focus on how much
the Council will authorize rather than on what the human service needs are
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1989
in the community.
Councilman Dowell noted that the budget changes from month to month. He
clarified that the one percent would be calculated on the previous year's
final budget. Finance Director McCarthy repeated that the 1990 human
services funding level would then be based on the 1988 final budget.
Chairwoman Woods responded to Councilman Dowell that the Human Services
Roundtable is a separate item from this funding base.
Finance Director McCarthy is concerned that establishing a threshold level
of funding for human services takes away the budgetary priority setting from
the City Council. He wondered where human services funding would be found
in a lean year when perhaps other department budgets would need to be cut.
He does not believe that if the Council established a funding level via
ordinance, they would want to renege on that amount when times are lean.
Chairman Eckfeldt responded that if other departments would need to be cut
10%, he assumes the Human Services Commission funding base would be cut an
equal amount. He would like to discuss this issue further with Mr. McCarthy.
Councilman Johnson stated the Council, Mayor and staff need to plan for new
programs during the budget setting process rather than adopt the budget for
the year and then introduce new programs. He supports the proposal for human
services but would like to adopt only the concept now and let the Council
determine the level of support during the budget process.
Chairwoman Woods added that the Council Target Issues should be decided early
enough to be incorporated into the budget planning process. At their
retreat, the Council reaffirmed a commitment to human services and agreed to
set about determining the funding formula. The Human Services Commission has
worked this issue over a period of time and studied several options. She
believes there is a commitment to the Human Services Commission to proceed
and come up with a statement providing a direction in this regard, perhaps
not at the level suggested.
Acting City Administrator Harris reiterated that the City Council at their
retreat did support the concept of support for Human Services Commission
activities. Predictability in funding is essential; if human services is
going to be supported, it needs to be supported with a firm financial
footing. The Human Services Commission is different from other departments;
the Commission does not have staff; their funding recommendations directly
support agencies in the community. There are other dollars in the Health &
Human Services budget that do not relate to agency support; they relate to
such things as Seattle-King County Health Services, King County Alcohol
Services, PSAPCA, items supported by contract. Other departments generally
know they will continue to be supported. Predictability in funding comes
about by some mechanism that appears fair over time.
Councilman Dowell noted the City Council needs to resolve that they recognize
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1989 "
and appreciate the efforts of the Human Services Commission regardless of
the outcome on this issue. The Council feels indebted to the Commission for
the work they are doing.
Chairwoman Woods would like an update on this issue at the meeting on March
21st. She requested that staff break out from the Health & Human Services
budget the mandated costs versus those funds directly under the jurisdiction
of the Human Services Commission recommendations. She proposed Committee
action on this item at the meeting of April 4th.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE
Lin Ball noted that Phase II of the Roundtable Planning Project is at its
end. Members of the Roundtable are meeting twice in March to discuss
extension of the Roundtable itself and implementation of the action agenda.
Councilman Mann, Kent's representative at the Roundtable, will seek direction
from the Council on whether Kent desires to continue to participate in the
Roundtable.
Judy Clegg, Director of the Roundtable Planning Project, recapped the focus
and work of the Roundtable. It began in March 1988 as a one-year planning
effort to identify key human service problems and to look at solutions which
are feasible through the efforts of this unique group. Phase I of the
project involved geographic work groups which identified key human service
problems within their areas. Then, problems common to all areas were
identified. The purpose of the Roundtable was to take the problems in common
and lend the influence and capability of the Roundtable to solve those
problems. Five regional problems were identified: a) child care, b)
affordable housing, c) health care, d) employment, and e) family support.
A regional task force was formed to identify the types of solutions at which
the Roundtable was in a unique position to look. The regional solutions are
predicated on local jurisdictions pulling together the infrastructures for
their community-based agencies. The Roundtable officials are looking at ways
to not only support their local human service needs but also to make gains
through a regional effort in larger schemes. The regional task force looked
at where to invest now to reduce costs down the line, i.e. , early
intervention. They proposed an action agenda with a series of specific
strategies; this information was distributed in the agenda packet. For the
most part these strategies involve taking an existing agency or mechanism and
looking at making it work for what is needed locally. In addition, how can
the prestige and influence of the Roundtable be used to bring consistency
around the county to the response to issues such as family violence? The
regional task force looked also at generating additional revenues to fight
the human service problems. They recommended a tax on jet fuel for
commercial airlines and a property tax levy. It was projected that $16
million would be needed to implement specific actions in the five problem
areas on an annual basis.
4
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1989
Councilman Mann will need to present feedback to the Roundtable on Kent's
response to the content of the action agenda, the five problem areas and the
recommended solutions. In addition, he will need feedback on whether Kent
wishes to continue as a member of the Roundtable, whether the Roundtable
should continue and in what form. If it is decided to go ahead with the
action agenda, the Roundtable either can use staff from participating
jurisdictions or can continue with the project management staff who will look
at financing options and start work in the five problem areas. The
Roundtable needs to know not only if it should continue, but at what level
it can be supported.
Lin Ball stated that the proposed level of continued participation by Kent
is approximately $13, 800. This is based on Kent's percentage of
participation last year times the costs identified for the project. Judy
Clegg indicated project staff is continuing to refine the cost estimates.
For example, the Local Initiative Support Corporation, an offshoot of the
Ford Foundation, provides technical assistance to people looking at community
development, at developing affordable housing. They are interested in
working with the Roundtable and private developers at their cost to put
together a strategy to address an equitable solution to siting affordable
housing. This would save the project an estimated $45, 000.
Chairwoman Woods appreciates the clear identification of five problem areas
and the overall productivity of the Roundtable group.
Lin Ball stated the Human Services Commission is planning a special meeting
to address this issue and will bring forward a recommendation to the Planning
Committee at the meeting of March 21. The Roundtable issue will be on the
Council agenda that same evening.
SPECIAL POPULATIONS KITCHEN REHAB. - BLOCK GRANT PROJECT
Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to approve
the reallocation of Block Grant funds to rehabilitate the Resource Center
kitchen. Motion carried. Cheryl Fraser stated that the kitchen
rehabilitation will allow classes for the physically disabled as well as for
the low-income citizens in the neighborhood. This item will be placed on the
City Council agenda of March 21 under Other Business. Public notice will be
given.
ADDED ITEM
Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to present
to the Planning Commission a code amendment related to public notice boards.
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 PM.
5
sari e , ensen
City Clerk
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES �4�'}\ � i
MiAR 2 i 9f J
March 15, 1989
C! : i, N T
r i-y CL'_=nii
Councilmembers Present: Steve Dowell, Chair; Judy Woods; Jon
Johnson.
Staff Present: Barney Wilson, Tony McCarthy, Norm Angelo,
Alana McIalwain, Nancy Leahy, Helen
Wickstrom, Jack Ball, Lori Hogan, Neil
Sullivan, Patrice Thorell, Cheryl Fraser,
John Marchione, Pam Rumer, Karen Michel,
Doreen Higgins.
Others Present: Grace Hiranaka, Kent Arts Commission;
Thomas Nisbett, Planning and Management
Consultant.
Golf Carts for Riverbend Golf Course
Neil Sullivan requested the Committee's approval to lease 30 "golf
carts to be used at the new Riverbend Golf Course. Sullivan
reported that the carts chosen are fuel efficient and are best
suited to the needs of the department. Wilson explained that the
carts have been budgeted for in the golf course budget-- the
department waited to lease them so that staff would have adequate
time to decide what type of cart they wanted.
The item will be placed onto the March 21 Consent Calendar in the
form of a resolution.
Golf Course Opening Update
Wilson reported that everything is on schedule and explained the
registration process for the tournament. The first day of
registration will be April 17, and walk-ins will have first
priority. Wilson explained that everyone who receives information
on the golf course opening will be informed that walk-in
registrations will be processed first.
Park and Recreation Service Area
Wilson introduced Thomas Nisbett, Planning and Management
Consultant, to discuss facts and answer questions regarding the
formation of a Park and Recreation Service Area. The Committee
discussed the pros and cons in detail. Tony McCarthy and John
Marchione were present to answer any financial questions that
arose.
Park Committee Minutes
Page 2
March 15, 1989
Woods commented that a service area seems to be the only answer to
maintaining a reasonable level of service. 75% of the people who
make use of Parks programs and facilities are King County
residents-- only 25% reside within the City limits.
The Committee was in full agreement that the next step is to meet
with King County and have them perform a feasibility study. Dowell
suggested an informal meeting with the full Council in order to get
some direction.
Councilmembers Dowell, Woods and Johnson gave the Committee their
full support in this endeavor and urged the department to continue
investigating the idea.
(Copies of handouts distributed at the meeting are available upon
request. Call the Parks Department at 859-3992 . )
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE f
MARCH 17, 1989 MAR 2 11989
CIF OF 4KENT
rITY CLERK
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON MARTIN NIZLEK
JUDY WOODS JIM HANSEN
BERNE BITEMAN ROD FREDERIKSEN
DON WICKSTROM NORM ANGELO
JIM HARRIS JED ALDRIDGE
BILL WILLIAMSON
Council Parking
Jim Harris stated this item was brought to his attention when one
of the Council members was issued a parking citation for parking
in a space designated for City vehicles. Council members currently
have a typed up parking permit they can clip to their mirror.
Harris presented a suggested format for an official parking permit
for Council members. Rod Frederiksen added his concern is that the
current parking permit has no designation that it is for the City
of Kent. Harris recommended the parking ordinance be amended to
allow this and to develop an official permit for Council members.
The Committee unanimously approved.
Canyon Drive Improvements
Wickstrom explained there are three issues involved in this item -
one would be authorization to apply for FAUS funding which is a
"housecleaning " item; second would be the reinstallation of pylons
and the third issue would be the jersey barriers. Nizlek reviewed
the findings of his study which are detailed in his memo made a
part of these minutes. He added that a different type of pylon
has been tested but has not held up well. He will continue to
investigate other types of pylons but it might be there is nothing
available that might be better than what we have previously had. '
The proposed design is to install reflectorized Duncan bars on 5-
6 foot centers with pylons installed every 40 feet. Biteman
inquired about the possibility of using c-curb instead of pylons.
It was determined they would possibly create greater traffic
hazards. Biteman asked what the reflectors would do. Nizlek
responded they would indicate to the drivers not to cross the
centerline. The Committee unanimously approved the reinstallation
of the pylons.
Johnson suggested that staff apply for FAUS funds to include the
jersey barriers in the project and to also include the funds in the
Public Works Committee
March 17, 1989
Page 2
1990 budget and not authorize the expenditure now. That would
allow time to analyze the accident count to determine if we do want
to install the barriers permanently. The question of leasing the
jersey barriers was raised. Staff responded that those that are
moved from site to site are usually owned by a contractor and are
construction-site treatment and are not permanently installed. If
barriers were installed on Canyon they would have to be tied down.
It was confirmed that it will take a minimum of 4-5 months to
acquire the necessary right of way to widen the road sufficiently
to allow the barriers. That time period could be extended if
acquisition did not go smoothly. Wickstrom clarified we currently
have FAUS funding for this project; however, he was not sure if
they would approve a change in scope of the project for additional
funding. Biteman moved to apply for FAUS funds for the barriers.
Johnson stated that White was concerned about the timing for
installation of the barriers. Wickstrom responded that the
barriers can not be installed until the roadway is widened, the
roadway can not be widened until we have acquired the necessary
right of way. That right of way acquisition is currently underway
but we are estimating it will be a minimum of 4-5 months, barring
any need for condemnation, etc. , before that acquisition is
complete. If it is necessary to pursue condemnation on any of the
parcels, this 4-5 month time period could possibly extend up to a
year. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. Angelo added
they have re-evaluated their response position on this issue.
While the barriers will present a delayed response for them they
will help to prevent the vehicle fatalities. He continued that the
demand for the East Hill station will not be caused solely by this
issue but this adds to the need and he will continue to press for
it. He wanted the Council members aware there will be times when
there will be delayed responses to their calls created by the
jersey barriers and the inability of his crews to cross over.
Weighing the two, he felt the recommendation of the Public Works
Department to install the jersey barriers was the best solution.
Responding to Johnson's question, Angelo clarified the turning
radius needed for the fire engine is such that they can't make the
maneuver without creating another unsafe situation such as a
traffic hazard or putting the engine in an unsafe position. Rod
Frederiksen added he continues to support a reduction in speed
limits, left turn pockets and the jersey barriers as a good
solution to avoid head-on collisions. The Committee unanimously
approved the motion.
The Committee unanimously approved the issue of applying for FAUS
funding and establishing a budget therefor with respect to the
existing project.
Public Works Committee
March 17, 1989
Page 3
ID 327 328 - Agreement with Metro for Bus Pullouts
Wickstrom explained that in conjunction with the West Valley
Highway improvement project, we have been working with Metro and
the State to include bus pullouts. Metro has agreed to pay for
one-third of the costs and the State will pay for one-third. A
copy of the draft agreement has been included with the Committee's
packet. Metro' s share will be approximately $118, 000. The
Committee unanimously voted to approve the Mayor's signature on the
agreement.
Intersection Concerns - 240th
Nizlek referred to and reviewed the findings of his study on this
item which is made a part of these minutes. For the situation at
100th, he would recommend the crossing guard exercise more
authority and will bring this to the attention of the School
District. Additionally, he recommends a marked crosswalk across
100th be provided and that the obstructions in the pathway be
removed and pavement markers be placed to delineate the edge of the
pavement. Wickstrom added there is some right of way which may
have to be acquired in order to do this. Biteman asked that the
School District be asked if this area would be one of their
priorities. The Committee unanimously recommended approval of
these recommendations.
Nizlek reviewed the findings of the study at 102nd. His
recommendations would be to attempt to shorten the signal cycle
length to move the traffic more quickly and provide more frequent
opportunities for the pedestrians to cross; continue to monitor the
traffic and pedestrian activity and work with the retail
establishments on their concerns. The Committee unanimously
approved these recommendations.
Nizlek reviewed the findings of the study of the 240th and 104th
intersection. His recommendation is to place the proposed caution .
signs on the north-south corners. It was noted that construction
of the 240th Street improvement project will alleviate some of the
problems noted at this intersection. Biteman suggested we review
the effects of these changes in approximately sixty days to
determine if anything further needs to be or can be done. There
was discussion about the location of the Metro bus stop. The
Committee unanimously approved placement of the two caution signs.
Public Works Committee
March 17, 1989
Page 4
Recycling
Wickstrom reported the hauler has quoted that if the participation
rate stays the same as current level (61-90%) , the rate to include
a second monthly pickup would be $1.96 per customer per month. The
current rate is $1.35 per customer per month. This would increase
the cost of the program by $28, 080 per year. Biteman . moved the
second pickup be authorized and the funding be taken from the
mitigation fund. Woods seconded. Wickstrom pointed out the
mitigation fund was established to address the landfill closure and
cleanup needed. After some further discussion, the Committee
unanimously approved the motion. They requested an analysis of the
Environmental Mitigation fund be provided in their Council packet
for this item.
Budget
The Committee determined they will review the Public Works proposed
1990 budget at their meeting on May 23 . Harris explained that the
Finance Director will be outlining the budget review program with
them at their workshop meeting on March 21.
Out of State Trip
Wickstrom explained we are requesting authorization for the
department' s GIS coordinator to attend the Deltasystems Users'
Conference in Fort Collins, Colorado. Appropriate funds were
included and approved in our 1989 budget but they were not
specifically identified for an out of state trip. The Committee
unanimously approved the request.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
March 16, 1989
TO: Public Works Committee and
Don Wickstrom, Director
FROM: Martin Nizlek, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Status of Traffic Investigations 240th from 100th to
104th
At your February meetings the subject intersections were the topic
of discussion. Traffic staff has carried out field investigations
of the traffic and pedestrian situation. The purpose of this memo
is to apprise you of my findings, actions which have been taken and
to recommend supporting actions.
100th
Findings -
1. Children use the westside of 100th as a school route Some
travel as far as a mile from subdivisions to the north. While
a 20 mph school speed zone can be placed, the length of the
restriction would result in violations of the speed
restrictions.
2 . No sidewalk exists along the west side of 100th. A gravel
path exists with obstructions to pedestrian movement (esp. in
groups) .
3 . Crossings east and west at the intersection of 100th and 240th
do occur but with a much lower volume. No marked crosswalk
is in place. Also, observation by staff indicates no
significant conflict by right turning vehicles from 100th
southbound to east bound on 240th.
Recommendations -
1. While the preferable solution for pedestrian movement along
100th north of 240th would be an LID for the placement of
sidewalk improvements with curbs and gutters on both sides,
a more affordable solution, however, would be to remove
obstructions and place pavement markers to delineate the path.
A cost estimate thereof has not been prepared at this time.
It should be noted that right-of-way acquisition may be
required. Potential funding could come from the $75, 000
presently budgeted for sidewalk improvements.
Status of Traffic Investigations
240th from 100th to 102nd
March 16, 1989
Page 2
2 . order
onstheenorthtsidedofo240the a marked cross-walk
at l0oth.
102nd -
Findings -
Complaints from Mrs. Justus and Fred Meyer have been investigated.
Mrs. Justus pointed out that pedestrian crossing time was
insufficient and there were conflicts from turning traffic. Fred
Meyer reported complaints from patrons of long delays waiting to
enter/exit.
Field observation and checks of our signal timings indicate the
following:
a. Additional time could be (and was) given to traffic turning
left into and out of Fred Meyer.
b. Pedestrians are witnessing long delays both because of the
length of the signal cycle time and because their need to
cross is not being conveyed to the signal system. This latter
situation may be from their not pushing the crossing button
or a problem with the button itself. We have not been able
to determine the cause.
C. The long signal cycle length is also presenting problems for
evening eastbound traffic desiring to enter the shops on the
north side of 240th across from Fred Meyer. Traffic stacking
to enter Fred Meyer blocks their ability to enter. These
stores have retained an attorney who has been requesting that
we mitigate the situation.
Recommendations -
1. Meet with retail establishments on north side of 240th and
explain feasible actions. (Note: requests to reduce the
length of the Fred Meyer turn pocket and place a two-way left
turn arrow date back to the opening of Fred Meyer in late
1988. To these requests we responded that the demand to/from
Fred Meyer would have to be observed after the holidays to see
what is realistically needed) .
2. In conjunction with what is found feasible at 104th (Benson) ,
seek to implement a shorter cycle length to reduce the delays
Status of Traffic Investigations
240th from 100th to 102nd
March 16, 1989
Page 3
to turning traffic and for pedestrians desiring to cross at
this point. (Note: staff shortages due to the loss of our
traffic signal technician at the end of the month may prolong
our ability to accomplish this) .
3 . Continue to monitor the traffic and pedestrian characteristics
at this location. (Note: Fred Meyer has been conditioned to
carry out a patron survey to evaluate their traffic impacts
for the corridor mitigation process) .
104th
Findings -
1. A pedestrian - auto conflict situation occurs when RTOR
drivers fail to respect the presence and right of way of the
pedestrian. A sign has been proposed to you which may
alleviate this problem.
2 . The configuration of 240th east of this intersection (a
narrowing) causes eastbound drivers to merge left as far west
as Fred Meyer. This greatly reduces the capacity of the
intersection of 240th and Benson Highway.
3 . One of the City' s serious accident locations may relate to the
above situations. At the driveways to Safeway and Thriftway,
east of 104th, we have more than a dozen accidents each year.
It is possible that the signal cycle length and the merge
situations described above contribute to this problem.
Recommendations -
1. Carry-out a survey of approximately 100 people to assure that
the previously recommended sign (see attachment) is understood
by the driver.
2 . Continue to place the 240th street improvement project this
construction season to widen 240th east of 104th thus
alleviating the merge problem and possibly help reduce the
accident problem.
Status of Traffic Investigations
240th from 100th to 102nd
March 16, 1989
Page 4
3 . Continue to evaluate signal timing at this intersection,
seeking to reduce the cycle length without increasing
congestion.
NOTE:
I have read the contents of this memo to Mrs. Justus and she made
the following comments regarding my recommendations:
1. At 100th, she disagrees with the finding that RTOR vehicles
do not present a hazard to children. Her observations are
that westbound students in the morning and the reverse in the
evening are in danger. The crossing guard is not respected
by the drivers. She physically crosses her daughter to
provide the needed protection.
of
2 . flashing�cautioncalls some sign overhead vtouwarnsofsthenneed placing she to watch for the school children.
3 . At 102nd there needs to be more time for the peds and drivers
don't respect the pedestrian.
4 . At Benson right turn warning signing is very necessary. She
asked for it to be placed on each corner, not just on the
north - south road. If
pedestrian's e
opportunity tocr driver right,
cross is lost for another cycle.
cc: C. Justus
Sgt. Jones