HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/02/1990 CRY of Kent
CRY Councoll Meeting
Agenda
NIY
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Jim White
Leona Orr Steve Dowell
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Judy Woods
January 2, 1990
Totem Jr. High
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 2 , 1990
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Totem Junior High
Office of the City Clerk 26630 40th Ave. S . , Kent
7 : 00 p.m.
REVISED
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. Oath of Office: Mayor Kelleher, Councilmembers Houser,
Johnson and Orr
B. Employee of the Month
C. Proclamation - Rev. Bill Carleton
D. Employee Recognition
E. Mayor's State of the City Address
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Sister City Program
D. LID 330 - 64th Ave. S . Improvements
E. Drinking Driver Task Force
F. Third Ave. Street Vacation
G. Chu-Toni Estates
H. Planning Commission Appointment
I. Comprehensive Plan Change - Resolution 12-Z-S
J. Street Vacation - Chilcoate - Resolution (ZZ b
K. Human Services Commission - Ordinance -Z f�ql
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Lemmon Appeal Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2
B. Cam West Appeal Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2
C. Dover Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2
D: West Hill Radio and Data Tower
E. Overlook Annexation
A
5. BIDS
None
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.
1) Oath of Office: Mayor Kelleher, Councilmembers
Houser, Johnson and Orr
2) Employee of the Month
3) Proclamation - Rev. Bill Carleton
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action: ff
Councilmember moved, Cs inc!Zme�.
zeee� that Cons t Calendar Items A through K be approved,
exce Hon
�1 to vvt l�
Discussion
Action
Lk)Kt 1-e .
4- s ew c4 i h
vnC)tiC) Ca , c:d .
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
December 19 , 1989 .
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through January 3
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
3 : 00 p.m. on January 16, 1989 .
j Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount f
U i
l F l l I 15 11
Approval ofc e-a cl ecks issu r51 y�iL 1, I
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/20/89 128963 - 129615 $728 , 546 . 14
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
December 19 , 1989
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser,
Johnson, Mann, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney
Driscoll, Planning Manager Satterstrom for Planning Director Harris,
Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director McCarthy, Police
Chief Frederiksen, Fire Chief Angelo, Assistant City Administrator
Hansen, Interim Personnel Director Olson, Information Services
Director Spang, Parks Director Wilson and Councilmember-elect Orr.
Councilmember Biteman was absent. Approximately 85 people were in
attendance.
PRESENTATIONS (PRESENTATIONS - ITEM 1A)
Firefighter of the Year. Fire Chief Angelo
introduced Lt. Kevin Kearns, Firefighter of the
Year. Lt. Kearns, who has been with the City for a
number of years, has been involved with the City' s
Master Plan and Public Safety Bonds and played a
lead role in the implementation of the Valley-Com
Computer-Aided Dispatch System. Angelo pointed out
that Lt. Kearns was chosen by his peers. Mayor
Kelleher presented the award.
CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through U
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 December 5, 1989 with the
following correction to Consent Item 3K, shown on
pages 6 & 7 :
State Department of Ecology Grant for Wetlands
Inventory. The Planning Committee has recommended
acceptance of a $6 000 coastal zone management grant
from Washington State Department of Ecology to
conduct a wetlands inventory in 1990 . This grant
will be matched on a 50-50 basis by the City of Kent
from funds set aside in the 1990 Planning Department
budget.
Upon White ' s question, Harris noted that the staff
will study ways to protect the wetlands, and make
suggestions to Council. He assured White that it
could not go into the SEPA process without Council ' s
approval . WHITE THEN MOVED to adopt Item 3K. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
(The underlined was inadvertently omitted from the
minutes . )
1
December 19 , 1989
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
SANITATION Hoagy's corner Deli. ACCEPTANCE for continuous
operation and maintenance, a bill of sale and
warranty agreement for approximately 115 feet of
sanitary sewer main constructed in the vicinity of
Meeker and 64th Ave. for the Hoagy' s Corner Deli
project and release of cash bond after expiration of
the one year maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Bridgewater Phase III. ACCEPTANCE for continuous
operation and maintenance, a bill of sale and
warranty agreement for approximately 690 feet of
water main and 455 feet of sanitary sewer main
constructed in the vicinity of James and Russell Rd.
for the Bridgewater Phase III project and release of
cash bond after expiration of the one year
maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Forest Creek Apartments. ACCEPTANCE for continuous
operation and maintenance, a bill of sale and
warranty agreement for approximately 857 feet of
water main and 1, 299 feet of sanitary sewer main
constructed in the vicinity of 248th and 100th Ave.
S . E. for the Forest Creed: Apartment project and
release of cash bond after expiration of the one
year maintenance period .
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
1987 Water Main Replacement. ACCEPT as complete,
the contract with Paramount Pacific Corporation for
the 1987 water main replacement project and release
of retainage after receipt of the necessary releases
from the State.
SEWER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 31)
1987 Sanitary Sewer Rebuild. ACCEPT as complete,
the contract with Volker Steven Pacific, Inc. for
the 1987 sanitary sewer rebuild project and release
of retainage after receipt of the necessary releases
from the State.
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
LID 335 - 77th Ave S Street Improvement from S.
202nd to S . 206th Streets - Resolution. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1223 setting February 6, 1990 as the
date for the public hearing on the formation of LID
335 .
2
December 19 , 1989
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
LID 330 - 64th Ave. Improvements. AUTHORIZATION to
set January 16, 1990 as the date for the public
hearing on confirmation of the final assessment roll
for LID 330 . (This date was subsequently changed to
February 20, 1990 . )
SIDEWALKS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F ADDED)
Sidewalk Policy. Joe Street asked from the audience
that he be sent a written statement regarding the
City' s sidewalk policy. It was determined that the
Administrator and the Director of Public Works would
do so.
TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Signal Maintenance Agreement. As recommended by the
Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor
to sign an agreement with the Washington State
Department of Transportation to transfer to Kent the
operation, maintenance, and ownership of signals at
SR 167 and 84th Ave. S . , SR 516 and SR 167 , and SR
516 and SR 181.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Agreement with Washington State Department of
Transportation - Frager Road Guardrail (Meeker St.
to S. 212th St. ) As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign an
agreement with the Washington State Department of
Transportation for hazard elimination funds to place
guardrails at critical locations along Frager Road
from Meeker to S . 212th St. and to establish the
budget for these funds which includes the transfer
of $5 , 000 from the Canyon Drive guardrail project
fund.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
Agreement with Washington State Department of
Transportation - Canyon Drive Guardrail. As
recommended by the Public Works Committee,
authorization for the Mayor to sign an agreement
with the Washington State Department of
Transportation for hazard elimination funds to
install guardrail on Canyon Drive north of Alvord
Avenue to S.E. 252nd Street and establishment of a
budget for these funds .
3
December 19 , 1989
TRAFFIC CONTROL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
Agreement with Washington State Department of
Transportation - LID 328 . As recommended by the
Public Works Committee, authorization for the Mayor
to sign an agreement with the Washington State
Department of Transportation for State overlay and
bus pull-out funds for LID 328 and establishment of
a budget for these funds .
DOVER PLACE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
PRELIMINARY Preliminary Plat Approval . Fred Satterstrom of the
SUBDIVISION Planning Department noted that Agenda Item 4A was
NO. SU-89-2 directly related to the two appeals scheduled for
public hearings. It was agreed that the Dover Place
Preliminary Subdivision consideration would be
presented prior to the appeals and that no decision
would be made until all three items had been
considered.
This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover
Place 39-lot residential subdivision No. SU-89-2 .
The property is located north of 103rd Ave. S.E. and
S. E. 228th St. intersection abutting a portion of
the west side of 104th Ave. S .E. This plat is part
of the Dover Place planned unit development also
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Carol Proud of the Planning Department gave a brief
background on the 39-lot residential subdivision.
She indicated the PUD portion of the proposal has
already been conditionally approved and that
decision is being appealed this evening. The
applicant proposes to subdivide a 7 . 6 acre site into
39 residential lots, with a separate tract for open
space. The size of the proposed lots will be
between 4200 and 5 , 000 square feet, open space will
total 2 . 8 acres or 36 1/2% of the site.
Approximately 33 , 000 square feet will be dedicated
to active recreational area . Additional parking for
12 vehicles is proposed at the center of the
northern cul-de-sac and 4 additional stalls adjacent
to the southern cul-de-sac . A 30 foot wide
4
December 19 , 1989
DOVER PLACE landscaped area will be provided around the
PRELIMINARY perimeter of the site as a buffer. This area was
SUBDIVISION recently annexed into the city in 1987 as part of
NO. SU-89-2 the East Hill Annexation and is adjacent to the
Brier Lane Subdivision. The proposed plat is in
compliance with the regulations of the subdivision
code and the private road system will be developed
to subdivision code standards.
Ms. Proud described the zoning of the adjacent area.
Stephen Clifton noted that Dover Place is the first
PUD to be considered under the new ordinance. He
covered the five step process an applicant must go
through for a planned unit development, in addition
to the seven density bonus standards required by the
Hearing Examiner to attain a 20% density increase.
Only four of these standards have been met, so a 14%
density bonus was recommended to the Hearing
Examiner. Clifton indicated that although the
Hearing Examiner originally denied this request,
this application was approved on October 25, 1989 on
reconsideration based on new information provided by
the applicant. These included widening the roads to
28 feet, supplying a parking plan and an open space
plan. Depending upon the outcome of the Cam West
appeal to be heard this evening, 38 or 39 units will
be allowed.
LEMMON APPEAL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
(DOVER PLACE) Lemmon Appeal - Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2 .
This public hearing will consider an appeal filed by
Lucille and John Lemmon of the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover
Place PUD-89-1 and Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-
89-2 . The public hearing was opened by Mayor
Kelleher.
Lucille Lemmon, 22911 101st Pl . S.E. , showed the
area on a map and described the surrounding zoning:
to the east, single family homes on lot sizes from
7200 square feet to 11, 000 square feet; to the
south, single family homes on land that is zoned
9600 square feet ; to the west is undeveloped land
5
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL zoned at R-1, 9 . 6 ; and she pointed out an area which
(DOVER PLACE) will have 11 homes on 3 . 73 acres. The proposed
Dover Place Development has 7 . 6 acres and 38 or 39
homes are planned on typical lot sizes of under 4200
square feet, less than one-half the size of the
surrounding neighborhood.
According to Section 3 , Requirements and Standards
for the subdivision of land, single family home
divisions of over 4 lots must be on public roads .
Multi-family zoned land can have private roads, but
single family zoned areas cannot. Mrs . Lemmon noted
that the Planning Department has stated that this is
a single family, not multi-family zoned area and
asked how can they have private roads and with a
base of 34 homes. She therefore contended that the
plat cannot be approved as is . She distributed some
photos of Brier Development, which is zoned 9600 and
is adjacent to Dover Place, pointing out how much
open space there is between the homes and around the
homes. She also showed photos of a Renton
development that has 5 , 000 square foot lots and
pointed out the differences , noting that the Dover
Place proposal is smaller yet at 4200 square feet.
Clifton explained for White that the overall density
equalled one unit per 8400 square feet and that this
included the entire tract - roads , open space, etc.
Mrs . Lemmon reiterated that the lot size from fence
to fence would be 4200 square feet per home. She
further noted that according to the rules, Cam West
must leave 35% of the development as open space;
some of it active, some passive. A map is required,
drawn to scale, showing the location, areas and
dimensions of the common open space. The bonus
points for open space consist of the following:
active space 10% , passive open space 10% and native
vegetation 15%. This would equal the mandatory 35%
open space.
After the Hearing Examiner ' s decision to deny the
Dover Development, Cam West submitted another map
showing an increase in the street width to 28 feet
and the addition of 4 parking stalls, and yet,
6
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL according to their figures, the open space area
(DOVER PLACE) increased in size. Mrs. Lemmon stated that the
Planning Department stated that they do •not measure
the land themselves, but rather take the developer' s
figures as being correct. She stated she has asked
repeatedly for a detailed map with dimensions as was
required at the time of application and has been
told there is none. Square footage has been given
as 33 , 105, 33 , 980 and tonight ' s figure is 33 , 100 .
She further questioned the lot sizes in the cul-de-
sacs, the measurement of lot 36, the measurements of
the roadways around the cul-de-sacs and the islands,
the parking lot stalls and the sidewalk widths.
Mrs. Lemmon asked where the biofiltration swale is
to be located. She noted that it cannot go in the
natural vegetation area or into the passive open
space because nothing can be stored in the passive
open areas according to the PUD guidelines and
policies . She showed two photos of a biofiltration
area, to give an idea of the size of the area
required. The first one was taken of Brier Lane ' s
biofiltration, the second was in Renton in a
development of lots of 5 , 000 square feet. She
further questioned the plans for Lot 36 which has
been excluded from this development. There is a
buffer zone separating it from the plat. The
Planning Department has stated that Lot 36 will not
be built upon until Benson Highway is expanded and
that there can be no access to Benson Highway from
this plat. She asked, therefore, where a driveway
for Lot 36 could be built. She concluded that there
was questionable doubt as to whether Cam West had
indeed allocated the required 35% square footage to
open space.
Upon White ' s question, Clifton stated that access to
Lot 36 would be by an easement granted over Lots 37
and 35 , and noted that the applicants understand
this . Mrs . Lemmon noted further that this PUD is
also subject to the tree preservation ordinance and
that in the southeastern corner, there are six or
seven large everygreens that are not shown on Cam
West ' s tree map.
7
December 19, 1989
LEMMON APPEAL Mrs. Lemmon summarized her questions as follows:
(DOVER PLACE)
1 . The Zoning. The area is classified as SF-6,
Single Family zoned and although a PUD, it is
still governed by the single family zoning. A
PUD does supersede normal platting codes but it
must stay within the single family code. It
cannot be changed to multi-family platting to
allow the private roads and then revert back to
be called a single family plat.
2 . Bonus Points. A PUD is different from
traditional subdivisions and bonus points are
sought in order to gain additional lots and she
contended that the developer must prove to the
city that they do, in fact, qualify for these
bonus points . This should be done before the
City Council approves the preliminary plat.
Betty Hoff, 10023 S . E. 229th Pl . , addressed the
issue of how a new development would affect the
traffic. She cited excessive speeding, the
difficulty getting onto Benson Highway and the
safety of school children in areas where no
sidewalks exist. She also expressed concern on the
overcrowding of the school systems and the effect on
the quality of education.
Dowell pointed out that in the interest of the
appearance of fairness, he wished it known that in
the course of his business, he had personally
visited the site of the proposed development, but
the visit would not affect his decision.
Connie Baseman , 10206 S . E . 224th St. , expressed the
concern of overcrowding and its effect on quality of
life. She also pointed out the citizens will carry
the burden of increased taxes to cover the cost of
new schools, as the newly built elementary schools
are already filled to capacity.
Irene Bouffard, 22916 101st Pl. S.E. , expressed
concern on drainage and major flooding. She noted
that Gwen Escher, of the School District had
reported that East Hill E;.ementary was 136 students
8
December 19, 1989
LEMMON APPEAL over capacity as of October 2 , 1989. She felt the
(DOVER PLACE) City of Kent needs to follow the practice that new
development be put on hold until all key services
are available.
Albert Sanders , 10925 S . E. 244th, felt the planning
of the City was deteriorating and questioned whether
the timing was right for the construction of another
high density development.
Curt Betchley 10213 S .E. 228th St. , questioned the
future maintenance of common areas and roads.
Richard Cays, 10214 S .E. 228th, questioned the
prices on the new development as "affordable
housing" . He felt the new development goes against
goals, objectives and policies set forth by the
Planning Department and urged the Council to reject
the proposed development.
Richard Phillips 22829 103rd S.E. , spoke on the
quality of life in Kent. He pointed out that 3 of
the proposed houses could fit on his lot with land
left over. He opined that the development was
totally out of character with the neighborhood and
raised questions on maintenance, parking,
overcrowded schools and traffic.
Nadine Zackrisson . 500 108th Ave. N.E. , Suite 2100,
Bellevue, attorney representing Mr. Campbell, the
developer of Dover Place PUD, pointed out this
project meets all the criteria of the new PUD
ordinance, meets the goals and policies of the East
Hill Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and of the new
housing element of the Comprehensive Plan. She
stated that Dover Place meets the goals set out by
the Kent Planning Department in their efforts to
balance multi-family/single family housing, improve
housing and provide more affordable housing. She
pointed out that although the lots were small , the
tradeoff was the open space, nearly 2 . 8 acres. She
noted that the underlying zoning would allow 4 1/2
units per acre and the developer is asking for 5
units. This project will generate the same amount
of traffic that any sing!,,, family subdivision would
generate.
9
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL Zackrisson acknowledged that traffic is a daily
(DOVER PLACE) problem and that the developer is dedicating a
portion of its eastern property to the widening of
104th. Schools everywhere in this region are
struggling with the issues of growth and
overcrowding. A number of changes to state
legislation, county regulations, coordination
between school districts and local government have
been recently recommended. She stated that the City
has no regulations to impose mitigation fees or to
slow down growth because of impacts on schools. The
school district has expressed concerns about
development but have emphasized they're not opposed
to development. The school district anticipates
thirteen elementary school age children out of this
project. Similar projects that Mr. Campbell has
been involved with really demonstrate that not many
children live in this kind of development. Many are
retired people who are looking for a smaller home or
people who are moving into a first home ownership
situation. She noted further that maintenance has
also been brought up as a concern tonight and
throughout the hearing and stated that the
conditions of the Hearing Examiner require that 6 or
7 covenants or restrictions must be met. There is
a home owner' s associaticn and there are
prohibitions on outside storage and on parking of
recreational vehicles. She stated further that
Dover Place is consistent with the adopted policies
and called attention to some of the policies of the
housing element of the Comprehensive Plan as shown
in the Planning staff report. The report is a part
of the agenda packet, and lists, in part, support of
developments where densities and dwelling types are
mixed, and increase the supply and affordability of
housing for low and moderate income housing
households .
Zackrisson further noted that the City has adopted a
PUD ordinance that includes a number of incentives
to encourage these kinds of developments creatively.
This is the first PUD under the revised ordinance
and for the additional density, the developer has
provided space, with 3/4 of an acre in an active
play area for children and 39 units of attractive,
10
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL affordable, single-family housing. There is a
(DOVER PLACE) dedication of right-of-way for 104th Avenue and a
contribution of approximately $42 , 000 for off-site
traffic improvements plus an agreement to contribute
money to the construction of a traffic light at
228th and 104th when that light is warranted. There
are a number of community benefits, therefore, that
accrue from this project.
She stated that Mr. Campbell has met with the
community and the project has been modified a number
of times , through the hearing process . A real
effort has been made to deal with the concerns of
the neighborhood. She pointed out that the staff
and the Hearing Examiner have recommended approval
and the City ' s criteria has been met. She urged the
Council to uphold the examiner' s decision and
approve the PUD.
Mann commented that he did not consider homes from
$100, 000 to $135 , 000 as affordable housing.
Ms . Zackrisson noted that this is not low cost
housing but probably moderate priced housing.
Upon Mann ' s further question, Eric Campbell,
president of Cam West, stated that the proposed
houses are anywhere from 1222 square feet to 1910
square feet. He stated further that the dimensions
of the plat have been available since June. He
summed up benefits of the Dover Place development
as :
1. A large play area for children and for adults
to participate in recreation areas,
2 . Native vegetation area, not clear cut,
3 . Landscaped area with an evergreen buffer.
He showed a tape of the Falconridge development to
illustrate the sports court and another of a
development north of valley General Hospital, off
Talbot Road, at approximately 169th showing the open
space, the design of the homes, etc.
11
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL Campbell stressed that some people believe that if
(DOVER PLACE) native vegetation is saved, it' s much better to have
a smaller lot and have more privacy. He noted that
this appeals especially to senior citizens, who
prefer a smaller lot, requiring less maintenance,
first-time home buyers and working professionals.
White asked about the storm water retention and
Campbell stated that the requirement was for 200
linear feet of biofiltration and showed the proposed
location. Upon further questions, he acknowledged
tht this was an open ditch and what was called for
by staff. White questioned the concept of open
ditches and asked how these standards came to be.
Carol Proud explained that biofiltration is a
requirement that the Department of Public Works
places on new development in the community as a
result of environmental review through the state
Environmental Policy Act. Typically, in larger lots
down in the valley and the manufacturing districts,
the biofiltration is a arassline swale which is
gradual and therefore is not an open ditch.
Unfortunately for some smaller lot developments , the
design has been less than what some people feel is
ascetically pleasing. She suggested that the Public
Works Director could elaborate on the intent and
design.
White expressed concern that the Council had had no
input into the subject of biofiltration swales.
At the Mayor' s request, Driscoll explained that SEPA
is a state act and the local governments each pass
its own version of the act, usually general
policies . Transportation policies, for example, are
in the SEPA ordinance giving the parameters for the
environmental review. Then that goes through a
separate process, a review process , within the City;
ultimately with the SEPA official who is the
Planning Director. The process is a separate
environmental review that goes through its own
separate appeal process to a hearing examiner and
then into the courts. The Council is not part of
that process.
12
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL The Mayor added that discretion is exercised not by
(DOVER PLACE) the Council or by the Mayor but by the responsible
SEPA official who is the Planning Director in Kent.
Driscoll concurred.
White objected to the Council getting calls
criticizing the ditches when the Council had had no
input.
At the Mayor' s request Wickstrom noted that the
Public Works Committee has asked that the Mayor
appoint a member to the committee to represent the
City and suggested that the City staff provide the
technical input to the committee. The State
Fisheries Department has mandated biofiltration any
time that groundwater is entering the streams, such
as Mill Creek or Garrison Creek. He noted that the
City was using essentially the Storm Drainage Master
Plan which has a section relating to maintaining
water quality in the City. One of the ways of doing
this is to provide biofiltration which is supposed
to be very shallow swales which allow the grass to
filter out the oils and greases before the water
goes into the natural drainage courses or the fish-
bearing streams . He noted also that an alternative
is a catch basin type facility that ' s fairly
expensive but allows the property owner to fully
utilize the entire parcel .
White noted that we were forming a committee with
the Chamber of Commerce after the fact and having no
information in advance.
Wickstrom determined for the Mayor that this issue
was addressed last week at the Public Works
Committee meeting although the City has been
enforcing biofiltration for more than a year.
It was determined that the swale is to take care of
oils and pollutants that come from driveways and
roadways, etc.
Wickstrom clarified for Dowell that biofiltration
only relates to the storm drainage off the streets,
to essentially clean up the oils and greases before
13
December 19, 1989
LEMMON APPEAL they got into the natural water filters. He pointed
(DOVER PLACE) out that Brier Lane has a detention basin which is
not a biofiltration system.
Wickstrom noted that by 1992 the City will have to
meet new federal standards relating to water
quality. To do that we will probably have to end up
retro-fitting some areas that are not meeting those
standards.
Rich Cardillo , of 2423 S.E. 8th Place in Renton
stated that he is President of the Falconridge
Residential Park Association, a PUD that is in the
southeast corner of Renton. He stated that he liked
the smaller lots , and that the smaller road widths
have provided for more open space areas that enhance
the environment and that covenants control
maintenance. Upon questions from Mrs. Lemmon, he
noted that sidewalks were on one side of the road
only and that only one cul-de-sac did not have
sidewalks . No parking was permitted on the streets.
Joe Walker stated that he lived in Windspur and that
he had lived in Falconridge two years ago. He
compared these to a large lot and home he had
recently had in the east and praised the quality of
life in the smaller development.
Rory Grundley, with Transpo Group, stated that he is
the traffic engineer who had prepared the traffic
analysis and the parking analysis for the Dover
Place development. He estimated the statistics as
390 daily trips generated, with 39 at peak traffic
hours . He addressed the concerns of the Brier Lane
residents regarding traffic and noted that the state
would oppose having additional access on Benson
Road. The widening of the Benson and the addition
of a traffic signal will impove conditions. He
noted that the installation of the signal could be
several years away, however.
Patrick Grimm, realtor with Wallace and Wheeler,
stated that the demand for this size and type of
home is high and therefore the price is going up.
14
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL Carol Egelston, of 10208 S .E. 228th, stated that her
(DOVER PLACE) lot would look out into three houses of the Dover
Place Development. She stated that she had been to
all of the meetings through the summer. She stated
that she was appalled to learn the biofiltration
system equated to an open ditch and expressed
concern over the danger this posed to young
children.
Rudy Hoff, of 10023 S .E. 229th, asked if the
existing trees would be left in the biofiltration
ditch. He noted that Ed White of the City' s traffic
staff had given input at the examiner' s hearing
indicating that the traffic levels were high now.
Ishmel Melendez , of 10004 S .E. 229th, referred to
the traffic comments and stated that north along the
Benson about 1 or 2 miles there were 4 more
developments. He also commented on the quality of
education in overcrowded schools.
Mrs . Lemmon reiterated that one of her issues was
the fact that it was illegal to have a private road
in the development. Her next item of concern was
about the map, and the need to know the exact number
of square feet dedicated to open space. She also
stated that it appeared that the biofiltration site
was the area designated for the 15% native
vegetation area.
Carol Proud stated that in a typical subdivision the
roads are a dedicated public right-of-way and are
standard road width. In a PUD these are private
roads and can be between 22 and 28 feet in width.
These are considered private roads such as other
short subdivisions where there are private access
easements. She concluded that a PUD allows for a
private road.
Satterstrom noted that this is covered in the PUD
ordinance, 15 . 04 . 08 , specifically on page 40,
section 6a.
Proud noted that one of the conditions for open
space is that the exact dimensions be specified on
15
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL the final plat. She pointed out that this is a
(DOVER PLACE) preliminary plat and that approval of the final plat
will be before the Council . She noted further that
the areas to be designated as natural vegetation, to
be retained, is to the west and the north and the
biofiltration swale is to be along the southwestern
corner. She noted that there is a big difference
between an open ditch and a biofiltration swale.
The swale is not a detention pond but is meant to
drain storm water from the impervious surfaces. The
amount of impervious surface for a PUD would be the
same as that allowed under any subdivision.
Upon the Mayor ' s question, Wickstrom described the
grassline swales as flat and sloped which filters
the water through the grass. It was determined for
Dowell that the state law covers the biofiltration
process, that the private roads are not illegal and
that the exact dimensions of the open space will
have to be given. The Planning staff will be
responsible for that and the Engineering Department
will supervise the biofiltration process.
Wickstrom explained that the state required that
road construction jobs require biofiltration and
that this is required for any development which
might release water into creeks or streams . He
pointed out that ideally, the biofiltration was
incorporated into the landscaping but this was not
always possible.
Mann stated that he thought the subject had been
well covered and MOVED to close the hearing. The
motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Melendez stated that it was hard to believe that
the state could mandate the method of drainage
control without input from the city.
Mayor Kelleher explained the SEPA law and the fact
that the SEPA official was the Planning Director and
not the Mayor.
Wickstrom noted that the process of coalescing
plates filters were sometimes used but that it was
very expensive .
16
December 19 , 1989
LEMMON APPEAL Mrs. Lemmon asked about Lot 36, noting that access
(DOVER PLACE) would not be allowed through the portion designated
as open space.
Proud explained that the house on Lot 36 would be
torn down and access would be through an easement
through the cul-de-sac and across Lots 35 and 37 .
Mrs. Lemmon stated again that the standards for
subdivisions would not allow a private road in a
single family subdivision of more than four lots .
Proud noted that this situation is a PUD in
conjunction with a single family development. The
private roads remain private and are not maintained
by the City. Maintenance is the responsibility of
the homeowners.
There were no further comments and White MOVED to
close the hearing. Mann seconded and the motion
carried.
Johnson asked if all details had to be clearly
defined in a preliminary plat or if some details
could be left to the final plat approval .
Satterstrom stated that the preliminary plat should
specify the conditions that the council want. Some
minor changes could be made at the time .the Council
approves the final plat. He pointed out that in
this case the number of units must be decided for
the PUD so that can be reflected in the plat.
Another appeal scheduled for this meeting deals with
the number of units .
It was determined that both appeals would be heard
before anv decisions were made.
CAM WEST APPEAL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
(DOVER PLACE) Dover Place PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2 . This hearing will
consider an appeal filed by Cam West Development,
Inc. to the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of
conditional approval of the Dover Place PUD-89-1 and
Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2 .
17
December 19 , 1989
CAM WEST APPEAL It was noted that Resolution 896 provides for the
(DOVER PLACE) appellants and the opponents to each have 30 minutes
for presentation. It was agreed that these rules
would be observed, inasmuch as the previous hearing
had been lengthy and the Council meeting has already
been in progress for three hours .
The public hearing was opened by Mayor Kelleher.
Nadine Zackrisson of Ferguson and Burdell stated
that she represented the developer, Cam West, and
the basis of the appeal was in an error of the
Hearing Examiner. She stated that 15 . 04 . 080 B21
referred to providing for a density bonus if certain
active open areas are provided. A second section
provides that if you have an accessory building,
only the portion used for active recreation can be
counted toward the density bonus. Zackrisson opined
that the Hearing Examiner took this to mean that
this could be used only if there was some kind of
accessory building. She noted that all of the Dover
Place recreation area was outdoors and therefore
there was no accessory building. The staff and
Planning Director have agreed with Zackrisson and
she further explained that under the Hearing
Examiner' s interpretation, one less unit is allowed
than what Cam West requested. She therefore asked
that the Council grant this appeal and approve the
PUD for 39 units .
A gentleman from the audience stated that he
challenged the appeal since there is no detailed
plat map and therefore the acreage or square footage
is vague.
There were no further comments and the hearing was
closed on Woods ' motion, supported by Johnson and
carried unanimously.
WOODS MOVED that no action be taken on either of
these two appeals and to hold action over on all
three items to the January 2 , 1990 Council meeting.
Dowell seconded and the motion carried. It was
pointed out that the January 2 meeting would be held
on the West Hill at Tctem Junior High at 26630 40th.
Ave. S .
18
December 19 , 1989
COMPREHENSIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
PLAN CHANGE Industrial Park to C-Suffix No. CPZ-89-5. On
November 27, 1989 , the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the
Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow M1-C
designation in the semicircle south of Willis
bounded on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad
and on the west by the Valley Freeway off ramp.
This change was initiated by Ronald Healey, AIA.
There were no comments and WOODS MOVED to approve
the Planning Commission ' s recommendation for
Comprehensive Plan amendment No. CPZ-89-5 and to
direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution.
Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
HUMAN SERVICES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q)
COMMISSION Term of Non-Voting Agency Member (as recommended by
the Human Services Commission) . APPROVAL of
changing the term of the Human Services Commission
non-voting agency member from a one year to a two
year term and authorizing the City Attorney to
prepare the amending ordinance.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3T)
Blue Cross Agreement - 1990 . As recommended by the
Operations Committee, approval of the Blue Cross
administrative services agreement and authorization
for the Mayor to sign same.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3U)
COBRA Agreement - 1990 . As recommended by the
Operations Committee, approval of the agreement with
NCAS-Northwest, Inc. , a third party administrator
for Blue Cross, to handle the City' s COBRA coverage.
This coverage was formerly handled by Network
Management, Inc.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
1990 Public Defense Contract. APPROVAL of the
contract with Sampson Wilson & Combs for public
defense services for the year 1990, as recommended
by the Informal Budget Committee and the Operations
Committee.
19
December 19 , 1989
PUBLIC SAFETY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3R)
Purchase of Mobile Command Post. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1224 , authorizing bypass 'of the
bidding process for purchase of the mobile command
post. The vehicle recommended by the committee is
available through only one supplier.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Siting of West Hill Radio and Data Tower. Chief
Angelo noted that the Fire and Police Departments
have been researching potential lease agreements and
alternative sites for a radio and data tower. While
negotiations with King County Water District No . 75
have been positive, there are some long term
uncertainties . The other alternative is to place
the tower on the Cambridge Fire Station site. He
suggested that the matter be discussed by Council at
a West Hill location. MANN MOVED that the matter of
the siting of the West Hill radio and data tower be
placed on the January 2 , 1990 Council meeting agenda
under Other Business , and that said meeting be held
at a West Hill location. White seconded and the
motion carried. (It was determined that the meeting
had been scheduled for the cafeteria at Totem Jr.
High. )
1989 BUDGET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
ADJUSTMENT 1989 Budget Adjustment ordinance. As recommended by
erati
the State Auditor and the Opons Committee at
their December 18 , 1989 meeting, Ordinance 2888 is
proposed to adjust the 1989 Budget. The 1989 Budget
Adjustment Ordinance totals $10 , 294 , 329 . Of this
amount, $6 , 927 , 851 has previously been approved by
the Council and $3 , 366 , 478 has not been previously
approved. The amounts not previously approved all
have extra revenue, or in the case of the Golf
Course Fund, has available fund balance to cover
expenditures . This adjustment ordinance is
consolidated at year-end for ease in budget
administration and operation.
A packet of material detailing the individual
adjustments by department has been distributed and
has been made a part of the record.
20
December 19 , 1989
1989 BUDGET HOUSER MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2888 , approving the
ADJUSTMENT adjustments to the 1989 budget. Mann seconded and
the motion carried.
1990 BUDGET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E)
ORDINANCE 1990 Budget Ordinance. Mayor Kelleher read the
statement by Finance Director McCarthy as
distributed with the Council packet: "As requested
by the Council at their December 5, 1989 meeting,
Ordinance 2889 has been prepared incorporating
Option A (preserving the original Administration
budget) and Option C (the additional Park Department
proposal) . At the Council ' s request, the Budget has
been balanced administratively. This was done at
the IBC ' s recommendation by increasing the sales tax
project by the amount of the out of balance
condition, $168 , 153 . This increase is supportable
based on the Finance staff ' s latest estimates,
assuming no impact from the Boeing strike. Since
the real impact of the Boeing strike is unknown and
six union agreements remain unsettled,
Administration will administratively manage General
Fund spending throughout 1990 . As data becomes
available to either validate or contradict the
Administration ' s assumption, the Administration will
take necessary steps to ensure the City' s financial
stability.
In addition to Options A and C, the Budget also
includes the planned receipt of $653 , 962 from Fire
District 37 . These funds will be used to hire four
lieutenants and ten firefighters and pay their
associated costs . The Fire Department adjustments
also include moving $90 , 000 of medical expenditures
from the General Fund to the Fire Relief and Pension
Fund in lieu of transferring funds from the Fire
Relief and Pension Fund to the General Fund.
The IBC is recommending to the Mayor that he veto
this budget based on a violation of the process that
sets a precedent for future budget end runs . The
staff has been available to work out a compromise
prior to the Council meeting. "
Upon White ' s question McCarthy stated that he had
received information that. the Boeing strike would
21
December 19 , 1989
1990 BUDGET not effect the sales tax receipts. White stated
ORDINANCE that some businesses during the strike reported a
20% reduction in sales, particularly in -car sales,
and yet the City is taking a "business as usual"
approach. Mayor Kelleher asked McCarthy for an
explanation of what steps administration would take
to balance the budget, if the estimated figures are
not correct. McCarthy noted possibilities would
include a hiring freeze, a delay in the hiring
process, across the board budget cuts, cuts in
travel and subsistence and delay in contracting for
the management study. He noted for Kelleher that
the latest information now indicated that the City
will start the new year with about $100 , 000 more
than had been estimated two weeks ago.
HOUSER MOVED to adopt Ordinance 2889 , approving the
budget for 1990 and Woods seconded. Dowell moved to
AMEND to include in the budget $20, 000 for a
motorcycle and $18 , 000 for the parttime position of
Community Events Coordinator. White seconded. The
motion to amend carried, with Houser and Mann
dissenting.
White noted that he had previously expressed concern
about the management study. He noted he had
received a letter from Donald McDaniel who suggested
that the City make use of graduate students to make
management studies. McDaniel , as a graduate
student, conducted a study on the city' s business
license fees, resulting in the City raising the
license fees. The letter has been filed as a part
of the record. White pointed out that he was
opposed to the $100 , 000 figure for the management
study and MOVED to delete this item from the budget.
Dowell seconded and the proposal failed with only
White and Dowell supporting it. The main motion, to
adopt Ordinance 2889 , approving the 1990 budget, as
amended by Dowell then carried, with Houser and Mann
dissenting.
The Mayor noted that the Internal Budget Committee
had recommended that he veto this budget and asked
IBC Chairman McCarthy to give the rationale behind
the recommendation and elaborate on the language
22
December 19 , 1989
1990 BUDGET contained in his statement in the agenda packet.
ORDINANCE McCarthy displayed the Council budget calendar,
noting that budget had been open for input since
July when priorities were established. He referred
to the fiscal note of November 14 which noted that
the Internal Budget Committee recommended adoption
of the budget with the five corrections which
related to omissions from the original . The memo
stated further that the Parks Department regeust for
an additional $100 , 000 should not be funded, as to
do so would reopen the entire budget process, and
other departments might also like to submit
additional requests. McCarthy pointed out that the
Mayor' s letter of transmittal for the preliminary
budget dated October 14 noted that the Council had
held nine Council-as-a-whole meetings and that the
budget was balanced without increasing taxes. The
Internal Budget Committee committee felt that making
a large presentation at a Council Committee to ask
for additional items was not appropriate after the
preliminary budget was presented. It was further
felt that to allow this might set a precedent for
other departments to do the same, and therefore
recommended that this budget ordinance be vetoed.
White objected to the staff telling the Council what
they can hear at a committee meeting. Dowell noted
that committee meetings are open to the public and
the public must be heard. McCarthy stated that it
appeared that a full blown presentation was made by
the Parks Department to ask for additional items.
McCarthy reiterated that the Internal Budget
Committee objected to the timing and setting a
precedent.
Johnson suggested that the process be discussed at
the Council retreat in January and White concurred.
White suggested that perhaps one department head
lobbied more effectively than another. He pointed
out that the parttime position for the Community
Events Coordinator and a motorcycle for the Police
Department were put back into the budget tonight as
a compromise. He stated that he had not supported
the addition to the Community Events staff, noting
that the administrative staff has already doubled in
23
December 19 , 1989
1990 BUDGET the past four years . White commented that it seemed
ORDINANCE that revenue projections could be changed at will in
order to support a particular position and if the
projections now presented did not prove to be true,
he would have further comments. Mayor Kelleher
noted that he was most persuaded by the internal
staff committee ' s contention that we want to have a
budget process under which the Council may evaluate
departmental requests in the context of the entire
City budget rather than evaluating department
requests as to their merits. Since all department
requests are worthy, the issue for budget
consideration is which are the highest priorities.
He pointed out that the City' s Parks Department had
won a national award as one of the finest in the
country, and at the same time, Kent had one of the
highest rates in the state in traffic accidentss,
injuries and deaths . Departmental requests must
therefore, be evaluated in the context of all of the
requests for prioritization. The Mayor stated that
for this reason, he would accede to the request of
the Internal Budget Committee to veto this budget.
He agreed with the prior suggestion that the budget
process become a subject of discussion at the
Council retreat.
Ordinance 2889 was then VETOED by the Mayor and
returned to the City Clerk.
Johnson distributed an alternate proposal and MOVED
to adopt Ordinance 2890 , approving the 1990 budget
to include the following:
1. Administration Option A.
2 . Administration Option C minus postage,
graphics, and printing for the Parks Department
($23 , 700) .
3 . Administration Option D for Community Events
Coordinator ($18 , 00 ) .
4 . Motorcycle for the Police Department ($21, 000) .
Mann seconded.
24
December 19 , 1989
1990 BUDGET White stated that it appeared that the Mayor had
ORDINANCE control and if the Council disagreed with the budget
or wanted to change it, that that the Mayor could
veto the proposal . He stated that he would support
Johnson ' s proposal as a compromise but that he
resented the veto. Mayor Kelleher stated that
certain authorities and powers were accorded to the
executive branch and to the legislative branch and
that in case of disagreement, he reserved the right
to exercise the power of his office in the best
interests of the City. White concurred with this
but stated that he disagreed with the rationale of
the veto. Woods stated that no one was fully
satisfied with the proposal, and that no budget is
ever easy. Dowell noted that he was glad to hear
the Mayor speak of the separation of branches of
government, such as between Council and
Administration. He questioned that there really was
such separation inasmuch as Council retreats also
included the Mayor, Administrator and others from
Administration. He suggested that the Council
retreat should be for Council only. He commented
that the amount the Parks Department asked for
postage and graphics amounted to 69 cents per
citizen and HE MOVED to amend to add the $23 , 70C to
the budget. White seconded and the motion was
defeated with only Dowell and White voting in favor.
The motion to adopt Ordinance 2890 approving the
1990 budget as proposed by Johnson then carried with
Dowell voting against it.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through December 20 , 1989 after auditing of
the Operations Committee at its meeting at 3 : 00 p.m.
on January 2 , 1990 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/30 - 12/11 86290-86310 $ 106,569.00
12/13/89 86311-86741) 1, 636,852.78
$1,743,421.78
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/05/89 128207-128263 715,773.31
12/08/89 128864-128962 52,726.86
768,500.17
25
December 19 , 1989
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
Window Cleaning Contract. AUTHORIZATION for the
Mayor to sign the window services contract extension
with Totem Window Services Company. Quarterly
payments on this contract are $655. 00 for City Hall,
the Kent Library, and the Senior Center. The
extension is through June 30, 1990 at the current
contract rate. The extension will give the staff
more time to analyze the contract.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
Interfund Loan Authorization - Ordinances. As
recommended by the State Auditor' s Office and as
discussed with the Operations Committee at their
December 18 meeting, adoption of the following
ordinances:
Ordinance 2884 , authorizing interfund loans in
accordance with RCW 43 . 09 . 210 ;
Ordinance 2885 , authorizing an interfund loan to the
Housing and Community Development Fund up to
$100, 000 from the General Fund;
Ordinance 2886 , authorizing an interfund loan from
the General Fund to the Operating Projects Fund, not
to exceed $100, 000 ;
Ordinance 2887 , authorizing an interfund loan from
the General Fund to the Golf Complex Fund, not to
exceed $1, 200, 000 .
COUNCIL MEETING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3S)
PLACE Location of January 2 , 1990 Council Meeting.
AUTHORIZATION to change the location of the regular
Council meeting of January 2 , 1990 from the Kent
City Hall to. Totem Junior High at 26630 40th Ave. S .
on the West Hill . The meeting will be conducted in
the cafeteria at 7 : 00 p.m.
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 6A)
Council President. Council President White reported
on the National League of Cities meeting in Atlanta,
including self insurance and risk sharing pools,
transportation and communications . He pointed out
that a session of efficient growth management -
"Staying in Step with the Community" was well
26
December 19 , 1989
REPORTS attended. He also commented on the video
conferencing used between jails and courtrooms.
White noted that this City had accomplished many
things over this past year in spite of some
differences of opinions, which was to be expected.
Mann noted that due to the hour time he would delay
his report on the National League of Cities
Conference to a later date.
EXECUTIVE At 11: 00 p.m. , City Attorney Driscoll requested an
SESSION executive session of approximately five minutes to
discuss labor negotiations. She pointed out that
this was not shown on the printed agenda because the
need was not known when the agenda was printed on
Friday.
ADJOURNMENT At 11: 07 p.m. , the Council reconvened and then
adjourned.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
27
V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SISTER CITY PROGRAM
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the City of Kent Sister City
Agreement with Kherson, Soviet Union as signed by Mayor Kelleher
and Chairman Kalinichev.
3 . EXHIBITS• None
i
4 . RECOMMENDEEI BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETEO FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO \ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITW REQUIRED: $
SOURCE Off' FUNDS. _
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION
ACTION.
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
F
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 330 - 64TH AVE. S . IMPROVEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to change the date for
confirmation of the final assessment roll for LID 330 from
January 16 to February 20 .
r
3 . EXHIBITS• Ndne
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETE FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL P SONNEL NOTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITiME REQUIRED: $ __
SOURCE OAF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COONCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember _seconds
DISCUSSION,
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acknowledgement of the following
donations to the Task Force:
Warranty Service Co. $100 . 00
Service Linen Supply $ 50. 00
Bell-Anderson Agency $150 . 00
l
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED $Y: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
i
5 . UNBUDGETEP FISCALLPERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO_�_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended
j
6. EXPENDIT RB REQUIRED: $
SOURCE 6F FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Counc member moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
f � �y Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 1990
VV Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: THIRD AVENUE STREET VACATION (ST. ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC
CHURCH STREET VACATION NO. STV-89-4)
2 . Y STA EMENT _ As recommended by-- the Public_Work -s-
Committee}, pproval to defer any action on this vacation request
until such time as the Centennial Building and parking garage
are constructed and traffic patterns are determined. r�
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpts from Public Works Committee minutes of
12/12 , 11/28 and 10/24 ; memora'rdum from Jim Harris to Public
Works Committee dated 11/28/89; excerpts from Council minutes of
9/19/89
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public'IWorks Committee/staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAjA/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO�_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEI,6' NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE 4UIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUT S:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
CouncilmOber moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION• -
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
f;
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 12, 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON SUZAN AMUNDSEN
STEVE DOWELL JOHN MARCHIONE
DON WICKSTROM TED KNAPP
JIM HANSEN PETE CURRAN
BILL WILLIAMSON STEVE BURPEE
GARY GILL DEE MOSCHEL
JIM HARRIS LYLE PRICE
3RD AVENUE STREET VACATION
Pete Curran indicated the conditions to be placed on the vacation
as discussed at the last Public Works Committee would be acceptable
to the Church. He continued he felt the imposition of some of
those conditions might affect value. Dowell asked for a copy of
the minutes of the last meeting. He stated he thought the
determination was to look at the vacation request again after the
Centennial Building was constructed. The minutes were reviewed
which substantiated that the Committee did discuss placing the
matter in abeyance until the Centennial Building and parking garage
were completed and a study had been done to determine traffic
I patterns at that time. Johnson asked when the Church wanted to
complete the improvements. Curran responded there is no time
schedule as yet. Johnson asked if the City could grant the
vacation but have the Church agree not to start until the study is
completed. Williamson responded that as many conditions as the
Council wants can be placed on the vacation or just defer any
action until the building is constructed and then bring it back to
the Committee. Dowell stated he felt that was the intent. Johnson
suggested we have a motion to that, then if the Church firms up
their plans so far as a time frame, they can ask the City to take
another look at it at that time. Dowell moved this vacation be
placed in abeyance until such time as the Centennial Building and
the parking structure are constructed and some time has passed to
allow for an experience of what traffic patterns will be. Curran
commented if those type of assessments should be made then they
should have been made when the earlier vacation was passed. Dee
Moschel stated that while 3rd may not be the main circulator street
for downtown it is an important piece of public property. Steve
Burpee stated this action creates bigger blocks in the downtown
area which he feels is a good thing. He suggested perhaps a master
plan could be developed showing what potential big blocks could
happen keeping in mind there is a need for traffic circulation.
The Committee unanimously approved the motion to defer any action
on the vacation until the Centennial Building and parking garage
are constructed and traffic patterns are determined.
Public Works Committee
November 28 , 1989
Page 2
suggested when 38th is scheduled for overlay we look at making
those improvements at that time. Wickstrom indicated that is the
normal process. Woods asked when 38th was scheduled for overlay.
Wickstrom confirmed it is not in the current schedule. Woods
suggested we point out' to Mrs . Crook the level to which the volume
has decreased. The Committee concurred that no action would be
taken at this time and a copy of Marty Nizlek' s memo and excerpt
from these minutes should be sent to Mrs. Crook.
Overlook Annexation
Wickstrom explained we have received a 10% petition for annexation
of approximately 35 acres in the vicinity of 93rd Avenue South and
S . 222nd. If Council approves going forth with this proposed
annexation, the next step would be to set a meeting date with the
petitioners . Harris explained this is in conjunction with the
apartment complex currently under construction in the area. The
City has required annexation in order for the developer to do Phase
II of the project which is currently in the County. It will come
in as 20, 000 square foot lots and they will have to apply for any
change. Harris noted the Commission will be recommending an
approximate 31% reduction in multifamily but this will not be
detrimental to that recommendation. The Committee unanimously
concurred with acceptance of the 10% petition and scheduling a date
for public meeting with the petitioners.
Third Avenue Street Vacation
Jim Harris distributed a memorandum to the Committee on this item.
On a map he detailed for the Committee the area included in the
previously approved vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe Street
and Titus for the Centennial Building and the property involved in
this vacation request for Third Avenue from Titus to Saar. At the
November 2 meeting with Pete Curran, several conditions were
developed which, if the Council chose to approve the vacation, are
suggested be made a part of the vacation approval . He reviewed
those for the Committee as detailed in his memorandum. Harris
explained it is the intent of these conditions that there is a plan
for improvement and that the applicant works to implement the plan
within a specified time period. Harris emphasized that the
previously prepared staff report for the public hearing scheduled
for September 19 did recommend denial . The City Attorney ' s office
has recommended that any street vacation approval include a
condition that the City be able to use the vacated area for public
parking at specified times and events. Harris alluded also to Bill
Public Works Committee
November 28, 1989
Page 3
Williamson Is memo in which he determined the City has the authority
to condition street vacations. Harris mentioned also the concerns
the Police Chief has relating to access to the new parking garage
which will have its entrance on Titus and the police parking areas.
Dowell moved the Committee recommend denial of the request and to
support staff recommendation of denial . Johnson stated he was in
favor of the vacation if the Church were agreeable to the
conditions outlined. Dee Moschel referred to the left hand turn
lane on Willis which feeds into Third. She added that a backup of
vehicles accessing the new parking garage from Titus could restrict
access to her property. She felt this portion of Third is good for
downtown circulation. ; Johnson stated he felt that vacating the
portion of Third Avenue for the Centennial Building has already
destroyed the circulation for downtown. ' Johnson suggested that
Pete Curran present these conditions to the Church to determine if
they would be agreeable to them and bring their comments back to
the Committee. Harris suggested this item be placed in abeyance
until such time as the Centennial Building and the parking
structure are constructed and some time has passed so that we will
have an experience of what traffic patterns will be. Woods agreed
we could inform the Church we are interested in seeing what occurs
over that period of time but we should know if they are interested
in meeting these conditions. Dowell agreed with this. The
Committee directed Jim Harris to take this back to Pete Curran to
determine the Church ' s willingness to agree to the proposed
conditions and bring it back before the Committee. Woods stated
we should also indicate there is a concern about what the impact
of the new building and potential parking loss will have. Johnson
added he felt Harris ' suggestion was something to consider as well .
Requested Correction of September 12 1989 Minutes
Wickstrom commented that Ms. Fletcher' s reference to the closure
of Russell Road was inaccurate. We did indicate it would be closed
after 64th was constructed and opened. The Committee concurred
with that. Nizlek commented traffic goes to 228th and many turn
right - basically avoiding Meeker and James signals. It is hard
to say where they go from there. The Committee unanimously
recommended that Ms. Fletcher' s letter be made a part of this
record.
Signal System Audit
Wickstrom stated that we had previously reallocated $15, 000 to hire
a consultant to do an audit of our signal systems and that we use
$3 , 000 of that for aerial video of intersections . Instead of using
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I' November 28 , 1989
MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS , PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: THIRD AVENUE STREET VACATION
On September 19 , 1989 the City Council referred the St. Anthony' s
Catholic Church Street Vacation Application (STV-89-4) to the Council ' s
Public Works Committee . The Committee met on October 24 to discuss this
proposed vacation and instructed staff to meet with the applicant ' s
representatives to discuss mitigating conditions that might be applied to the
vacation if the Council chose to approve the application.
Staff consisting of Jim Harris, Don Wickstrom and Bob Hutchinson met with
Pete Curran on November 2 and discussed a number of possible conditions .
They are:
1 . That Plan "A" , as presented to the Council Public Works
Committee for their review, become the guide for future
development of the area requested to be vacated.
2 . Plan "A" , as presented or as modified by the Council, must be
acted on within five years from the date action is taken ' by
the Council on the street vacation request.
3 . The vacation ordinance shall not become final until the Church
commits to implement plan "A" or submits a revised plan that
is approved by the Council with a timeline for development .
4 . Work to implement plan "A" or whatever plan is approved shall
be completed within two years of commencement.
5 . Any gates constructed on the vacated right of way must be
approved by the Kent Fire Department. The gate as shown on
plan "A" must be equipped with a chain that can be cut; must
swing south; must pop into a latch system.
6 . The City will be compensated for the vacated street in the
normal manner prescribed for such vacations .
It is important to draw the Committee ' s attention to the staff report that
was part of the scheduled public hearing on September 19th since that hearing
was not held and thus the staff recommendation of denial did not become part
of the record.
Also" attached are memos from the City Attorney' s office. The City Attorney
recommends that any street vacation approval include a condition that the
City be able to use the vacated area for public parking at specified times
or events .
JPH: ca
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 10, 1989
MEMO TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A
PORTION OF THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN TITUS STREET AND SAAR STREET
I . Name of Application
St. Anthony' s Catholic Church
II. Reason for Requesting Vacation
The applicant states, "This vacation is being requested by the adjacent
property owners to coincide with the application currently before the
city for the vacation of 3rd Avenue South north of Titus and because of
common ownership on both sides of 3rd Avenue. "
III . Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comments from the following departments and agencies:
Public Works
Fire
Police
Puget Power
Washington Natural Gas
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that
the request to vacate a portion of Third Avenue South as mentioned in
Resolution 1212 and shown on the accompanying map, be DENIED for the
following reasons :
1 . It is important to maintain the Downtown street grid system to the
extent possible. The vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe and
Titus Streets should not automatically trigger other street
vacations in the vicinity, even though one property owner may own
properties on both sides of the street.
2 . The new Centennial building ' s location over the old right of way
for Third Avenue is oriented toward access from Third Avenue south
of Titus Street. If Third Avenue is vacated south of Titus, access
to the new facility will be greatly hindered and all traffic will
have to use Fourth Avenue or Second Avenue to get onto Titus Street
to then enter the new facility.
3 . Recent channelization improvements have been made to Willis Street
at Third Avenue which include the installation of a left-turn
pocket for eastbound to northbound traffic. This improvement would
allow easy access to the City Hall from Willis Street. This also
has the potential for aiding a greater dispersal of traffic over
the grid system in the vicinity of City Hall; the vacation of Third
Avenue precludes this dispersal .
STAFF REPORT STV-89-4
THIRD AVE BETWEEN TITUS AND SAAR
AUGUST 10 , 1989
4 . In light of the plans to remodel the current library building for
use as Kent ' s Police Headquarters building, closure of the street
would greatly hamper egress and ingress into police parking. This
situation would adversely impact building security and potentially
slow emergency response. In addition, it could impede egress and
ingress to the new parking garage which would potentially block the
one planned entrance to police parking.
5. Why is the proposed vacation of Third Avenue between Titus and Saar
Streets different from the vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe
and Titus Streets?
The City Hall complex is being transformed into a campus-type
setting. Third Avenue currently ends at Gowe Street; much
of the traffic using this portion of Third Avenue is City
vehicles or the public doing business at City Hall. It is not
uncommon for campus-type developments, as they spread outward,
to alter local circulation patterns. There is nothing wrong
with this as long as alternatives to the altered circulation
pattern are taken into consideration. This has been done with
the City Hall complex.
The City might still provide access through the parking lc
of the Centennial/City Hall complex which would connect Gowe
and Titus Streets. This access would not be a street but
might be a connector via the parking lots between Titus and
Gowe Streets .
Kent' s newly-revised Downtown Plan (adopted by Resolution 1203
on May, 2 1989) has as its overall goal under the circulation
section the following:
PROVIDE FOR SAFE, EFFICIENT AND IDENTIFIABLE ACCESS TO
AND MOVEMENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA BY PLANNED ROUTES
FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, RECOGNIZING THE
NECESSITY OF RELATING CIRCULATION TO LAND USE AND
ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES .
The closure of Third Avenue between Gowe and Titus Streets has
very effectively implemented this goal by taking into
consideration the campus-type development for City Hall . This
is vastly different from simply desiring to close a street
because there are some common ownerships on both sides of it.
JPH: ca
Attachment
2
S r
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: November 21 , 1989 `�s
TO: Jim Harris, Planning Director
Sandra Driscoll Planning
EJECT: ST. ANTHONY'S STREET VACATION APPLICATION
Attached is a copy of a prior memorandum to you from Bill Williamson prepared
at the request of the Public Works Committee presenting information related to
the application for vacation of a portion of Third Avenue by St. Anthony' s
Church. To assist in responding to any possible challenges to the vacation,
the City must demonstrate public benefit. It should be noted that a private
party may also directly or indirectly benefit, but the public benefit must be
clear. It is important to, therefore, demonstrate that the City's
Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Comprehensive Plan, Central Business
District Plan, and like matters would be complied with or enhanced through
such vacation should it be granted. The Council could also add a requirement
that the City be able to use the vacated areas for parking by the public or
its employees. We could specify times or events such as Canterbury Faire,
Cornucopia Days, public meetings or the like. Should such parking be
provided, this could be a portion of the compensation required under the
vacation ordinance at RCW 35.79.030 and Kent City Code 4.08.030.
Should you seek any more information on this matter, by all means contact me
or Bill Williamson.
cc: Bill Williamson
Don Wickstrom
5688L-5L
HARRIS,JIM / KENT70/PL - HPDesk print.
----------------------- ---------------
Message. Dated: 10/25/89 at 1451.
iubject: St. Anthony's Vacation/3rd Avenue Vacation Procedures
Sender: Bill WILLIAMSON / KENT70/LW Contents : 2 .
TO: Jim HARRIS / KENT70/PL
Part 1.
TO: Sandra DRISCOLL / KENT70/LW
Jim HARRIS / KENT70/PL
CC: Norm ANGELO / KENT70/FR
Jim HANSEN / KENT70/AD
Jerry MCCAUGHAN / KENT70/PW
Part 2.
At the request of the Public Works Committee, I have reviewed the
issues of whether the City Council is limited to specific enumerated
conditions of KCC 4.08 .030 (retention of limited easement for repair,
construction, and maintenance of utilities) or whether the Council can
expand conditions to include, for example, a detailed site plan
with provisions for fire lanes and fire department access to the
campus as contained in the proposal submittedto the Public Works
Committee on Tuesday, October 25 , 1989 . (See attachment)
Following my review of KCC 4.08.030, RCW Chapter 39 .79 , and state law
cases , I have concluded from my research that the site plan depictions
provided in the attachment, as may be amended by City Departments and
ratified by the Council, can serve as appropriate and enforceable
conditions. That is, the Council is not limited to the "usual"
easement reservations so long as a finding is made in a Report accepted
by the Council or following public hearings that site plan as a
condition to the vacation being granted is based upon some element of
public benefit or use,m and not enacted solely for a private purpose.
Such a public use or benefit finding could be based upon a determination
that the site plan and improvements would enhance the campus environment
of the City's planned Centennial Building approved for construction by
the City; that it was consistenut with the City' s Comprehensive Transpor-
tation Master Plan/6 Year Plans ; that it was also consistent with the
City's Comprehensive SubArea Central Business District Plan. . The
ordinance should be as specific as possible in stating public use and
benefit objectives served by the vacation and conditions .
I have attached a copy of London v. Seattle, 93 Wn2d 657 (1980) for your
information. This case provides the basis for interpreting KCC 4.08.030
and RCW Chapter 39 .79 to permit the establishment of additional and
broader conditions for street vacation.
Please advise me whether a formal written memorandum will be required.
This E Mail Memo is not intended as a substitute for a formal opinion
if requested.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 24 , 1989
PRESENT: JON JOHNSON GREGG MCCORMICK
CHRISTI HOUSER JIM HARRIS
DON WICKSTROM NORM ANGELO
GARY GILL TIM HEYDON
JIM HANSEN JACK SPENCER
MARTY NIZLEK PETE CURRAN
Request for Street Improvements
Ms. Crook was unable to be at the meeting due to illness. Nizlek
ran a video of 38th from Reith Road to 253rd. After discussing the
situation, it was determined that the Traffic Division of Public
Works would do speed studies and look at the accident picture as
well as determining if this street has been placed on the asphalt
overlay schedule for 1990 . This information will be brought back
to the Committee at their November 28th meeting at which time
perhaps Ms. Crook would be able to attend.
Rentonite Shopping Complex
John Pain had asked this item be continued to the November 28
meeting. The Committee requested the Attorney' s office prepare a
position statement on this item that could be made available to Mr.
Pain prior to that meeting. Johnson indicated he would discuss
this with their office.
Third Avenue Street Vacation
Jim Harris reviewed the request and background for the Committee.
Staff has some concerns about closing 3rd since traffic uses 3rd
Avenue from Willis to Titus toward City Hall as a viable route.
Harris continued that Pete Curran has presented a plan which
addresses some of the concerns addressed in the staff report such
as a lack of an • overall plan for the closure. Curran displayed a
plan for the area if 3rd Avenue were allowed to be vacated. He
indicated it was planned to always provide access for fire and
emergency vehicles . Curran made reference to the land value
recently established for the property in the area and he indicated
he felt the $8 . 50 per foot value is justified for the time period
during which the sale will take place. Curran added that 3rd
Avenue has never been open to the downtown area except from Willis
to Gowe. He indicated he felt the City made an excellent decision
to close 3rd between Gowe and Titus for the Centennial Building.
He referred to excerpts from the 1974 CBD Plan which are included
in his handout. He added that the developer of the Centennial
Building also endorses the vacation of this portion of 3rd. Harris
asked if the Church were committed to the particular design being
Public Works Committee
October 24 , 1989
Page 2
presented today. Curran stated the Church was committed to two
things - having the plaza in front of the church as shown and to
as much parking on the street as possible similar to what is
displayed. Johnson asked if the City has ever conditioned street
vacations . Angelo stated if the street were vacated without
conditions, they would have to ask how the fire problems were to
be handled. The proposal as submitted does address some of those
questions. Johnson asked the attorney is we could place conditions
that they would develop according to an approved plan on a street
vacation. Williamson stated he would want to review the State
regulations on that but he doesn't think it addresses it one way
or another. After further discussion, the Committee directed staff
to meet with Pete Curran to discuss what conditions might be
developed in order to allow such a vacation. Jim Harris was
appointed as lead for this meeting.
Interlocal Cooperation Purchasing Agreement
Spencer explained State law allows municipalities to enter into
interlocal agreements in order to purchase from the other' s bidding
procedures for equipment. In this instance, Mason County has
received bids on dump trucks which are the same as we need to
purchase. By entering into an interlocal agreement with Mason
County we would be able to purchase from their low bidder. The
Committee unanimously recommended approval for the Mayor to sign
the agreement.
Update on Transportation Management Program
Gregg McCormick indicated this item was scheduled for this agenda
to bring the Committee up to date on this issue. A committee
composed of the City Attorney, Transportation Engineer and Gregg
McCormick have . revised the last draft of the TMP ordinance
incorporating as much of the Chamber ' s comments as possible as well
as those of the Planning and Public Works Directors and other
staff. It is planned to present this draft ordinance to the
Chamber again for their review. The Chamber has indicated they
would also like the Environmental Mitigation Task Force involved.
Houser questioned how the goals of participation will be monitored
and what happens if they aren 't met. McCormick responded that the
administrative guidelines referenced in the ordinance will address
the monitoring. Those guidelines have not been developed. Houser
asked how the goals were supposed to be met in the three year
period. McCormick responded the ordinance prescribes actions that
can be taken or be required based on the size of the development.
Houser commented she did not see how this could be effective
j
September 19 , 1989
SEWERS constructed in the vicinity of S.E. 248th Stre t and
111th Ave. S .E. for the Walnut Park Apartment and
release of the cash bond after expiration of the one
year maintenance period.
HEALTH AND ✓(PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
SANITATION LID 334 Derb shire No. 7 Sanita Sewer. The public
hearing to confirm the final assessment roll for LID
334 was continued on September 5 to t s date. The
Public Works Director met with resid is of the area
on Wednesday, September 13 , 1989 an he noted that
after the meeting it was discovere that an error
had been made in overpayments to e contractor and
these had been figured into the sessments. He
requested that the hearing be c tinued to the next
regular meeting of October 3 , 89 to allow time for
the final assessment roll to e corrected and
notices sent. WHITE SO MOVE , Johnson seconded and
the motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM )
✓116th Ave. S.E. Sanitary Sewer Extension_
ACCEPTANCE of the compl ted contract with Rodarte
Construction, Inc. and release of retainage after •
receipt of State clea ances. This project was
awarded to Rodarte C nstruction, Inc. for the bid
amount of $72 , 953 . 9 on August 2 , 1988 , and notice
to proceed was iss ed September 19 , 1988 . ' The
project consisted of the installation of 1, 725 feet
of sanitary sewe pipe and 20 feet of side sewer
with 47 feet of water main and various related
appurtenances. Final construction costs are
$92 , 328 . 25 .
(BIDS - ITE 5A)
�liscellane us Sewer and Water Main Improvements.
B/thee
g was August 25, 1989 with four bids
rThe low bid was submitted by R. W. Scott
iunt of $301, 653 . 34 , the Engineer' s
eas $200, 701. 07 . The bids have been
rnd it is recommended by the Director of
Pks that the bids be rejected and the
p modified and rebid at a later date.
J MOVED. Mann seconded and the motion
(3arried.
STREET (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2B)
VACATION St Anthony's Catholic Church Street Vacation No.
STV-89-4 . The Mayor noted that the public hearing
2
I
a�
4�'u
It.•
J.
September 19 , 1989
u{;
STREET scheduled for this meeting had been removed from the
VACATION agenda and referred to the Public Works Committee
which will meet at 3,: 30 p.m. on Tuesday, September
26th.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Drapgsholt Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution
121 setting a public hearing date of October 17 ,
!989 �u-on the Drangsholt petition to vacate portion
of a street west of Woodland Way and south of S .
262nd P! for the Hawkridge Development.
COMMUNITY (PUBLIC FEARING - ITEM 2C)
DEVELOPMENT 1990 Cc=unity Development Block Grant Program. A
BLOCK GRANT public heading has been scheduled for this meeting
PROGRAM :o ccnsider\adoption of the 1990 Community
Development lock Grant Program as recommended by
the Council anning Committee and by the Human
Services Comm ttee. Lin Ball of the Planning
described the taff recommendation as follows:
-10 OF N VA ILA UL- $234,112/$236,937
CN 7NDE11 O 5 R _QN AND I(UMAN SFRVICES:
'990 li•.nan Services Ceiling $ 25,221/$ 27,239
_990 P_ann_:u and Administra ion Ceiling $ 10,088/$ 10,895
Recommended Recommended
"Base Level" "Higher Level"
ect Type Funding Funding
_. Prp:ran Planning & A min $ 10,088 $ 10,895
Adainistration
2. ll cusis Repair services llou 'nq Rehab 118,390 118,390
Prcgran
3, Srecia: Populations Rehab 14,509 14,509
R esour=e Center Rehab
A. Kivar-s Tot Lot 14 Rehab Rehab 7,048 7,048
5. Kent/�enton Joint Rental Housing Re zb 8,256 8,256
iSousiaq Rehab.
6, catholic COAPUnity Acquisition 28,000- 23,000
sarvicas S. Rinq co,
Center Acquisition
00
7. Chi itren's Therapy Center Construction 3,500 3,5
Z. ?:ant Community Clinic Construction 19,100
19,100
Facility Expansion
9, Kant Single Parent Human Services 4,600
4,600
Employment and Education
' 10. Y'1;C1 Emergency Housing Human Services
2,610 2,610
Pr_,ran
11. :tee r.t Community Health Human Services 9,01
11,029
Services
12. Ccaestic Abuse Women's Human Services 5,000
5,000
tle_•cr) (DAWN)
i3. Para-Transit (Van- Iluman services A 0 0
't.000
TOTAL $234,112 $236,937
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CHU-TONI ESTATES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 336 feet of street improvements and 339 feet of
storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 42nd
Place South and South 253rd Street for the Chu-Toni Estates
project and release of cash bond after expiration of the one
year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity m
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: ' Staff
(Committee, Staff Examiner, Commission, etc. )
1
1
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL OTE: Recommended Not Recommended
1
1
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :]
r
7 . CITY COUNCIL A410N:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
__-
rj
Ln
Ln
r
O R@it
I �q
G
� F
r
Jul
t� S
� X
i
CHU—TONI ESTATES
r Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappointment
of Greg Greenstreet to the Planning Commission. This term will
expire 12/31/92 .
1
i
3 . EXHIBITS: *ne
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUMED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
i
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ January 2 1990
`1 Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE . ""•'^ rys- lO
2 . S Y STA13`P As appro_y�_� _by. the Counci on
December 19, 1989/, Adoption of Resolution amending the
`CampreFHensive Plan to allow Ml-C designation in the semicircle
south of Willis
S
L
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
i
i
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council/Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, xaminer, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P SONNEL IMPACT: NO \< _ YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL NO E: Recommended__ Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIEAD: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION: i
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the City's
Comprehensive Plan to allow M1-C designation in
the semicircle south of Willis bounded on the
east by Union Pacific Railroad and on the west
by the Valley Freeway off ramp.
WHEREAS, applicant Ronald Healey, AIA, has requested an
amendment to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan to allow an M1-C
designation in the semicircle south of Willis bounded on the east
by the Union Pacific Railroad and on the west by the Valley
Freeway off ramp; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
35A.63.073 of the Revised Code of Washington and Kent Resolution
No. 989, hearings were held before the. Planning Commission of the
City of Kent on October 23, 1989 to consider the proposed change;
and
WHEREAS, after the final hearing of the Planning
Commission and its final deliberations, the proposed amendment was
recommended to the City Council for adoption; and
WHEREAS, the City Council ccnsidered the recommendations
of the Planning Commission at a public meeting on December 19,
1989; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Kent Valley Comprehensive Plan Map is
amended to change the designation for the area at the intersection
of 74th Avenue South and Willis Street, in a semicircle south of
Willis bounded on the east by Union Pacific Railroad and on the
west by the Valley Freeway off ramp as indicated on Appendix A
"C-suffix amendment", to the designation of M1-C, as defined in
the Kent City Zoning Code and Ordinance No. 1128.
Section 2. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, Valley
Floor Subarea Plan and their appendices and maps are amended to
provide that all references to the area described in Section 1
herein shall be in conformity with the amendment to that area
designation as set out in Section One.
Section 3. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
Valley Floor Subarea Plan, and associated Map amendments 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.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _
day of 1939.
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
7960-280
2 -
u
o og
00 oa
o
� o
' o
• a �
a ° �
°
a
R
LL1 5 ST' LL ❑° ° p l
ao - -
/ a o 00
o �
p a
o °
o p a
o
W 12
LL CO
TO THP— VA•LLF-`f Floor,
Q PLAN
. } � p,2En of c-suF�lX
a .
4 flIV R
FR
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION - CHILCOATE.
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 12z(o setting a
public hearing for February 6, 1990 on the Chilcoate request for
vacation of a portion of Alexander Avenue.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, 'Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FI CAL PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL PERSO EL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUN OS: _
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding vacation of
certain property generally located at the
southeast 4 feet by 110.76 feet of Alexander
Avenue on the north side on Guiberson Street in
Kent, more fully described below, setting a
public hearing for February 6, 1990 on the
application of Gary J. Chilcoate.
WHEREAS, a proper petition has been filed requesting
vacation of certain property on the southeast 4 feet by 110.76
feet of Alexander Avenue on the north side on Guiberson Street in
the City of Kent, and more fully described as
The East four feet of that portion of
Alexander Avenue lying North of the North
line of Guiberson Street and South of a
line 363 feet South of the North line of
the Northeast one-fourth of the Southeast
one-fourth of Section 19, Township 22
North, Range 5 East, W.M. ;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing on the aforesaid vacation
petition shall be at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council to
be held at 7 o'clock p.m. , February 6, 1990, in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall, Kent, Washington.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of
hearing and cause the notice to be posted as provided by law.
Section 3. The Planning Director shall obtain the
necessary approval or rejection of or other information from the
water, street, sewer and other appropriate departments and shall
transmit information to the Council so that the matter can be
considered by the City Council at a regular meeting on February 6,
1990.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ day of _ 1989.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1989-
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of _ 1989-
MA
(SEAL)
RIE JETISEN, CITY CLERK
7940-270 _ 2 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION. --bRD7N7UTM
2 . Y STATEMENT-^ s approved .by the Council
December 19 1989 koption of Ordinance -changing the
term of the non-voting member of the Human Services Commission
from a one year term to a two year term
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance I
I
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council , Human Services Commission
Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE ONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT : Recommended__ Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUI": $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ( moves, Councilmember seconds
r
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
I/
ORDINANCE NO. g
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to the Human Services
Commission, changing the term of the Human
Services Commission non-voting agency member
j from one year to two years and amending Kent
City Code 2.39.020.
WHEREAS, the Human Services Commission recommended that
the term for the non-voting agency member be changed from one years,
to two years; and
I
WHEREAS, on December 19, 1989 the Kent City Council voted,
i
that the term should be changed from one year to two years; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Ii Section 1. Kent City Code 2. 39.020 shall be amended as
follows:
4
Ili 2.39.020. MEMBERSHIP, TERMS, _RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS.
A. The Commission shall consist of seven appointed mem-
bers, each of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed
by the City Council.
B. The term of office of the first two commissioners
, appointed and confirmed shall expire January 1, 1988; the term of
lithe second two commissioners appointed and confirmed shall be
( January 1, 1989; the term of office of the final three commis-
sioners appointed and confirmed shall expire January 1, 1990.
When a vacancy occurs on the Commission, appointment for that
position shall be for three years, or for the remainder of the
unexpired term, whichever is the shorter period of time.
i
it
I
I�
it
C. At least four persons appointed to serve on the
Commission shall reside within the corporate limits of the City.
D. To the extent practicable, appointme
nts shall reflect
a balance of interest and should include two business persons, a
person who has used or is using human services, two members of thel
II religious community, a representative of a regional human service
planning agency or organization, such as the Kent Area Activities
iCouncil, United Way, and the South King Council of Human Services,
and a service club representative.
E. There shall also be two nonvoting members of the Com-
Imission7-te-eonsiet-e€-a-member-e£-the-2itp-eennei}--eggeinteei
pearly-by-tke President-o£-the-eoaneiI---and-One One shall be aI
member of the City Council, appointed yearly by the President of
the Council. The second shall be a representative of a human
service provider organization or agency to be appointed pearly to
a two year term by the Mayor, provided such representative of a
human service provider shall not serve consecutive terms.
1�
Section 2. No vested right shall be affected by the
provision of this ordinance.
I,
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
Ieffect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its finale,
ipassage as provided by law.
lei
_ I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
( ATTEST:
I
�I
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
II
ISANDRA DRISCOLL, CITY ATTORNEY
- 2 -
i
I
ill
I
I
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:
I' No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, I
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
'I MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
I
I
�I
I i
I
III
7950-270
I
- 3 -
i
Kent City Council Meeting
1 Date January 2 , 1990
qT� Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: LEMMON APPEAL DOVER PLACE PUD-89-1 AND SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the December 19 , 1989 meeting, a
public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Lucille
and John Lemmon of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of
conditional approval of the Dover Place PUD-89-1 and Preliminary
Subdivision #SU-89-2 . Information received at the hearing
included a presentation and comments by City staff, public
testimony and the developer's rebuttal .
The hearing was completed and closed.
3 . EXHIBITS: App al, entire packet distributed for the
December 19 hea ing.
The Council min tes of the Dec 19th meeting are in
Section 3A/B of this packet . The Dover Place items
are on pages 4 t 18 .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: He inq Examiner 10 25 89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff Examiner, Commission, etc. )
i
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PER NNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: ..Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: N ne
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember iV -tZ"\ move', Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modifyf ,ems)the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the H4aring Examiner's recommendation
of approval of PUD-89-1 and SU-84-2 with 17 conditions.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
tilov 131989
CITY OF KENT
CITY CLERK
17
rzz-
1-7
-f X
c
14
J1,
U
_74-
Office of the City Clerk
220 S . 4th
859- 3370
Cit••,r of Kent
Order for Transcript for
Appeal from Decision cf f?earir.g ---miner
Resolution 396
Ordinance 2233
Date \f P.ppeaI filed 1�. ou 9� l
Apoellant ' S Name
Address
Hearing Examiner ' s File No . N)Uer
Date of Hearing E:<a-ni ner Public fieari:;c Cp p� �9� F Ile
Date Of I:2ar1nQ E::aminer S D2CiS10ri c- -� ��y / �(+l t)Gdr-�oZidn �SSUrc/ /O/_W_7/7
Notice of aoceal must be filed with the C_--, Clerk within 14 days c:
the action taken by the Hearinc - E:amrner _"'.G mL`St be aCCOmCa^:�eC by
a $ 25 filing fee . Treasurer ' s Receipt
Within 30 days of the Hearinq Examiner ' s decision , the appellant s:•ali
order from the City Clerk a full trar.scr - cf the hearing held be=er
the Hearing Examiner and must post at the -17,e of the order, security
$100 for each tape to be transcribed . If the acnual
in the amount o�
cost incurred by the City exceeds the amcu^= posted, the appellant
shall be required to reimburse the City fcr the excess amount.
if ^,e
cost is less than the amount posted , and; c=_c-t cue will be retur::ec
to the appellant.
Order for Transcript received _
( 100 . 00i
Treasurer ' s Receipt
x NOV 81989
cr[Y or I{FP!1
TREAS(MY
October 16, 1989
UZ
1989
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunteramine_Hearing Ex r + T
City of Kent
220 Fourth Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
Re: RespxDnse to Cam-West's Rccruest for Reconsideration
Prorx0sed Dover Development sG( Jy I
Dear M.r. Hunter:
We the people of Kent, snecifically Brier Lane, have the follo,,fing objections
to the prop r
proposed Dover Develorent we would li'�2 to submit in response to
Cam-West's Request for Reconsideration.
The proposed Lover Development has reduced its average size lot even further,
to a typical lot size of 4,140 (which was states on Cam-West's Request for
Reconsideration Exhibit "A" T mical Lot Dimensi.cns of 45 ft by 92 ft. ) They
have enlarged the street width which is qreat, but to accomplish this thev
have not compromised by eliminating a lot, but rather reduced the lot sizes
even further at the expense of the families who .,rill be living there and t~.e
surrounding corrnunity. Thev have taken peen mcr:� land from the future
residents.
The ?xxo*Ple Of Kent have been strongly opposinc. 5,000 sq. ft. lots the last
f�a months and Carr-West want to build a typical lot size which is under the
5,000 sq. ft. , almost 20% under. This would be a gross injustice to this
ccrmunity, that has an average lot size of 9,ccG0 sq. ft. for sinqle family
homes.
A PUD is suppose to be a buffer between multi-f nily and single family homes.
As stated by the Cite, if 5,000 sq. ft. lots are passed they are to be for
areas between apartments and single family homes so there would be a gradual
transistion from seeing an apartment, a develor,&- area of 5,000 sq. ft. lot
homes, and then normal sincrle family homes. The proposed project is surrounded
by R-1 9 .6 lots. You are askinc us to approve Lois less than 1/2 in size.
We are even being asked to ap
sq. ft. prove lots sizes which are less than the 5,000
The proposed Dover Project is located in the mic'dle of a R-1 9.61zoned area
(see map, Exhibit A of Brier Lane)
True, Dover_ Develoranent will have the same minimum requirement of an 8 ft.
back yard, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. front yarn. However, no hones in Kent
only have this bare minimum yard space due to t".e fact that the lot sizes
Hearing Examiner
October 16, 1989
Pace 2
are a minimum of 7,200 to 9,600 sq. ft. , so their yards are much larger.
Dover Development, with an average lot size of 4,140 sq. ft. will only be
able to have the bare minimum yard space. This in no way will blend in
with the existing neighborhood or community. We will be forcing people to
have their children leave home to plav (in the proposed open space) where
they will be left unattended and out of sight (even worse thev will be
forced to play in the street) and the city will !De discouraging any gather-
ings or family get-togethers, holiday parties, etc. These are the reasons
r'eople want yards, and yards are the reason rconle want to own homes
versus condcminums or living in apartmc-nts. Space and privacy - this is what
it all entails. The peonl.e'of Kent and Western Washington have spoken out.
Don't litter our hills with dense housing. When we walk, jog or drive
around our area we want to see space, not door tc door housing.
There is also the question of an unsiahtly park--�-ncr lot right in the middle of
the north side of the development. Parking lots are for apartrnents. This
develounent will become an e.,�tension of Brier Lire. Parking lots do not
fit in with the immediate housing area. They will become a place to park
your broken down car, a source of litter, etc.
According to John Newell, the Engineering consultant for Cam-West, the
fact that in order to install the biofiltration system some of the natural
vegetation, which from his testi-cony was the trees on the west side of the
procerty, will be cut down and replaced by grass. According to paqe 19
of the Staff Report, 1.50 0`_ the site must be re`ained as native vegetation.
The tree plan had been submitted, now they need to bulldoze this area for
installing the biofiltration s••Istem. A percent_ir-e of the required 15%
vegetation is lost.
Cam-West's map does not clearly show the devel.oq-tent's actual dimensions;
lot sizes, roads, open area, passive area, etc. They have barely
qualified for their bonus points and the way trey have moved thinqs around
we do not know if they still cpialify. For instance, they have added four
additional parkincr spaces to the active open srk.ce. This section of land
can no longer be called open active space. Another case in question would
be lot 1736. Hoer do thev propose to out in an access way from the lot into
the street. I think an indepth man would clear sore of these obvious
concerns. A map showing actual footages, that. you can read.
There is also the question of the CCR's. This was to be submitted but
as to date has not. How will the ooen space be maintained?
This particular PM falls tray short of its main. ur;o se.
See Exhibit B of Brier Lane
October 16, 1969
Page 3
RESPONSES TO CITY WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: + SP
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY l:
The City has already stated, that 100th Avenue, which is the street our
children use to walk to school, is already substandard and inadertuate.
Adding 39 additional- homes would make it more dangerous and would also
increase the city's liability of a lawsuit.
GOAL 2, OB,T=-IVE 2, POLICY 3:
This particular PUD would not be attractive to single-family homeowners.
Single-family homeowners desire yards and privacv. Parkinq lots in
�
the middle of their develonent would not be attractive.
GOP12, OBJECTIVE 2, POLICY 4 :
PUD's belong down in the valley, next to the fre•2=:rays and work areas.
They do not telonc or. the East Hill, which crFsates urban sprawl.
COAL 2, O&=IVE 3, POLICY 3:
Al.laaing a private road severely reduces services to this project.
COAL 2, OB,=I'vE 3, POLICY 4 :
Havinq this protect or. a pri%ate road reduces services to it.
GOAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 5 :
This project would be in the middle of an already developed area that is
zoned R-1 9.6. r?o anartrrnnts are around the i,-rmeuiate area. This Project
would be against this policy.
COAL 2, OB=IVE 3, POLICY 6:
They have refused to help out in the area of sidewalks and street lightir:,
for the children of this development to enable them to get to school
safely when they walk down 100th Avenue_ 100th Avenue is the Only way
to get to the elementary school from this develorreent.
COAL 2, O=TIVE '_, POLICY, 2:
This policy is aimed at improving multi-family neighboncccds. This project
will not improve the quality of development in this particular area.
COAL 2, OBJECTIVE 3 , POLICY 9:
This will not be a new develorarent. THis will be an extension of the
existing Brier Lane develoranent as there is oniv one way to get into Dover
Development and that is through Brier Lane.
Once they plant the trees, it will take approximately 15-20 years before there
would be adequate biiEfering.
October 16, 1.989
Paqe 4
GOAL, 3, OBJECTIVE 1, POLICY 3--
How will the city guarantee any/all services to a project on a private road?
Where will liability fall?
COAL 3, OBJECTIVE 3, POLICY 3:
First of all, this PUD is not in an apnronriate area for density. This
develoFment is surrounded by R-1 9.6 zone:' areas.
Brier Lane and the surroundLrq areas already ha-ie a variety of lot sizes
(7,200 and up) styles of ho;res, and a wide ranee of hcme prices. A
variety of hcir.es and styles on 7,200 sq. ft. tc 1 2,000 sq. ft lots would
be com:�arable to the surrcuncinq co;rmunity. F. "i;.c t'r s wide range of
lot sizes would increase the variety or hc7e < < ces.
jv THE LiNDERSIC,, R=QUEST THAT TFT, REQUEST FOR iEMNSIDERkTIGV BE DEN �J
P ID TIC F BRING E:{PAIINER R/ CO 1D T3 UI CITi CCUciCI✓ D�IIt�L OF Tit PLC.
z'
/J-
/Jy
PZ-
57
9 ��L,`,�/+-.r,$.f /L IC- //.' �L�9`'=--%r/_ u Ci.� t`�'Iy��/i C^✓/l %'iJ Gi=D
I r
���� ' - III'
October 16, 1989
Page )Ri kz
5
i T
4 i f
G�
/J
'/ r�N�.(I�•� �,� L �— J � 0 � O } ,(�III �� �' � �—
��v; •,7 ;i.✓:mot" � Lz—.;.��� �/ ..y' � (� �// � � i � �7__/,�
Hearinq Dca=er
October 16, 1989
Paqe 6
D-31
LOA
7'
Sj
OL
2
31
0/ Li
4 7 �67
qF6
0 -7
------------
SE.224TH. ST. .«. r =.-«..._.,+=',__ �.Y.',t UR ��Jy ZA t, EC✓l3/T �'r
If
3
^ .,/• Z MANZ �°ADD. VOI.]' -b3
,an A: s:�a'r✓ !T .i,��
Li - o �I'1° oI Va.rui� Oavtc PaJev /s °;.cc
I>
a � .r - 1oa.a.rwaE6 6�,2.1 .9.G •_�; _ .
0
o —
OCT 1619891
\ N of .r.,� N
N 1
` 71• y.b .�V »� i; �, � �s ; �o .I'i ado I
W
� � ar � ,TY✓ !� .11.., n ff :I
°• � � �� � I� i n• 7 Soi2 v
E.
pp05
v-is ,t
�J r cC�b SE.
1 �
Ni Ct•. - x.n�°.oZ I � � z 1{ ,!>' r , J �I > yfn pa
cor
N iqiq tiu nf... 127r. 5lo
. . o r« °3 ° I I,l) Il r2 I 3 .I f'Y'�I l il•mdo+' m 23
eu�nl°n rz¢�aIjm _ - •y] 4 •_' MYo I:�y��r
u, 26 .: 25 •�. 2 n
• `u: 28 27
45 31
T A .. .i
R. a" p ;.\ = 1r�30oV 29 e'C °)u) °✓t l'e+ ca: ''ae.. ' nr1'r:�a . '�2y-/2 ''�� 1 .. " ' --
>:l Y .r , ,°,_ SE 228TM 5T
ti± I 44 r'a:oy 32 t'lx ..........� °'r�r .� -_^
I`+ SE '228TM (CT b >'n' �t ~/� r z sib• `r .a ILJi ll•XII,R�k .. s
� yr- .. .nrl i' r' . •.:6 �6" " r t+ `, ❑ 3 o IC . ' _ .. '+1 �! ' r'r \ ,
4y , ° .43 `0 33 ..r u,.r .1 17• I8). n "_- •°l 19 20 21,0 v I�- t .V•. `,S :il. s> j f
oi` j'+ 16 ��� R: -� _ .z,v' •ml h '>a' Pla » rrw
.p !C 71
nve�.rrarn'c
42
P>, ,jj .lr - +� r,t n/� `//, ° �Ov. iE-r°o , pc'u/•]�V 4 12 0° n .,, i' G '�; T
1 °i, 40 \e;i*35«� '•' ` '.\O\\o :•'.3��ta.(.''•,v. � 4 �> JIO.r 'd,V F A !�ntt> N f. r'I'4,.
� � t V 9YP.`'•12/ � � J/o x,r. 'I € I( I >[
o o s � o� a t 40�s c� LC�-nn r ,t P p1
'70
" ome housing is located on the valley Floor.
o�,,;.<;sT C ate
ow a I
h-�se"areas are earmarked for City B1ocitGisnnotuo lyftheseor eareas
. ts . However(
nfrastructure improvemeraded infrastructure. For example, areas
?hich are in need of upg
lace. In working to preserve i
ghat have been annexed into the City do not always have existing l
in,d/or adequate infrastructure in hoods , the City should
;nd protect these existing neighborram of correction.
identify such deficiencies and establish a program ,
rovides for adequate public services to existing
i
YThile the City p rotection of existing
neighborhoods , it should also insure the p
residential
nThisb�anobesaccomprh
lished from athbroughle s the es ause oofeopen
intru density gradations ,
space buffers , ' landscaprr.g, fencing, berte n
intensity gradation, and other appropriate mean:
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development intoeand
where
annere
needed services and facilities arereSidenbial neighborhoods .
which is compatible with existing
objective 1 : Encourage new residenticlose`'eootre^sportatien
suitable areas of the Valley Floor,
corridors .
lies solely to the Valley
(Editor' s Note: Goal 2 , Objective 1 app
Floor. )
Pclicv 11: Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
es for
policy
-- development rwhere 1feasible 4near acommercial
centers , major transportation corridors, and
major commuter transit rotates .
Policy 3 : Retain agricultural and r ral residential
opportunities .
, Ys and
policy 4 : provide for mobile home pa-
manufactured housing.
policy Encourage upper-story residential uses in
commercial and office buildings .
ial
on the
ast
and
Hillseas1 the enecessary tfacilities and tservices Eare
and West
available.
sin le-family neighborhoods
Policy�y 1: Protect existing g
from adverse impacts of nn12/ev2 LA
22x� 1 � f7— J3
Policy 2 : Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
Policy 3 : Encourage development of new single-family
housing, by creating neighborhood
environments attractive to single-family
builders and homeowners.
Policy 4 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as zoning,
to restrict and discourace development which
contributes to urban s_n awl .
Policv 5 : Limit opportunities for multifamily
development.
Policy 6 : Limit expansion of multifamily development in
rural residential areas .
objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so that it occurs
in a responsible manner, consistent with neighborhood
objectives .
Policy l : Limit Opportunities for high-density
multifamily development , where appropriate.
Policy 2 : Provide oppertunities for lcw-or medium-
density multifmily development in nodes and
a
near ccr7ercial centers .
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of areas already
served by utilities and transportation
systems , to achieve maximum efficiency in the
provisicn .of ser✓ices 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 les; 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
23
"fit" of multifamily developments within the
community.
Policy 8 . Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot
line, planned unit development and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of
developments .
Policv 9 : Ensure adequate buffering between new
developments where buffering is needed to
mitigate an adverse impact of the new
development.
Policv 1 Promote annexation as a means of guiding
development which may impact existing
residential areas .
RATIONALE FOR GOAL 2
Kent is an urban area . The large amount of
industrial/commercial/ office development within the city, which
coexists with the residential development here, has forever
changed the rural character that once was . t�lthough the
opportunities for large-lot, pastoral development should be
protected where feasible, the city ' s population will presumably
continue to grow and housing will be requirFd for new residents .
By Resolution 1123 , Kent ' s City Council evidenced a desire to
achieve reductions in the density of multifamily housing
developments within the City. Through. the Housing Study
authorization, the Planning Department was charged with the task
of determining areas appropriate for density reductions, for
potential new multifamily areas , or for den-sity increases. Using
input from the September 1988 public meeting and the meetings of l
the Housing Advisory Committee, an overall strategy for locating
residential density was established: "Limit. new opportunities
for high density multifamily development. Provide opportunities
for low- or medium-density multifamily development in nodes or
near commercial centers . Protect and expanc! existing single-
family neighborhoods . "
Efficient use of city services--including utilities and
transportation systems--is reinforced through careful density
planning. By concentrating multifamily development in centers ,
advantage can be taken of the economies of :kale. By limiting
densities on the urban fringe and encouraging infill development,
continued urban sprawl can be slowed. A gradual integration of
densities--from highest to lowest--creates a smooth transition in
order to protect all housing types .
Higher density developments have typically suffered from
"intensity" problems . Unattractive features of such development
could be mitigated through enhanced development standards or
24 �XX17' /3 il 7- 1�
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
November 16, 1989
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: DOVER PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 47tSU-89-2
On September 6, 1989 the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing to consider
a request by Cam-West Development Inc for a 39-lot residential subdivision.
The subdivision is incorporated with a Planned Unit Development. The
property is 7 . 6 acres in size and is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE and
SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion of the west side of 104th
Avenue SE.
The Hearing Examiner issued a Decision on Reconsideration on October 25 , 1989
recommending conditional approval of the preliminary subdivision and PUD.
Conditions of the Preliminary Subdivision are :
1 . As to the Preliminary Plat element of the application:
A. Approval of a PUD permit as modified and conditioned in accordance
with this recommendation.
B. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1 . Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, concrete curb and sidewalks ,
street lighting, drainage systems, street name signs and other
items consistent with good street construction practices as
determined by the City;
2 . Deed a 20 foot right-of-way along 104th Ave SE to the City for
street purposes ;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water release at a
non-erosive point and extend storm drain facilities to
adjacent property lines with necessary easements as required
by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and domestic
flow requirements with a minimum size of a six-inch diameter;
5 . Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and extend
to adjacent property lines as determined by the City;
6 . Provide a plat notation and necessary implementation measures
to assure that no .vehicle access to the proposed development
will be allowed from 104th Avenue SE.
CA:JPH: ca
DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
BY THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE ttPUD-89-1 AND 4SU-89-2
APPLICANT: CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REDUEST: Request for reconsideration on Denial issued on
September 20 , 1989
LOCATION: The property is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE
and SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion
of the west side of 104th Avenue SE.
HEARING DATE: September 6 , 1989
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUED: September 20 , 1989
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
FILED: October 4 , 1989
RECONSIDERATION
ISSUED: October 25 , 1989
RECOMMENDATION
ON
RECONSIDERATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
The applicant applied for approval of both a Planned Development
(PUD) permit and approval of a preliminary plat. Section 15 . 04 . 080
E (6) of the Kent Zoning Code authorizes consolidation of the PUD
review process with other land use permit processes required by
other sections of the Code. A hearing was held on the consolidated
application on September 6 , 1989 . The recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner was issued on September 20, 1989 . The Hearing
Examiner concluded that the application for preliminary plat
approval is in compliance with applicable provisions of Kent
Subdivision Code and should be approved with conditions as noted
in the recommendation. However, the Hearing Examiner also
concluded that approval of the PUD application as proposed would
not have a beneficial effect upon the community which would not
normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and may
be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses. Specific reasons
for this conclusion are detailed in the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommendation of September 20 , 1989 .
1
Decision on Reconsideration -
Dover Place
#{PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
Because the application for PUD approval was consolidated with the
application for approval of a preliminary plat, and because it was
determined that the PUD application could not be approved as
proposed, the Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the
consolidated application. A "Notice of Reconsideration" of this
decision was filed by the applicant. The Kent City Code allows an
applicant, or any aggrieved person, to request reconsideration of
a Hearing Examiner recommendation. Upon receipt of such a request,
the Hearing Examiner "may . . . take further action as he or she
deems proper" . See, KCC 2 . 54 . 150 . The applicant is not entitled
to reconsideration; reconsideration is granted only if the Hearing
Examiner chooses to do so. The "Notice of Reconsideration" filed
by the applicant will be treated as a request for reconsideration.
Public notice of the request for reconsideration was provided to
all who testified at the public hearing and to those who
specifically requested notice of the Hearing Examiner decision.
A ten day period was allowed for written responses to the
applicant ' s request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner has
reviewed the request for reconsideration and all written material
received during the public response period. This Decision on
Reconsideration is the final decision of the Hearing Examiner in
this matter. This decision is a recommendation to the Kent Citv
Council . Pursuant to City ordinances, the City Council has the
final authority to act on this application.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The request for reconsideration was timely filed. At least
two people responded to the request for reconsideration by
alleging it was not filed within 14 days of the Hearing
Examiner decision. The decision was issued on September 20th.
The "Notice of Reconsideration" was filed on October 4th
according to the applicant ' s documents but stamped as October
3rd by the Planning Department. The question raised is
whether a filing on October 4th is within the 14 day period.
Computation of time periods is not addressed in the Hearing
Examiner ordinance or the Kent Zoning Code. However, state
statutes and court rules have addressed this issue. These
statutes and rules provide the appropriate guidance for
computation of time periods . RCW 1. 12 . 040 states that " The
time within .which an act is to be done . . . shall be computed
by excluding the first day, and including the last . " .
Court rules also follow this procedure. See, CR 6 (a) and RAP
18 . 6 . This computation method means that October 4th would
L
Decision on Reconsideration _
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
be the last day to file a request for reconsideration. The
request of -the applicant in this matter was apparently filed
on that day. It was therefore filed in a timely manner.
Because the computation method of state statute and court rule
is not expressly adopted in the Hearing Examiner ordinance of
the City of Kent, a wiser approach would have been to file at
least a day sooner. However, it would be unfair to deny a
request for reconsideration based on untimely filing when the
filing occurred within the 14 day period as customarily
computed and as computed by state statute and court rules.
2 . The new evidence provided by the applicant complies with the
filing requirements for a PUD application The decision of
the Hearing Examiner issued September 20th identified two
elements essential to the Hearing Examiner's ability to render
a decision on the PUD application which had not been submitted
into evidence for review and action. Both a parking
assessment study and a designation of the type of active open
space are critical to a determination of whether the proposed
PUD can be approved under the review criteria set forth in
Section 15 . 04 . 080 F of the Kent Zoning Ordinance. -
The applicant submitted several exhibits with the Notice of
Reconsideration. These include: (1) a report by the Transpo
Group dated October 2nd and entitled "Dover Place PUD -
Parking Assessment Study; (2) a " Preliminary Plat of Dover
Place; Conceptual PUD Plan - #1" dated "revised September 25,
1989" prepared by John R. Newell, Inc. and; (3) a "Conceptual
Landscape Plan" dated July 1989, prepared by Cliff Willwerth
& Associates . These submittals have received a variety of
designations by the applicant. For purposes of
reconsideration, they will be referred to as Exhibits on
Reconsideration 1, 2 , and 3 .
By submittal of a parking assessment study (Exhibit on
Reconsideration #1) and a conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit
on Reconsideration #3) with the Notice of Reconsideration, the
applicant has now complied with the evidentiary requirements
of the PUD code. The purpose of this Decision on
Reconsideration is to assess that new evidence, along with
evidence and testimony previously submitted, and make a
recommendation to the City Council on the consolidated
application.
3
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
3 . The new evidence provided in the parking assessment study
shows that sufficient parking can be provided if certain
modifications are made and specific conditions are attached
to the PUD proposal . Exhibit on Reconsideration #1 was
prepared by the Transpo Group on behalf of the applicant and
is labeled as "Dover Place PUD - Parking Assessment Study" .
The study notes that each residence within the proposed
development is to have an attached two-car garage as well as
driveway space capable of parking two cars for a total of four
on-site parking spaces per household. The study also notes
that very little empirical data are available which could be
used as a reference to describe what use is actually made of
garages in single family residential areas. If the garages
are not used for parking cars, then an assessment must be made
of the adequacy of parking without including garage space.
The study examined three unidentified single-family
residential developments to determine parking patterns. The
observations were made after 11: 00 P .M. on weekday evenings. _
The observations revealed a "non-garaged" average parking rate
of 0 . 79 vehicles per residence. If one assumed each garage
contained two vehicles , the study concluded the total parking
demand is 2 . 79 spaces per home. The study noted that on-
street parking did occur in all observed areas, but also noted
that this was not due to unavailability of off-street parking.
To best meet parking needs, the applicant's consultant
recommended that streets be widened to 28 feet from the 22
feet previously proposed. The consultant also concluded that
the proposed 15 guest parking spaces are unnecessary.
In response to this study, the Kent Planning Department
submitted to the Hearing Examiner a letter dated October 6th
(Exhibit on Reconsideration #4) . The Planning Department
agrees with the conclusions of the parking assessment with one
exception: it believes the proposed 15 additional parking
spaces not associated with any particular residence should
remain and be dedicated solely for guests.
Two additional submittals were received by the Hearing
Examiner in response to the Parking Assessment Study. A
letter dated October lith from Larry Webb, Fire Marshal,
(Exhibit on Reconsideration. #5) noted that no mention was made
as to the parking scheme on the proposed roads within the PUD.
He also raised questions as to the width of the cul-de-sacs
and enforcement of fire lanes within the proposed PUD. He
noted that history indicates people will use fire lanes for
4
Decision on Reconsideration -
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
parking if no other spaces are available.
Mr. Robert Hutchinson, Building official, submitted a letter
dated October 13th (Exhibit on Reconsideration #6) . He argues
that the consultant ' s claim that an increase in street width
to 28 feet will permit on-street parking without interfering
with or impeding emergency vehicles is not substantiated by
any evidence. He states that the access question is somewhat
dependent upon the length of the street and notes that the
proposed streets exceed 600 feet in length. He concludes that
the new evidence more closely resembles a new proposal and
should be submitted as such.
Testimony presented at the public hearing by Michael Evans,
Assistant Fire Marshal, indicated that a minimum street width
of 20 feet is necessary to allow for "worst case" scenario
side-by-side passage of two eight-foot-wide emergency vehicles
with a four foot clearance as well as to allow turn-around
radius for the largest vehicle. He stated that the proposal
of the applicant at that time - for street widths of 22 feet -
was acceptable if a no parking rule could be enforced.
Mr. Gary Gill, Kent City Engineer testified at the public
hearing that eight feet should be allowed for a typical
parallel parking space. This means that parking could occur
on one side of a 28-foot-wide street without interfering with
the "worst case" emergency vehicle access scenario.
Kent Zoning Code Section 15 . 04 . O80 (6) (a) establishes the
minimum private street widths for Planned Unit Developments .
The minimum width allowed for no parking is 22 feet, for
parking on one side of the street it' s 31 feet and for parking
for both sides of the street it ' s 40 feet. The ordinance
allows modification of the minimum widths if the Kent Fire
Chief and Kent Traffic Engineer review and approve those
modifications. A maintenance agreement shall also be required
as a condition of PUD approval .
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposed street width
of 28 feet with no parking allowed on either side will be
adequate to maintain emergency vehicle access and traffic
safety. The additional six feet over the code minimum of 22
feet would allow emergency vehicle access even if the parking
restrictions were occasionally violated. The "worst case"
scenario would be if violations occurred on both sides of the
street with one vehicle parked illegally directly across from
the other. This would still allow for passage of an
eight-foot-wide emergency vehicle. The potential for this
occurrence is reduced by providing 15 parking spaces for
5
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2 --
guests only. This means each residence will have four on-
site parking spaces (above all code minimums) with reserved
guest spaces for 15 vehicles. Conditions to implement this
are detailed in the Decision below. The Hearing Examiner
understands the concerns of the Fire Marshal and citizens
surrounding the site regarding violations of parking
restrictions . However, the Hearing Examiner has no authority
to modify Kent ordinances which address parking requirements .
The applicant has prepared a Parking Assessment Study which
has been reviewed and agreed to by the Kent Planning
Department. The applicant has revised the street widths
beyond what is strictly required by the Kent Zoning Code. Any
further concerns about street widths and parking restrictions
should be directed to policy makers .
4 . The new evidence provided on the proposed active oven space
area shows that the four percent density bonus should not be
allowed. Section 15 . 04 . 080 (D) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code
states that, for a PUD proposal :
A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes . . . Only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be included in
the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
(emphasis added)
The applicant provided a clarification of the type of active
recreational area proposed as part of the "Notice of
Reconsideration" . Exhibit on Reconsideration #3 designates
an area with a green border as the "proposed active open space
area" . Statements on the Exhibit :indicate that the active
recreation area is for "field sports" and that there would be
one "sport court area" . The designation of the "sport court
area was changed from a previous indication of a "possible
tennis court" . Thus, although no dimensions of the "sport
court area" are indicated, the size of the "sport court area"
is assumed to be about the size of a tennis court. The
"Notice of Reconsideration" on page 3 states that the "active
recreation area is approximately 28 , 000 square feet" . This
calculation clearly includes all area within the green border
as an active recreation area . This is in direct conflict with
the ordinance which states that only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation purposes can be counted toward the
active recreation area requirement .
6
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
4PUD-89-1 and WSU-89-2 The Exhibit indicates no accessory structure for active
recreational purposes . Even if the "sport court area" were
to become an accessory structure, the area designated would
not meet the ten percent requirement. The applicant has
requested a density bonus for an active recreation area. The
granting of this bonus is discretionary. However, certain
minimum code requirements must be net before the bonus can be
requested. The four percent density bonus for active
recreation areas must be denied because the minimum area
requirement within accessary structures is not met. The
number of proposed residences shown on the revised preliminary
plat (Exhibit on Reconsideration T2) should be reduced
accordingly. This means that 38 dwelling units should be
authorized rather than the proposed 39 . The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the residence be removed from Lot 12 on the
proposed Preliminary Plat and that space allocated tc
additional open space' or additional guest parking. The final
determination on implementation of density bonus reduction,
however, can be made by the Planning Department.
5 . There were no errors of judgment or law in the Hearina
Examiner decision as alleged by the applicant in the Notice
of Reconsideration. The applicant alleges two "errors of law"
on pages 3 and 4 of the Notice of Reconsideration. Since the
applicant raised those issues, we must respond to them. The
statement of the Hearing Examiner as to parking requirements
for zero lot line developments - not at issue in this matter -
is not an "error of law" because that law is not relied on in
any way in reaching a decision in this matter. It may be
alleged to be an inappropriate example or an error of
transcription, but it is not an error of law.
The assertion that the Hearing Examiner erred in determining
that information on whether the general public can use the
active recreation area is necessary to a decision on the PUD
misunderstands the role of administrative discretion in
decision making. The decision to grant or deny a density
bonus is a decision for the City to make; not the applicant.
The City Council specified five criteria to assist the Hearing
Examiner in reaching a decision to grant, deny, or condition
a PUD application. The first criteria is a finding that "the
proposed PUD project will have a beneficial effect upon the
community and users of the development. . . " . KCC 15 . 04 . 030
(F) (1) . Inquiries as to the nature of use of proposed open
space are directly relevant to assist in making that
determination. Closer examination of the PUD ordinance prior
7
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
WPUD-89-1 and 41tSU-89-2
to application would have revealed this and avoided a
prolonged decision making process.
The alleged "errors of judgment" appear to consist of one
error stated on page 4 of the Notice of Reconsideration. The
alleged error is the Hearing Examiner' s conclusion that "the
PUD would not have a beneficial effect upon the community and
that it may be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses" .
There are nine subparagraphs to this alleged error which
appear to be offered in argumentative support of the main
allegation. The Hearing Examiner disagrees with the alleged
error of judgment for reasons detailed in the initial decision
in this matter. The Hearing Examiner further notes that there
is ample evidence in the record of alleged adverse impacts on
surrounding residences and the schools . This is contrary to
the assertions on page 7 of the Noticf of Reconsideration that
there is "no evidence" on these issues . There certainly was
evidence presented during the public hearing. The weight and
credibility given to that evidence is another matter and is ,
initially, for the Hearing Examiner to decide.
Several members of the public, particularly in the area
surrounding the proposed PUD, also submitted written testimony
in response to the Notice of Reconsideration. Generally, this
testimony argues against a reconsideration of the initial
decision for the following reasons :
A. Density would be too great because lot size is less than
9 , 600 square feet allowed in the surrounding zoning.
B. Open space may not be mentioned as such.
C. Street width expansion further reduces the lot size.
D. Parking restrictions may not be enforced.
The Hearing Examiner has heard these concerns and has
addressed them, where appropriate and within the bounds of
City ordinances, in the conditions applied to approval
detailed in the Decision below. It should be noted that the
intent of the PUD ordinance is to:
"...create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design, and protect and enhance
natural and conrunity features."
8
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and #SU-89-2
The allowance of bonuses in exchange for certain applicant
proposals is one method of meeting that intent. The idea is
to provide certain amenities for the community in exchange for
greater density for the applicant. If this exchange does not
appear fair, one remedy is to seek to amend the ordinance.
The Hearing Examiner merely seeks to carry out the intent of
City ordinances, he cannot adopt new policies.
DECISION
Based upon the new evidence submitted with and in response to the
request for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner recommends that
the consolidated application be APPROVED with the modifications to
street width and parking proposed by the applicant on the revised
preliminary plat and with the conditions applied below:
1 . As to the Preliminary Plat element of the application:
A. Approval of a PUD permit as modified and conditioned in
accordance with this recommendation.
B. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, concrete curb and
sidewalks, street lighting, drainage systems, street
name signs and other items consistent with good
street construction practices as determined by the
City ;
2 . Deed a 20 foot right-of-way along 104th Ave SE to
the City for street purposes ;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water
release at a non-erosive point and extend storm
drain facilities to adjacent property lines with
necessary easements as required by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements with a minimum size of
a six-inch diameter;
5 . Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and
extend to adjacent property lines as determined by
the City;
9
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
WPUD-89-1 and WSU-89-2
6 . Provide a plat notation and necessary implementation
measures to assure that no vehicle access to the
proposed development will be allowed from
104th Avenue SE.
2 . As to the Planned Unit Development element of the application:
A. Reduce the density from that proposed by one dwelling
unit in accordance with Section 4 of the Findings and
Conclusions ;
B. Place a notation on the final subdivision plat which
clearly identifies the total dimension of the open space
and that it be retained as permanent open space without
further subdivision;
C. Include in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for
the project the following elements:
1. A maintenance agreement to permanently maintain the
open space areas ;
2 . A maintenance agreement for all private streets
which has been reviewed and approved by the Fire
Marshal and City Traffic Engineer;
3 . Restrictions on removal or destruction of the
proposed native vegetation in the areas so
designated;
4 . A requirement that a reminder be delivered to all
residents each June and January which states that
no parking is allowed on the streets and that the
parking in parking areas near the cul-de-sacs is for
guests only;
5 . A stipulation that the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions containing provisions required by the
City of Kent cannot be amended or nullified by a
vote of any Homeowner' s Association;
6 . Language identical to that of Exhibit 3 (submitted
during the public hearing and attached to a letter
dated August 30, 1989 from Eric Campbell to
Lt. Mike Evans and attached) related to standards ,
prohibitions, penalties and impoundment of vehicles
within the PUD with the addition of a requirement
10
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
WPUD-89-1 and 4TtSU-89-2
that the parking areas near the cul-de-sacs be
clearly posted as parking for guests only.
D. No construction practices shall take place within the
areas designated to be retained in native vegetation;
E. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
copy of the final version of the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for approval of language related to the
above conditions prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the site .
Dated this 25th day of October, 1989
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS .
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written
appeal to the Council is filed by a party within la days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually,
new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing
before the City Council .
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can
also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for
a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an
appeal is filed.
11
SEP -G 1989
OFFICE OF FU,9IXG EXAMINER
August 30th, 1989
Lt . Mike Evans
504 W. Crow
Kent, Wa 98032
Dear Lt . Mike Evans, ,
To follow up on our ccnservsation on August. 29th, 1989, I have gone into
more specific detail what will allow Dover Place place to be. apprcved
by the Fire Department .
The following standards shall he applied to the final plat approval of
Dover Place and be part of the Covenants, Condit:_ons, & Restrictions for
the planned unit development . I hope the attached items will meet the
need of the Fire Department .
I would like to thank you again for your time in reviewing the planned
unit development of Dover Place . -
Sincer ly_
/ r. -7 (�C
Eric H. Carfpbell, President
CamWest Development, Inc .
P.U. I}U� (3US. ill(}IiL11Ni), II'�1.,9,�US:, I'Ii. �?1 !1G0�. I'G. U94- 045G
A. REQUIREYENTS/STANDARDS . n 91
1 . Lanes shall provide a minimum, unobstructed width of(?� feet and
vertical clearence of 13 feet, E inches .
2 . Lanes shall be identified by block letters minimum 18 inch high and
3 1/2 inch stroke, painted in the lane, at 50 foot intervals stating "NO
Parking" , color to be bright yellow, and by the posting of signs that
state "DIo on Street Parking - By the order cf the Fire Marshall" . guns
shall be posted on or immediately next to the curb line . Signs shall he
12" x 16 " and shall have letters and background of contrasting colors,
readily readable from at least a 50 foot distance. Signs shall- be
posted no more than q feet from the ground. There shall be a minimum of
5 signs posted within the said planned unit development .
3 . All proposed plans shall have fire depar-.-.ent approval .
B . PAR,CIidG PROHIBITED .
Except when necessary to avoid Conflic-L wltn other traffic or 1n
.cmpliance with the direction of a police offficer or .fire official cr
,iraffic control sign, signal, or device, no t;erson shall :
1 . Stop, stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not at any
place on the private street except :
a . Momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or
passengers; or
b . Temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engage .
in loading or unloading property .
C . ENFORCEMENT
In addition to other authorized personnel, :t shall be the duty of the
Kent Fire Chief and/or his authorized designee (s) , who shall be member
of the Fire Prevention Bureau, to enforce this section .
D . PENALITIES
Any violation of the provisions of this Section shall be a traffic
punishable by a monetary penalty of not more than two hundred ($200)
dollars . The recommended bail for such a violation shall be twenty
($20) dollars plus state assessments and costs, when applicable .
E . IMPOUND OF ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES
In addition to the penalties provided for in (D) , any vehicle improperly,/
parked in the violation of any of the provisions of this Section shall-
be subject to impound.
F . NOTIFICATION OF RESIDENTS
All residents and owners in Dover Place shall be notified during the
month of January and July of each year that "No on Street Parking is
Allowed" . This notice shall be mailed.
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson & Burdell OCT 3
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE j ' ��•••{ ...5 Fyn„ ='��?�='�IT
500 . IOB"• AVENUE M.E.,+2100 -'�^----.- ��_�_^•I'T___
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98001
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:(206)<54-'_%19
(206) 453 1711
October 4 , 1989
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
Hearing Examiner
City of Kent
220 Fourth Ave. S .
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Reconsideration
Dover Place File No. SU-89-2 and PUD 89-1
Dear Mr. Hunter:
on behalf of Cam-West Development, Inc. , I request that you
reconsider your decision, dated September 20, 1989 , to deny the
application for the Dover Place PUD and preliminary plat.
This request for reconsideration is based on new evidence,
which was not available at the time of the hearing, as well as
errors of judgment and errors of law by the Examiner. The grounds
for reconsideration are more fully described in Exhibit A attached.
Dover Place is the first PUD processed by the City under the
current PUD ordinance. During the review by the City, the
requirement for a parking assessment study was inadvertently
overlooked by the applicant and by staff. This study has now been
prepared by a qualified transportation engineer, and it has been
submitted to the Planning Department for review. (Exhibit B
attached) .
It also appears that the description of the active recreation
uses to be provided as part of the project was not made
sufficiently clear at the public hearing. A copy of the
landscaping plan which shows the active play area and sport court
is attached (Exhibit C) . These uses are also noted in the staff
report dated September 6 , 1989 •
The applicant has worked with the staff from Public Works and
Planning to revise the site plan to increase the width of the
street from 22 feet to 28 feet. The increased width will allow on-
street parking while still providing adequate space for emergency
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
October 4 , 1989
Page 2
vehicles . Four additional guest parking spaces are now located in
the cul-de-sac nearest 103rd Ave. S . E.
Based on the submittal of the parking assessment study, the
increased street width which provides additional parking, and the
clarification of the proposed active recreation uses, the PUD meets
all the criteria of Section 15 . 04 . 080 Kent Zoning Ordinance. The
PUD is also consistent with the East Hill Plan and the policies of
the proposed Housing Element Update.
I would respectfully request that the Examiner reconsider the
action of September 20 and, on the basis of the new information,
recommend approval of the PUD with appropriate conditions. If
additional information or clarification is required, I would be
happy to provide that in writing, or alternatively, at a public
hearing.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL -
h7t�'o-e ti( 7 c�v 5 Svc
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ : rlm
OCT 3 — 1989 j
�il+rtin1 ^«�;«r:�rir j
2 CT CF Y,'7.7T
3 I ..� I
a
BEFORE THE HEAPING EXAMINER
5 CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
6 REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER' S NOTICE OF RECONSIDER?TICN
7 DENIAL OF DOVER PLACE, ;rSU-89-2
AND TPUD-89-1
8 )
Cam-West Development, Inc.
9 )
10 1 . Anoellant. Cam-West Development, Inc. , the applicant for
I1 the PUD and the preliminary plat, and an aggrieved party uncle-- the
1 terms of the ordinance, files this request for reconsideration.
13 2 . Basis for Reauest. The Ken` City Code provides that an_v
i
14 aggrieved person may request a reconsideration within 14 days of
15 the decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error
I
16 of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is
17 available which was not available at. the time of the hearing.
is 3 . Grounds for Reconsideration.
19 a . New. Evidence.
20 i) Parking Assessment Study. A parking assessment
21 study as required by Section 15 . 04 . 080 6. b. has been prepared. by
22 the Transpo Group and has been submitted to the City Planning
I
23 Department for review. The study evaluated three Planned Unit
24 Developments (PUDs) with similar lot sizes, values, and residential
25 uses. The average parking demand in these PUDs equals 2 . 79 spaces
I
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 1 FERGUSON s BUFCELL
EXHIBIT T A KOLL CENTER BELLE`!UE
500. 108TH AVENUE V.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98C04
(206)453-1711
065AO041 10/4/89
1 per home. Dover Court has been designed to provide four off-street
2 parking spaces for each residence.
3 Dover Place : ' Total parking
4 Parking within garages : 2 spaces x 39 units = 78 spaces
5 Parking on driveways : 2 spaces x 39 units = 78 spaces
6 Guest spaces : North cul-de-sac: = 12 spaces
7
South cul-de-sac: = a spaces
s TOTAL 172 spaces
9 This results in an average of 4 . 4 on-site parking spaces per unit,
10 significantly higher than the similar PUDs included in the parking
11 assessment study. This does not include the 32 spaces now
12 available on the street.
13 ii) Plan Revision. The project has been redesicned
14 to increase the street width from 22 feet to 28 feet. This
15 increase in street width will perm_t on-street parking without
16 interfering with or impeding emergency vehicles. The increased
17 street width will also provide an additional 32 parking spaces ,
1s thus providing a total number of 204 parking spaces within the
19 Project. Four additional guest spaces are provided in the southern
20 cul-de-sac.
21 iii) Active Recreation Area. This issue was
22 addressed in the application material and in the staff report;
23 however, for clarification, a copy of the landscaping plan which
24 shows the area designated for active recreational uses is attached.
25 Ten percent of the site (33 , 105 square feet) is allocated for
active recreation, thus qualifying for the 4% density bonus as
FERGUSON&BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 2 ROLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500. 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
1206)4S 3.1711
065AO041 10/4/89
1 provided in Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 . The uses include a sport court
2 and active play areas for children. The staff report (September
3 6 , 1989) discusses the active recreation area and clearly states
4 "A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court and cpen
5 lawn area ; " (p. 9) and "A sport court and open lawn area has been
I
6 proposed to serve the residents of the development. " (p. 18)
7 The sport court will be approximately 65 'x 100 ' in
g size, and the active recreation area is approximately 28 , 000 square
i
9 feet in area. This provides adequate space for activities such as
i
10 volleyball , soccer and other informal games . I
I
11 b. Errors of Law. j
i
12 i) The Hearing Examiner erred in stating that
13 Section 3 . 1 . 11 of the Subdivision Ccde requires one guest parking
I
14 space for each dwelling unit in a zero lot line develoc-Vent.
i
3 Section . 1 . 11 2 a provides standards for
15 S ) ( ) ii( � ) non-public street-
P
16 and requires guest parking at a rate of . 5 guest parking spaces per
17 dwelling unit beyond the normal park-inc provided at the dwelling.
18 ii) The Hearing Examiner erred in asserting that
19 a determination as to whether the active recreation use of the
20 common open space will be available for use by the general public
21 is necessary to a decision on the PUD. Section 15. 04 . 080 C. 5 .
22 requires that a minimum of 35% of the total site be allocated for
23 common open space. Common open space may provide for either active
24 or passive recreation. Active recreation areas are not mandator;✓
25 and may be provided at the discretion of the applicant if the
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 3 FERGUSON&BURDELI
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 108TH AVENUE Y.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE. WA 9a004
(206)453-1 71 1
l0 4 89
065AO041 / /
1 applicable density bonus is desired. Further, Section 15 . 04 . 080
2 C. 5 . requires that open space within a PUD shall be available for
3 common use by the residents, tenants and/or the general public,
4 depending on the tvpe of project. Use of the common open areas by
5 the public is discretionary, not mandatory and is to be determined
6 by the nature and size of the project.
7 C. Errors of Judcrment. The Examiner errs in concluding
8 that the PUD would not have a beneficial effect upon the community
9 and that it may be detrimental to existing surrounding land uses .
10 i) As demonstrated by the parking assessment
11 study, more than adequate vehicular parking is provided, both for
I
12 each unit, and for additional on-street parking which is available
13 for special events . The parking provided meets or exceeds the
14 requirements for single family dwellings (Section 15 . 05 . 040i:) and
15 for zero lot line development (Section 3 . 1 . 11 Subdivision Code) .
16 ii) The provision of open space for use by the
17 general public is not the criteria by which community benefit or
1s detriment is to be measured. There is no mandatory requirement
19 that a PUD provide either passive or active recreation for use by
20
the general public. The review criteria for residential FUDs
21 (15 . 04 . 080 F) clearly states that (1) the proposed PUD shall have
22 a beneficial effect upon the community and the users of the
23 development which would not normally be achieved by traditional
24 lot-by-lot development and (2) shall not be detrimental to existing
25
FERGUSON S BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 4 KO"CENTER BELLEVUE
SOO. IOOTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 96004
(206)453-1 7 11
065AO041 1C 4/o9
1 or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive
2 Plan-
3 The proposed PUD provides a significantly higher
4 I level of design and amenities than standard single family
5 subdivisions of comparable value. The retention of trees and open
6 space is superior to that provided by traditional subdivi-4on
7 design.
8 iii) Community benefi is demonstrated by the way
q I in which the PUD implements the following goals and policies of the
I
10 East Hill Plan.
11 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT:
11 Goal l : Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities that
make the East Hill area an attractive place in which to live.
13 � I
Objective 2 : Maintain and restore the natural character of the
14 East dill community through the retention and
introduction of native and ornamental plants in
1 existing and planned development.
5 �
16 IPolicv 1 : Encourage the retention and reestablishment of
vegetation in the issuance of development permits
17 and in development actions of the City.
13 Policv 2 : Permit the preservation of significant existing
trees to satisfy a portion of required landscaping.
19
The flexible design standards allowed by the PUD ordinance
20
provides an opportunity and incentive for the permanent
21
preservation of trees and natural vegetation. �
22 i
HOUSING ELEMENT:
23
Goal 2 : Development patterns that promote residential quality and
24 provide diverse housing opportunity.
25 Objective 1: Promote flexible residential development approaches
to:
,
FERGUSON G BURCELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 5 MOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- IOBTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 08C04
(206)453-1 7 1 1
I
065AO041 10/4/89
1 a) Provide a variety of housing types, densities
and prices.
2
iv) In July of 1988 , the City Council adopted Resolution
3
1172 which in part directed the Planning Department to prepare an
4
update of the Housing Element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan.
5
The Council also directed the Planning Department to prepare
6
revisions to the Planned Unit Development ordinance in order to
7
encourage and increase the applications for planned unit
s
developments in the city. The Council addressed the imbalance
9
between multi-family and single family housing in the city and the
10
lack of availability of housing options and choice for the
11
residents.
12
v) An update to the Housing Element of the City ' s
13
Comprehensive Plan was issued by the Planning Department in
14
January, 1989 . Applicable goals and policies are attached. Dover
15
Place is designed to be consistent with an to implement these goals
16
and policies. In particular:
17
Goal 2 : Objective 2 ; Policy 3 .
1s Objective 3 ; Policies 3 , 4 , 6, 8 , 9 .
19 Goal 3 : Objective 2 ; Policies 1, 4 .
Objective 3 ; Policy 3 .
I
20
Goal 4 : Objective 1 ; Policies 2 , 3 .
21 Objective 2 ; Policy 2 .
22 vi) Community benefit is also demonstrated by the
23 fact that the developer must contribute a fair share of the costs
24 associated with off-site road improvements in order to mitigate
25 traffic impacts of the project. There is also a right-of-way
dedication to SR 515 along the eastern boundary of the property.
FERGUSON 6 BUROELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 6 ROLL CENTER BELLE`JUE
SOO. IOBTH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.WA 98004
(206)453-1]1 1
1
III
065AO041 10/4/89
1 vii) There is no evidence of any detrimental effect
2 on existing or potential surrounding land uses. The public
3 testimony in opposition was principally concerned with impacts of
4 parking and traffic. Any potential detrimental effects have been
I
5 mitigated by the increased street width which provides additional
I
6 on-street parking and improved access for emergency vehicles. The
7 parking assessment study demonstrates that Dover Place provides
8 more parking spaces per unit than other similar PUDs .
9 Participation in fair share costs of off-site traffic improvement
10 is required as mitigation under SEPA.
11 viii) There is no evidence that the PUD will be
12 unattractive, or that adjacent residences will be adversely
13 impacted. Dover Place has been designed to provide a variety of
14
housing types and a 30 foot buffer of evergreens will be planted
15 between existing residences and the PUD.
16 ix) The issues of possible school overcrowding and
i
17 needs for park space are general concerns of the community. No
is evidence was introduced to demonstrate adverse impacts created by
19 Dover Place. The Planning Department staff report states that the
20 City has no authority to impose school mitigation conditions.
4 . Relief Requested . The applicant requests that the
21 I
22 reconsideration be granted and the Hearing Examiner recommend to
23 the City Council approval of the PUD and preliminary plat with
24 conditions as stated on pages 10 and 11 of the Examiner' s report
25 dated September 20 , 1989 .
FERGUSON 6 BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 7 KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE.'NA 98004
(206)453-1]1 1
it
065AO041 10/4/89
I
1 DATED this day of 1989 .
2 FERGUSON & BURDELLL
3 By;
4 Nadine Zackrisson
Attorneys for Applicant Cam-West
5 Development, Inc.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
FERGUSON 5 BURDELL
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION - 8 MOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500- 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE,WA 98004
(206)453-1 71 1
_T CI__' ':-::4 v-i�:'5 TO _`Dl ;Sil F1_,011 THE
p I v N ! `v G - J, [ S / C
Ti-ie
nspa
kup
October 2, 1969 TG: 89369-CO
Mr. Li-lc Campbell, ilrcSIdrnl_
Carn-west. Devtlopmcllt' Irr
P.O. Box 308
Mrklalid, WA 98083
SUDJECT. DOVE'R PL,%CF., PUID ST'UDY
DrM- Eric.
Per your request. =Nspo has cumpitttd wi asst.ssriicnt of the parlkhV, neccis for your
proposed Dover Place dcvdopm-_rit comifsttng of 39 sti,'nle-farmly der achedA
ZiUUJOary of Our assessment foliuws.
Both the Residentlat 13e:,letol-Irwrit (1978, the Urban Lard lnstAutc), and
'D-cutsportatton wid 1,iiid De-etopmerit. (IOSS, It-istilute ct*Tcansroriallon Emotiw�:r,'), ",lu'r_
geSt a nitri1rounn pLu"ILUICO supply Indc--c of 2.0 bp:,cCs per sli-W!o-faraL!y dwcILLiag unit. It I_-
1,CcOrIllikelldrd that this be j)rc%id-_d off-st-rcc1. A-s rji-t,,'4ouS11 plcpwl c:,!. c-C!,
rest-
dctitl<al urdt. WiLllftl t'I;z_' Dover Place PUD IS jo have nn attached ;1.� v.,C11 a:1
driveway space capable of paill�Lrl" twc-C'U-S. for a totnj C.`four on-site park_ln� Spaces per
hou.whuld. AddUlul' 12 to 15 "VI-sitor" type spaces 31-C to be provided Li the C("12il"LOLI,
cul ai,ciis. if tfvc,y pzuzi,ic space l available fur vehicle parlc'11,1,. Ulu 1)"000',rd
i110 supply will PIOVI(tc double the jiltni,,_nuiii nuriLcr ol Su, r-_,,Led by
U Lwvc referenced pubhc'llioii:3.
tMany people, however, may use Lhcjr ff.aL-al t space as �-"i-u --urage arc:u rachc-:- than for
j"L:'LL[ag Vehlcl-_s. Unfclftullat_rly' Vri-f 1ULIc crIjj)i_r.,c:3i
-1,1-a liacc been publ_isIit(t
Le used as ieft-crace co dinveloo an c�,Urnate of Lhc a,!,LLIabLhLY ofd'—a'oc 'jp1LCC for PUl'IcIlIg I )
residential areas. Therefore, to comli-nii Llic appLicalAhty of("it puLLI�hed parlui:,.-If ziupply
incite, to developments in Kinff County, the rion-garngcd parlay; dcmalld:j of th!cc estulj-
ILAied PUDs were (jbsci-v(7Ci- Each of the uhrcc PUDs are --imilar to the proposed Dorcr
PLicc dcvelopinc-,il. It, the followtnLi` reSI)CVS: 111clividl-lill 'iul SL/es of,roughly 't.L00 to
5.OW scjuw'c feet; Llic %,ahi- wi(l contcrnporiry B3p;k of the lr;oirics: dnd cach dc lz1o7)IM-1',[
COfIWLIW Only \vIth utadle !
olj�crvutlolis are 1+=tcd Ill �Frdjlc I Ucluw.
Table 1. Obseried Pa.Nng Demands for Single-Famlly Residential Dtvelopmar.lsl
PzAod Vchide.
Slo NO.of Lots C11 Suerit On S,ra 6 1 0:.1!
47 6 13
2 62 7
Avoiagc 57
I Observations cordL;cjod on typical weekday ovetiirig alter I 100
2 Does nor frdudo vehicles pjrkOd in 9,11'agas(Gach unit hag a Iwo car allacnod
EXHIBIT B
['_ I 1-�- _ - i, _•�, I U -,_,1._=,1 1
Mr. Eric C,urlpbcll, Fre'Jldcnl
Oclobui- 2, 1969
Page 2 _ -_.
�71 UUO
With the observed uvcrared "non-guriAged" pzul lnb rate of t).79 vehicles per resktrnce :aid
each residence having 2.0 9-LU-a9c spaces, the averi%cd p iildng demand ineludlr,t; g:tntgcd
piv-kino equals 2.79 spaces 1'rr home. This Is still lrss 111 all llle -I.0 sp:ices Of oIi C[!CC[
piu-kilig proposed for each house at Dover Place, ind}catLnf; that. a sufficicn[ oti-aired.
parking supply will be available for the "average parki"g, eonditioll." It is i,itpurt:ult to elnic
plat 1n the above parking ubs:.r'aUon of the cstab11s1ied PUUs, un-street parlilrl; lilt occ_:r.
HOvlever, In tic case was the occurrence of on-street parking due to a:I:Mil-laLlltty of oif-
atreet parktrlg at iuly olio huusehold.
On occasions Of Z:Ctrcmct parkin- dernand (e-};.. a ne'.ghbo.hood �;tlr'u"e ZiAle Or :i ktrge pri-
vatc party such as a wedding reception), it is likely that utc �;paccs will riot
£ui adcquatc supply to haadlc the demand associated wlL'1 an"cveeli' a[ cvcn une rrside:: c.
To aafeiv aceornnlod:ut illc�e cCcaslonal "peak." &IIland pe 10d: it i ' Our rcCOillr icnddt! _7
[hat suhlcicn[ sLreec %vidih be provided to allow on-strc"It to OccurtelUlCul Crealh::;
uzn tmpedir lent to emergency vehicle acce In all three of the above observed PUDs, the
strceC width w is 2:S loot. Tills 15 the current Icing County standaid tur resldctltInd subd!c:
lions and pruvid-:S Loth adcquate paiknd supply alld vellicle access.
Erie, it is our [:nderstandino that you are rcvtslnb your prupo5ai to ir:corpurate beih a 2d
fuot street w dth (previous width was 22 feet), as wcll as providing a LOUa] ul. 1 D
spaces. Our profe'Sion:al assessruerrt 1 rdic.atCs that air a:i:plc supply of u(f slr.c[ parks:
Will be availabh at Dover Place by provlduig irldrvvlual t'::o-c:1r i;<ual;e, will t:�o addtucl.:d
driveway af,aces Pc— household. 'I Le 28-fuet wldc `.vtll provfd, enough o:rs:rct'c
p.ulailg supply to accomilludalc air, peak parking dculiuul5 n•IttlouC Cr;:itlur :c.crc :u:c<, s
rtla[rd saftcy 11/arils. Thus- the proposed 15 spnec5 'or vL5ltor pier' -,r .Ipue,us
uimccess;uy.
Subnilttal of thin letter to tltc City of Krnt should fuLitll the rcgtl!rea:r:it fur suppiyjull;
parking needs tt�sSea,nicrlt. IfutCy stilll should Lilsagrce v.'ltlI our us`�s=rl:slit, ph'a�i I::Iv;:
them eonLact nir dtrce[ly su that we can discuss our results.
S lru:ere ly.
1'}cc T14j1NSPO Grr p, 111c /
'
holy D. C7rindley. F'.L. /
Trtuisportauon Liliftrrecr
RDC/rill
TE-
p20 rp_� A 4ouslt3 rLL—M -NT' uPQ � �
ed on the Valley Floor.
low and moderate income housing is locatded
(-
These areas are ovemednts�r city However�citGisnnotunds onnlyftheseeareas
infrastructure p areas I,
which are in need of upgraded infrastructure. For example,
ve ex.isting
that have been annexed into the City do nOinaworkingways ato preserve i
and/or adequate infrastructe inpla neighborhoods, the City should
and protect these existingro- ran of correction.
identify such deficiencies and establish a p g
i
While the City provides for adequate public services to existing
I
hould also insure the protecticn of existing
neighborhoods, it s
residential neighborhoods from incompatible uses and other
be
space buffers , landscaping, ing, density gradations,
onplished through
intrusions. This can be the use of open
ing,acc fencing,
intensity gradation, and other appropriate means.
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into`arreas d in where the
needed services and facilities are available,
which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods . a
onent on
Objective 1: Encourage new resident-closeal Jtootransportation 1_
suitable areas of the Valley Floor,
corridors .
jctive 1 applies scleiv to the Valley
(Editor' s Note: Goal 2 , Obe
Floor. )
Policv_1: Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
pol�2; Expand opportunities for multifamily
development where feasible near commercial
centers , major transportation corridors, and
major commuter transit routes.
policy 3 : Retain agricultural and rural residential
opportunities.
pol_ icv4 : Provide for mobile home parks and
manufactured housing.
Policy 5 : Encourage upper-story residential uses in
commercial and office buildings.
t on the E
i se e at develop
anast
objective
West Hillas the necessryfacilitesandservicesare
available.
Policy l: Protect existing single-family neighborhoods
from adverse impacts of new development_
22
Policy 2 : Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
Policy 3 : Encourage development of new single-family
housing, by creating neighborhood
environments attractive to single-family
builders and homeowners .
Policv 4 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as zoning,
to restrict and discourage development which
contributes to urban sprawl .
Policv 5 : Limit opportunities for multifamily
development.
Policv 6 : Limit expansion of multifamily development in
rural residential areas .
Objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so that it occurs
in a responsible manner, consistent with neighborhood
objectives .
Policy 1 : Limit opportunities for high-density
multifamily development, where appropriate.
Policv 2 : Provide opportunities for low-or medium-
density multifamily development in nodes and
near commercial centers .
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of areas already
served by utilities and transportation
systems, to achieve maximum efficiency in the
provision of services and preservation of
natural features .
Policy 4i For undeveloped areas, encourage densities
which promote efficiency in providing needed
utilities and services.
Policv 5 : Provide for increased single-family
residential densities as a transition between
more intensive and less intensive residential
areas.
Policv 6 : Require developments to provide for all
necessary on-site improvements, as well as
their fair share of off-site improvements
needed as a result of the development.
Policy 7 : Through enhanced development standards and
other mechanisms, improve the appearance and
23
"fit" of multifamily developments within the
community.
Poli� Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot
} line, planned unit development and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of
developments.
Policv 9 : Ensure adequate buffering between new
developments where buffering is needed to
mitigate an adverse impact of the new
�� development.
Pol( icv 10 Promote annexation as a means of guiding
development which may impact existing
residential areas.
RATIONALE FOR COAL 2 g
Kent is an urban area . The large amount o,_
industrial/commercial/ office development within the City, which
coexists with the residential development here, has forever
changed the rural character that once was. Although the
opportunities for large-lot, pastoral development should be
protected where feasible, the city ' s popul-_tien will presumably
continue to grow and housing will be required for new resident .
By Resolution 1123 , hent ' s City Council evidenced a desire to p'
achieve reductions in the density of multifamily housing
developments within the City. Through the Housing Study
authorization, the Planning Department was charged with the task
of determining areas appropriate for density reductions, for
potential new multifamily areas , or for density increases. Using
input from the September 1988 public meeting and the meetings of 1
the Housing Advisory Committee, an overall strategy for locating
residential density was established: "Limit new opportunities
for high density multifamily development. Provide opportunities
for low- or medium-density multifamily development in nodes or
near commercial centers . Protect and expand existing single-
family neighborhoods . "
Efficient use of city services--including utilities and
transportation systems--is reinforced through careful density
planning. By concentrating multifamily development in centers,
advantage can be taken of the economies of scale. By limiting
densities on the urban fringe and encouraging infill development,
continued urban sprawl can be slowed. A gradual integration of
densities--from highest to lowest--creates a smooth transition in
order to protect all housing types.
Higher density developments have typically suffered from
"intensity" problems . Unattractive features of such development
could be mitigated through enhanced development standards or
24 `
alternative site planning techniques, thereby improving the "fit"
of such developments within the community.
Of primary concern is the protection of existing residential
neighborhoods . The East and West Hill planning areas are
primarily single-family neighborhoods with fairly limited access
to public transportation and the community services located in
the central business district. For this reason, multifamily j
development is less efficiently located on the plateaus unless it
is close to commercial centers . Multifamily development may also
be perceived as intrusive to the existing single-family
developments on the hills.
Ij
The Valley Floor, on the other hand, is closer to city services,
Park and Ride and other METRO service, and potential co < <uter
rail . Siting of multifamily in this area may offer improved III!
residential opportunities for Kent residents . Existing single-
family residential neighborhoods on the Valley Floor should,
however, receive protection from any adverse impacts due to such
development_
Whenever necessary, new developments (both single- and 4�
multifamily) should be asked to contribute to their "fair share" 1
of the community improvements necessary to maintain the quality
of life for all Kent residents .
d;
1
I
GOAL 3 : Assure an adeauate and balanced supply of housing units {
offering a diversity of size, densities, age, style and cost. �yy'
Oblective 1 : Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of � I
existing housing units . Ir"
Policy 1 : Sponsor a housing rehabilitation program. 4i
Policv 2 : Provide information on home maintenance and
rehabilitation to homeowners. :{
Policy 3 : Maintain a strong code eni:orcement program.
Policy 4 : Support legislation and programs which
provide incentives for maintaining homes in �13
good condition. I
Objective 2 : Provide for a mixed residential community with
a balance of housing types . l 11
Policy 1 : Support Planned Unit Developments (P.U. D.$)
where densities and dwelling types are mixed. JA
25
Y
•J
Policy 2 : Provide for manufactured housing and for f
mobile home parks.
Policy 3 : Encourage mixed use zoning which allows
residential uses to be incorporated into
commercial and office developments.
Policy 4 : Encourage creative approaches to housing
design and development.
Objective 3 : Increase the supply and affordability of
housing for low- and moderate-income households.
Policy l : Review current regulations (e.g. zoning,
building, fire codes) to insure that the
associated increased development costs are
minimized. '
r
Policv 2 : Determine what incentives could be provided
to encourage new construction of units .
Policy Provide for increased single-family
residential densities in appropriate areas as
a means of controlling costs and providing
opportunities for single-family home
ownership.
Policv 4 : Promote affordable housing design
competitions to demonstrate efficient
planning and construction techniques that can
be replicated by other developments.
RATIONALE FOR GOAL THREE
citizens and council members have expressed the desire for Kent
to be a mixed residential community with a balance of housing
types . Recent city estimates (1988) show that 34% of total
dwelling units are single-family, 60% are multifamily, and 6% are
mobile homes. This perceived imbalance has become an increasing j
concern of Kent citizens.
Housing affordability has also become an increasingly important
issue due to major changes in the housing market throughout the
United States and the Kent area . The last decade brought sharp
increases in housing costs : construction costs, land prices, and
costs for new residential roads and utilities, as well as the
price of existing housing, rose simultaneously. Interest rates
for construction financing and homeowner mortgages, while not as
high as the peaks of the 1970s, remain at historically high
levels. i
26
In 1979 the rate of homeownership in the United States fell for
the first time since the early 1960s. The rate of homeownership
continues to fall, especially among young adult households. The
rising cost of housing has the greatest impact on affordability
for low and moderate income persons, who find both rents and
first home purchases 'more expensive.
Of increasing importance to the citizens of bent is the
preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of existing single-
family neighborhoods and housing units. Existing housing is
typically some of the more affordable housing and can be used to
meet the needs of those families or individuals with lower and
moderate incomes. Home repair programs and cther resources can
be focused on developed areas of the city where existing housing
is affordable but in disrepair.
I y
Creative approaches to housing can foster both diversity and
affordability. An example is Kent ' s existing Planned Unit
Develonment Ordinance which allows residential developments to
receive a density bonus by creating a variety of housing types,
thus a range of housing costs . y
Modern manufactured housing has been shown to be cost-effective
and affordable. Its successful use has been demonstrated in a ;
King County-sponsored demonstration project in Federal Way. These
types of homes can be designed to blend in well with site-built
homes .
J
Mixed-use zoning allows residential uses to be incorporated into ;{
commercial and office developments , providing housing for those 7
who wish to live close to work and shopping opportunities. It _
helps to provide a stronger pedestrian focus, and reduces the
pressure to develop needed housing farther out from the city in
an urban sprawl pattern. This may appeal to a number of groups
such as professionals, single and divorced persons, "empty-
nesters, " and elderly persons with limited mc,bility. ;g'
Creative approaches to housing " design and develcpment may include .y
incentives to promote the infilling of underdeveloped
neighborhoods. Infill development helps to reduce public
facilities costs by lessening the need to extend public
facilities ; it also helps reduce urban sprawl . Some single-family
neighborhoods may be strengthened by adding %:fable new housing to
existing housing stock.
An additional measure encouraging the construction of single-
family housing is reducing minimum lot sizes in appropriate
areas . For example, a smaller single-family lot size might be '
used adjacent to multi-family development. This would help to
provide density degradation between more intensive residential
zones and less intensive ones .
27
Design and construction innovations can have a significant impact
on housing costs. Affordable housing demonstration projects,
including design competitions , can provide an excellent
opportunity to discover and promote new solutions to making ll
affordable housing available for all .
I
GOAL
a, : Assure environmental quality in residential areas_
Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the natural
environment as possible.
Policy 1 : Prohibit residential development in areas
unsuitable for development, such as- steep
slopes and wetlands.
Policv 2 : Require site design to conserve natural
features, such as streams, steep slopes,
trees, and wetlands.
Policv 3 : utilize regulatory measures to control the
removal of major trees on developed as well
as on undeveloped property.
t
Objective 2 : Provide open green areas in the City' s
residential neighborhoods .
Policv 1 : Require contiguous open green area in new
multifamily developments .
Policy 2 : Require contiguous open green area in new
single-family subdivisions.
Objective 3 : Protect sensitive areas, including significant
woodlands , wetlands, meadows, wildlife habitat, and
waterways, - from the adverse impacts of residential
development.
Policv 1: update the Hazard Area Development
Limitations Map to include additional
sensitive areas.
Policy 2 : Prioritize sensitive areas as to their
afety and
constraints on development,
welfare functions and the environmental
health benefits they provide.
Policv 3 : study alternative means to prohibit or
restrict residential development in sensitive
areas, including the purchase or transfer of
development rights.
28
I ,
e I rt t� - .I 1 S�-�+-� �x' �It ..,I�. SJ ♦ � {_ r .,.
u i �
6 y TrrcT
-
i' A 103rd Ave. S.E.1.7
t
r
/
b� _mil ' - �` ' /I CD'�'� �` •— J _ '`.'�a ���1 � �L�—�--
103th Avenge 5 F---f SF 515 ] _6
o
�
"0$ 0
CD
v -,'m '—`• o ' :f $ '6 � a = � 9A 6'm � t _ �_ \['[--tom
n o F,s N a e 3
. O�v I r- s c ?: -._S iIm, _ '-i.i• {
jg i< .:1. I L( ':1- 'u•i la �l.ri i`'
.c]-
r
_ - PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
'Conceptual �PUD -Plan +1 DOVER PLACE
r0
n
�nV C.
�S
z;
e
D Q �
Cf)—r-7t
r ap
2
Transportation and Trallic Engineering
PLANNING DEStGN
1
, t
OCT The
i 1
nspo
Group
October 2, 1989 TG: 89369.00
Mr. Eric Campbell, President
Cam-West Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 308
Kirkland,WA 98083
SUBJECT: DOVER PLACE PUD - PARKING ASSESS`IFY17 STUDY
Dear Eric,
Per your request, TRANSPO has completed an assessment of the parking needs for your
proposed Dover Place development consisting of 39 single-family detached residences. A
summary of our assessment follows.
Both the Resfctential Development Handbook, (1978, the Urban Land Institute), and
77-artsportation and Land Development, (1988, Institute of"Transportation Engineers), sug-
gest a minimum parking supply inde-�c of 2.0 spaces per single-family dwelling unit. It is
recommended that this parking be provided off-street. As previously proposed, each resi-
dential unit within the Dover Place PUD is to have an attached two-car garage, as well as
driveway space capable of parking two-cars, for a total of four on-site parking spaces per
household. Additionally, 12 to 15 'visitor" type spaces are to be provided in the common,
cul-de-sac areas. If every garage space is available for vehicle parking, the proposed park-
ing supply will provide double the minimum number of parking spaces suggested by the
above referenced publications.
Many people, however, may use their garage space as extra storage area rather than for
parking vehicles. Unfortunately, very little empirical data have been published which could
be used as reference to develop an estimate of the availability of garage space for parking in
residential areas. Therefore, to confirm the applicability of the published parking supply
index to developments in King County, the non-garaged parking demands of three estab-
lished PUDs were observed. Each of the three PUDs are similar to the proposed Dover
Place development in the following respects: individual lot sizes of roughly 4,500 to
5,000 square feet: the value and contemporary style of the homes: and each development
contains only single-family residences with attached two-car garages. The results of the
observations are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Observed Parking Demands for Single-Family Residential Deve!epmentsl
Parked Vehicles2
Site No.of Lots Off Street On Street Total
1 47 32 6 38
2 62 31 7 38
3 63 54 5 59
Average 57 39 6 45
1 Observations conducted on a typical weekday evening after 11:00 p.rn.
2 Does not include vehicles parked in garages(each unit has a two-car attached garage).
The TRANSPO Group.Inc. 14715 Bel-Red Road,Suite 100 Bellevue,Washington 98007 FAX 2061747-3688 2061641-3881
Mr. Eric Campbell, President - The
October 2, 1989nsp®
Page 2
With the observed averaged "non-garaged" parking rate of 0.79 vehicles per residence and
each residence having 2.0 garage spaces, the averaged parking demand including "garaged"
parking equals 2.79 spaces per home. This is still less than the 4.0 spaces of off-street
parking proposed for each house at Dover Place, indicating that a sufficient off-street
parking supply will be available for the "average parking condition." It is important to note
that in the above parking observation of the established PUDs, on-street parking did occur.
However, in no case was the occurrence of on-street parking due to unavailability of off-
street parking at any one household.
On occasions of extreme parking demand (e.g., a neighborhood garage sale or a large pri-
vate party such as a wedding reception), it is likely that the "visitor" spaces will not provide
an adequate supply to handle the demand associated with an"event" at even one residence.
To safely accommodate these occasional "peak" demand periods, it is our recommendation
that sufficient street width be provided to allow on-street parking to occur without creating
an impediment to emergency vehicle access. In all three of the above observed PUDs, the
street width was 28 feet. This is the current King County standard for residential subdivi-
sions and provides both adequate parking supply and safe vehicle access.
Eric, It is our understanding that you are revising your proposal to Incorporate both a 28
foot street width (previous width was 22 feet), as well as providing a total of 15 'visitor
spaces. Our professional assessment indicates that an ample supply of off-street parking
will be available at Dover Place by providing individual two-car garages with two additional
driveway spaces per household. The 28-foot wide roadway will provide enough on-street
parking supply to accommodate any peak parking demands without creating severe access-
related safety hazards. Thus, the proposed 15 spaces for visitor parking appears
unnecessary.
Submittal of this letter to the City of Kent should fulfill the requirement for supplying a
parking needs assessment. If city staff should disagree with our assessment, please have
them contact me directly so that we can discuss our results.
Sincerely,
The TRANSPO G p. Inc
eD. Urindley, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
RDG/ndl
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE �SU-89-2 AND 4PUD-89-1
APPLICANT: CAMWEST DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REQUEST: A request for a preliminary plat approval with a Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for 39 residential lots and
associated open space.
LOCATION: The property is located north of the 103rd Avenue SE and
SE 228th Street intersection, abutting a portion of the
west side of 104th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: 6/5/89
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFIANCE: 6/15/89
MEETING DATE: 9/6/89
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 9/20/89
RECOMMENDATION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Carol Proud, Planning Department
Stephen Clifton, Planning Department
Mike Evans, Fire Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Eric Campbell , CamWest Development
Rory Grundley, Traffic Consultant
John Newell, Engineering Consultant
Public Testimonv
Betty Hoff
Rudy Hoff
Dennis D'Eath
Irene Boufferd
Richard French
Ismael Melendez
Richard Phillips
Roger Record
Paul Kiehn
Curt Betchley
Lucille Lemon
James Orr
Rudy Dodd
Steve Feller
John O'Rourke
1
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Petition in Opposition
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing
on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal
inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by the Hearing
Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings,
conclusions and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on
this application.
FINDINGS
1. Both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill
Comprehensive Plan Map designate the site as Single-family
Residential . The East Hill Map indicates a preferred density
of 4 - 6 units per acre. The subject property is zoned R1-9 . 6 ,
Single-family Residential , 9 , 600 square foot minimum lot size.
The Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Section 15 . 04 . 080 ,
nuses if certain conditions are
allows for certain density bo
met.
2 . The subject property is 7 . 6 acres in size. The present zoning
allows for 34 . 48 single-family homes . The applicant proposes
to construct 39 single-family homes based on density bonuses
requested in this application. This would result in a density
of 5 units per acre with an average lot size of 4 , 770 square
feet.
3 . Land use surrounding the site includes the Briar Lane single-
family subdivision immediately to the south, some rural single-
family residential development to the north, an apartment
complex to the northeast on 104th Avenue SE and single-family
residential development immediately to the east across 104th
Avenue SE.
4 . No unusual environmental conditions or features exist on the
site. A tract of 2 . 85 acres (equal to 36. 6 percent of the site)
is proposed by the applicant as open space. This open space is
proposed to include areas of natural vegetation feet 658 sofare
feet) , formal landscaping and about 33 , 105 square
an
unspecified active recreational facility. The applicant
proposes a 32-foot wide landscape buffer around the perimeter
of the site.
2
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 -
5 . An existing eight-inch water main is located adjacent to the
site and is available to serve the site. An existing eight inch
sanitary sewer main is located at the southwest corner of the
property and is available to serve the site.
6 . A tentative plat meeting was held on June 1, 1989. Several
concerns were raised by City staff at that meeting. The notes
of this meeting enumerated concerns intended to be "the
conditions and restrictions for the proposed Dover Place
preliminary plat and PUD" . These conditions and restrictions
included:
"2 . Designate the type of active open space that is
proposed for the project;
4 . Note on the plat that tract B is for open space and
will not be subdivided in the future; and
6 . Include a copy of the proposed homeowners (sic)
covenants , conditions and restrictions with the
plat/PUD application. "
These three conditions and restrictions have not been complied
with as of the date of the hearing on this application.
7 . An "Environmental Review Report - Decision Document" prepared
by the City Planning Department on June 13 , 1989 notes that "to
determine required parking areas, a parking needs assessment
must be provided and approved by the Planning Director and
Hearing Examiner" . A parking needs assessment study is required
by Section 15 . 04 . 080 C (5) (b) of the Kent Zoning Code. A study
has not been done.
8 . A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued
June 14 , 1989 with conditions related to storm water drainage
detention, biofiltration and traffic impacts. No appeal was
filed to challenge these conditions within the 15 days allowed
for appeals.
9 . The City Fire Department indicated on July 19th in written
comment on the application that "access and parking problems
associated with this development create a serious concern about
our ability to deliver an adequate level of service to this
development" . Since that time, the applicant has submitted two
letters (dated August llth and August 30th) to respond to
concerns of the Fire Department. These letters contain specific
standards to deal with the concerns raised.
3
aminer ReCommenda�lon = i� bearlPn
S°V r place-nd #pDD-g9_1 fled at t petitop in Oppoat tye
St1-89'2 f the Pube ipY°� ced
e s also Present
-rOkIs members the Prof°556 peoPiTICluded
1p n phespro�hetcS cernged br is d ng for visitors on
parkynq
on
hearing • T street Par ce access 1 oval
lack of off' fire and P Pj)tly ' from a ed opnent.
a- ctions on ears 1 Street osed aev d
restri which aPp E -28th the prop at rapi
b- occurs d on S no frog' moving
rlo
c tr clPs tra ellingfromaincreasea traffic
ve
risk
s to children schools cle n trucks if
d. speed; ding at neighb for
pOgarbage and recy children
e ' ove tree ions on
°cc rs , increasedeA well
as t1ose
as
es pa s ed o m
f . on_street P for th devel P ed tr.a.
and ose
need foie l 1tY1 tin : eparea; Sy-Les are Per�'itt
g ' ass°clen already ent if loo zoning, ctions
childr of develoem'current z d estrl
an r
too dens'er than th covenantsr cove;
h- are smal nalitf3s 3-cult attra
t of co diffic e not
enforcemen will be dictions are
fa ly and
mi
1 to Par}cing in other 7urls two carsf pe or them
c
other Po�ten are loPment-mover,as no park D partmest19 areq drylere
7
k pr Posed deve e `yty psennfogtaron P Corp°rate
s of th 41 and 5 1g89
The f end tgeria t August in 29ffull.
Il staff
er R pods dated,fset forth SIGNS mjt appr6
c
jjCLL
ref Coed for tosecti°npljD5 .04 ()So E
he applicant Pre i,pn rY plot
I' approval
Hearing Examiner Recommendation -
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
Kent Zoning Code authorizes consolidation of the PUD review
process with other land use permit processes required by other
sections of the code. If the other land use review requires
City Council approval , a PUD permit shall not be deemed approved
until the City Council has approved the related land use permit.
In this matter, both the preliminary plat decision and the PUD
decision of the Hearing Examiner are recommendations to the City
Council . Consolidation of preliminary plat review with PUD
review is appropriate in this matter. The purpose of Hearing
Examiner review is examine available information, conduct a
public hearing, prepare a record of the proceedings and enter
findings and conclusions based upon that record together with
a recommendation to the City Council. Both the PUD decision and
the preliminary plat decision must be further acted on by the
City Council before the review process on this consolidated
application is complete.
2 . The purpose of the subdivision regulations, which includes the
requirement for preliminary plat approval, is to:
Provide rules, regulations, recuirements, and standards for subdividing land in the City
of Kent, insuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that
the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
- promoted and protected; that orderly growth, developnent, and the conservation, protection
and proper use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public facilities
. 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 . 3 . 3 of the Kent Subdivision Code sets forth the
particular requirements for an application for preliminary plat
approval . The application for the Dover Place proposal is in
compliance with the application requirements of this section.
However, conditions on approval of the preliminary plat element
of this consolidated application as specified below are
necessary to assure that this proposal will comply with the
purposes of the Kent Subdivision Code. The conditions are as
follows :
a . approval of a PUD permit that allows for the density
proposed in the preliminary plat application;
b. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1 . Design private streets to meet City standards
regarding pavement structure, cement concrete curb
and sidewalks, street lighting, drainage system,
5
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1 - -
street name signs and other items consistent with good
street construction practices as determined by the
City;
2 . Deed a 20-foot right of way along 104th Avenue SE to
City for street purposes;
3 . Design on-site storm water detention and water release
at a non-erosive point. Extend storm drain facilities
to adjacent property lines with necessary easements
as required by the City;
4 . Provide public water systems to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements with minimum size line of
six-inch diameter. Extend main to service adjacent
properties as determined necessary by the City;
5 . Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots and
extend to adjacent property lines as determined
necessary by the City;
6 . No vehicle access to the proposed development frog:,
104th Avenue SE shall be allowed.
3 . The intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to "create
a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design,
and protect and enhance natural and community features . "
Section 15 . 04 . 080 of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the
permitted uses, development standards, density bonus standards,
application process, review criteria and time limits for PUDs .
The Hearing Examiner is authorized by Section 15 . 04 . 080 F to
grant, deny or condition an application based on the following
review criteria:
1- Residential Planned Unit oevelocment criteria
a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users
of the development which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall
not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and
incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community.
c. The proposed PUD project shall provide ar>_as of openness by using techniques such as
clustering, separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and/or landscaping.
d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building
design. Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be
provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and
orientation.
e. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when
construction will be in phases-
6
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and nPUD-89-1 - -
The concept of a "Planned Unit Development" or "PUD" has its
roots in cluster zoning, floating zones and special permit
procedures. Section 11 . 09 of Anderson' s American Law Of Zonina
defines a PUD as "an area of land to be developed as a single
entity for a number of dwelling units, the development plan for
which does not correspond to the regulations established in any
one residential district created under the provisions of a
municipal Zoning Ordinance. "
Section 15 . 02 . 332 of the Kent Zoning Code broadens this
definition by stating that departures from conventional
development standards must be "in the interest of achieving
superior site development, creating open space and encouraging
imaginative design by permitting design flexibility. "
The concept of a PUD may be implemented by designating certain
tracts of land for PUD development or by requiring special
review and approval for deviations from the underlying zoning.
This application falls under the latter approach. The
Washington Supreme Court has recognized this approach to a PUD
"in order to provide a more desirable living environment than
would be possible through a strict application of zoning
ordinance requirements . " Olvmaia v . Palzer, 107 Wn. 2nd 22S
(1986) , citing several cases .
The City of Kent PUD ordinance requires greater scrutiny of a
proposed development when it is submitted as a PUD. Specific
studies and commitments to restrictions are required under the
PUD ordinance that would not be required under the underlying
zoning ordinance. An overriding criteria is that the proposed
PUD development must "achieve superior site development" , "have
a beneficial effect under the community" and "not be detrimental
to existing or potential surrounding land uses. " See Sections
15 . 02 . 332 , 15 . 04 . 080 F (1) of Kent Zoning Code. A PUD proposal
should not be allowed solely for the purpose of obtaining
deviations from the underlying zoning. There must be beneficial
impacts associated with the proposed development.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that there are no unusual
environmental features of the site, that the proposed PUD would
provide areas of openess, that the proposed PUD would promote
variety and innovation in site design and that the building
design would be based on a unified design concept.
However, based on review criteria (Section 15. 04 . 080 F (1) ) , and
the Findings set forth above, the Hearing Examiner concludes
that the PUD as proposed would not have a beneficial effect upon
7
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and '#PUD-89-1 _
the community and may be detrimental to existing surrounding
land uses. The reasons for this conclusion are detailed below.
a . There will not be adequate vehicular parking areas .
The existing zoning for the site is R1-9. 6. This was
established in July 1987 after annexation. The average lot
size proposed in the PUD is 4 , 770 square feet. The
increased density achieved through PUD bonus points means
an increased number of vehicles entering and leaving
through the one access point of 103rd Avenue SE . It also
means an increased number of vehicles parking within the
site. The primary concern raised at the public hearing
related to inadequate off-street parking within the PUD.
According to testimony given by City staff, on-street
parking would restrict the entry of emergency vehicles sucl
as fire, police, and ambulance. No clearance would be
possible for fire trucks if both sides of a street were
parked on. It is also possible that lack of parking within
the site would mean "spill over" parking onto
103rd Avenue SE .
While the applicant meets the parking requirements of the
underlying zoning and has proposed twelve additional spaces
within the north cul-de-sac, there is no evidence to
support a conclusion that this parking would be adequate
to meet the needs of the residents and visitors to the
site. The PUD development standards found in Section
15 . 04 . 080 C of the Kent Zoning Code require that "adequate
vehicular parking areas shall be provided" . Further, the
ordinance requires that "the required number of parking
spaces . . . shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner
based upon a parking need assessment study submitted by the
applicant and approved by the Planning Director" . This
approach to parking requirements is unique to the PUD
ordinance . Other code provisions would allow a precise
determination of parking requirements from the code itself.
For example, Section 15 . 05 . 040 A requires two parking
spaces per single-family dwelling. Section 3 . 1 . 11 of the
Subdivision Code requires one guest parking space for each
dwelling unit in a zero lot line development. The PUD
ordinance requires that a determination of adequate
vehicular parking areas be made based on a parking
assessment study. The burden of proof is upon the
applicant to show that adequate space will be provided
based upon the study.
8
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
The study could examine typical vehicle ownership and use
patterns for the expected residents at the site as well as
typical parking patterns in similar subdivisions or PUDs.
The study has not been performed. It may be found that
adequate vehicular parking does exist with the current
configuration. On the other hand, there may be a need for
additional areas to be designated for parking.
A parking assessment study must be performed and a
determination of whether adequate vehicular areas exist
must be made before the PUD can be approved. It is the
applicant ' s responsibility to submit this study. This
could be submitted as new evidence upon motion for
reconsideration if the applicant so desires. This motion
must be made within 14 days of the date of this decision.
b. The oven space element would not benefit the existinc
surrounding land uses as now prorosed.
Section 15 . 04 . 080 C (5) of the Kent Zoning Code states that
"open space within a PUD shall be available for common use
by the residents, tenants, and the general public,
depending on the type of project" . In addition, the
applicant has requested a discretionary four percent
density bonus based on a ten percent set aside for "active
recreation areas" . Section 15. 04 . 080 D (2) of the Kent
Zoning Code states that "only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation uses" can be counted toward that ten
percent.
The applicant was notified in the tentative plat meeting
on June 1st that the type of active open space should be
designated. That has not been done. Without a
determination of what type of recreational facility might
be constructed for active recreation, it is not possible
to determine if the active recreation use of the common
open space will be available for use by the general public.
If it is, there undoubtedly would be benefits to the
surrounding area. If not, the surrounding community may
be burdened by increased activity at the recreation site.
The review criteria of Section 15 . 04 . 080 of the Kent Zoning
Code require that a finding be made that the proposed PUD
will not be detrimental to surrounding land uses. This
determination cannot be made without evidence as to what
type of activity will occur at the active recreation site
9
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
,",SU-89-2 and '#PUD-89-1
within the PUD. The applicant may also desire to submit
this as new evidence upon a motion for reconsideration.
4 . If a PUD is approved on reconsideration or appeal, it is the
conclusion of the Hearing Examiner that at least the following
conditions should be applied:
a. a notation shall be placed on the final subdivision plat
which clearly identifies the total dimension of Tract B and
that it be retained as permanent open space and not be
further subdivided;
b. the open space active recreation area shall be constructed
and operable by the time 50 percent of the homes are
completed within the PUD;
C. the Conditions , Covenants and Restrictions for the project
must include:
1. a maintenance agreement to permanently maintain the
open space active recreation area;
2 . a maintenance agreement for all private streets ;
3 . restrictions that require the proposed native
vegetation to permanently remain;
4 . a requirement that a mailer be sent each June and
January to all residences with a reminder that no
parking is allowed on the streets due to fire hazards ;
5 . a stipulation that the conditions, covenants and
restrictions containing provisions required by the
City of Kent cannot be amended or nullified by a vote
of any organized home owners ' association;
6 . language identical to that of Exhibit 3 - attached to
a letter dated August 30th from Eric Campbell to Lt.
Mike Evans - regarding conditions related to
standards , prohibitions, enforcement, penalties and
impound of vehicles within the PUD.
d. No construction practices shall take place within the areas
designated to be retained in native vegetation.
10
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
WSU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 _
e. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a
recorded copy of the final version of the Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for approval of language
related to the above conditions prior to issuance of any
building permits for the site.
DECISION
The consolidated application for approval of a preliminary plat and PUD
application is DENIED. Two elements essential to the Hearing
Examiner' s ability to render a decision in the PUD review process have
not been submitted into evidence for review and action. Both a parking
assessment study and a designation of the type of open space active
recreational use are critical to a determination of whether the
proposed PUD can be approved under the review criteria set forth in
Section 15 . 04 . 080 F of the Kent Zoning Ordinance. The applicant may
desire to submit this evidence upon motion for reconsideration.. If the
application is eventually approved, the conditions specified in the
Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner should be applied to assure t'_-:e
proposal is consistent with city ordinances_
Dated this 20th day of September, 1989 .
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS .
Request for Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration within 14 days of
of the decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error
of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is
available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered
in writing by the Hearing Examiner.
11
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Dover Place
WSU-89-2 and 14tPUD-89-1
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision.
ally, new information
The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usu
cannot be raised on appeal . All relevant information and arguments
should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council .
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also
be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final
decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is
filed.
12
CITY OF DENT
_ planni ng
ST i C..
SE
7 E,'•`
t. i r W ST
Y ■ ■ 4 _ n
■ m■. c — �� 227NO 5T SE '72N0
� a sr SSS
. w
w V1 W
<
SE 2747H ST
1 f3 1 7 or SE 224TH °s SE
Pl
S
> :■ — ■ d e? 25TH m <224TH a•
< �� SE �E 53 m
< i STH
\ l sI 1 — N lWRl —� SE 22ST H vt
?. SITE
1 mt SE 726TH Q
ST m
5 228TH _ 4-u` la�ti o <N SE t-
i■1—■ lnt i^` 4'.:`f.}"_� — 227TH ST�_> r
aST SE 228TH ST< SE 228TH ■
w
e■ ■SF 229T '•• �O SE ST 1 ■
A w !i S Lf t 29T% w
8 A to! < (Putt �ttii) < .ohtr SE 230 H
■ ST ■
e S 731ST SE ITIST ■F SE 06~ �•Q SE 231ST PAR"I
m (Put) Sr w�r 230THN 1~ ST Sn ®SCH
■ s <■- f 232N0 ST
232NO S 232N0 o>
. .t SE: 232.40 ST m SE -< E 232N
5T ■
■ . 57 ■ SE 232 rt0 Pl. 232NO � � 5;
PE oSE. 233RO
- 1
i ■ 'ram^'"Q�' oe �m s `" -
< 5TH�Z
■ _ �■ w p j���5 S
0
E 236TH Sr fAVE
j�5 236TH s,.�So vF SE �� ■.
■ (Put) < ST l �( —■�■ ■Of -7 ItO
L
SE 236TH Pl
ies■ — ■ m■ > SE 237TH 5T >
W
■ ■ v' (put) C o
u �■ - w SE 239TH ST - _
i J�1ti < S a N ST
N _
O S. S 239t r H 0 W
'f T
mot
240 '
APPLICATION Nama Dover Place LEGEND =
~"Number nSU-89-2 Dat2 September fi, lQRQ Y""" application site
Requ2sl Pre, ;m;nary Plat — zoning boundary
-•—� cily limits
VICINITY MAP
LS
ALE = i° = I000,
CITY Or DENT
planning.
\ �\ i a \ 2 0
is
\ .L
is =\ t 23 1.
\ \7 3 \ 1 24
\ 0 \
\ � n' 1 ��Xtt"
t � i .26, \25 ` F"Clc�o TFt==
v
2
(33,1C��har) \ Il
unad '+
�7 r li 4
:I::r
�I S.E- 229th Street
APPLICATION Name Dover Place LEGEND :
Number T"SU-89-2 Dgte September 6, 1939 applicalisn sits
REgl12SI Prelim CII y inary Plat _ zo limiundary
�l(111IS
SITE PLAN
SCALE = No scale A
CITY Or DENT
planning. -
L
MR 9 WPM
s�ppyy I }\�1 ' � .I � , Y•
i �� � G ti Y!� •j
IT \ X
�•.;fir? �:.:,G* c' �'f. ' C-�-
DD
1,\o
I
-I,-��� �3 Cn
1 - -
�\ ,ifltr",�CQ ���
MRG
APPLIGTION Name Dover Place LEGEND :
Number nSU-89-2 Date September 6, 1989 application site
Request Preliminary Plat
_.. moieq boaadary
,..... city limits
TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP
SCALE = 1" = 400'
HEARING EXAMINER-MINUTES
September 6, 1989
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding ' officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, September 6, 1989 at 7 : 00 P.M. in the Kent City Hall ,
Council Chambers .
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing,
to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
DOVER PLACE
Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development
luSU-89-2 AND 4PUD-89-1
A request by CamWest Development, Inc. , PO Box 308 , Kirkland, WA
98083-0308 , for preliminary subdivision approval in conjunction
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 39-lot residential
subdivision with associated open space. The property is located
north of the intersection of 103rd Avenue SE and SE 228th Street
and abuts a portion of the west side of 104th Avenue SE and is 7 . 6
acres in size.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
Ted Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole
truth in this matter?
Carol Proud: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Proud: For the record. . . for the record my name is Carol Proud and
I represent the Kent Planning Department. I would like to begin
the hearing by noting a correction to the staff report. . . on page
20 , Item 7 , where they discuss City staff recommendation, it should
read the City staff recommends approval of the proposed 39-lot
subdivision and planned unit development subject to the following
conditions . . . it says 17 .
Can everybody hear me o.k? Right, that should say 39 . O.K. For
tonight ' s presentation I will give a brief overview of the proposal
including a video of the site and discuss the proposal in light of
the Kent Subdivision Code. I will then turn the hearing over. . .or
the presentation over to Stephen Clifton who will discuss the
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
proposal in light of the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and the Planned
Unit Development Ordinance.
The proposal is to provide. . . subdivide a 7 . 6 acre site into 39
residential lots and a separate tract for open space. The size of
the proposed lots will vary between 4 , 500 and 5, 000 square feet.
The tract of open space, as proposed, will total 2 . 5 acres or 36 . 6
percent of the site. The tract will include areas of natural
vegetation, formal landscaping and approximately 33 , 000 square feet
of active recreational area . A minimum 30 feet wide landscape
buffer will be provided around the perimeter of the site.
Approximately 1, 200 linear feet of private roadway terminating at
two separate cul-de-sacs will be constructed for the project. A
parking area for 12 vehicles is proposed at the center of the
northern cul-de-sac approximately here. The resulting planned unit
development will provide for 39 single-family houses at an overall
density of five units per acre. As you can see the property has
an 1-shape configuration and is located north of the intersection
of 103rd Avenue SE , just approximately here. And, southeast 228th
and abuts a portion of the west side of 104th Avenue SE. I would
like to apologize for our maps, they don't include. . .they were made
before the subdivision to the south and the resultant roads were
in, so you can ' t see that there is in fact 228th Street extends to
the west from 104th and meanders down to 98th Avenue S .
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of the Ri-
9 . 6, Single Family Residential , zoning district that extends west
to 98th Avenue S and south to approximately 203rd Street.
Land use in the area is best described as transitional. Some rural
single family residential development is located north and west of
the subject property. The area east of 104th Avenue SE is all King
County and is more densely development with single-family
residences that are on smaller lots and part of larger
subdivisions .
Directly south of the site is the Brier Lane Subdivision. An
apartment complex with related parking areas is located northeast
of the site along this curve here further north on 104th Avenue
SE. Now I have a brief video this site. And I apologize to the
public, we only have this smaller tv set here, this is primarily
for the view of the Hearing Examiner so I 'm sure most of you live
out there and are pretty familiar with the site anyway.
(Video shown Tape 1-217-290 . )
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
A brief history of the site. The site is located at the northern
boundary of the recent 142-acre East Hill Well Annexation Area I
which was incorporated into the City in 1987 . Annexation of the
area occurred as a result of local residents needing to obtain
water from the City. After much deliberation by the City Council
and the community, the annexed area. . .the annexation area was
predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential . Review of
City and County maps indicate that quite a bit of subdivision
activity has occurred in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occurred directly east of the site at
104th Avenue SE and south of the subject property. . . in through
here. . .the Brier Lane subdivision as well as other plats in the
vicinity developed in King County prior to annexation. King County
permits a lot averaging system that allows for a variety of lot
sizes . For this reason, some of the lots may be less than the
7 , 200 square foot minimum required under the City of Kent
standards .
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the regulations
of the Subdivision Code. The private road system will be developed
to Code standards including curbs and sidewalks and except for the
width of the pavement which will be less than the required 26 feet,
the proposed 22 feet is consistent with the standards specified in
the PUD Ordinance. Because of safety concerns with regard to fire
vehicle access, no on-street parking will be permitted in the
subdivision. Each lot must provide on-site parking for a minimum
of two vehicles as specified in the Kent Zoning Code. All proposed
sewers, water mains and other utilities will comply with applicable
City requirements .
The configuration of proposed Lot 36 which is where the existing
house and barn is located must be redesigned to accommodate access
from the private road and not 104th Avenue SE. This is at the
request of the Washington State Department of Transportation as
well as the Public Works Department requirements. Because of a
required easement to widen 104th Avenue SE, approximately 660
square feet will be removed from the proposed tract of open space
which is located here. . . and around. Preliminary review indicates
that the size of that main tract will be 35. 1 percent which meets
the minimum requirement for a PUD. The exact dimensions must be
specified on the final plat. The proposed PUD, in effect, is a
binding site plan and no lot will be permitted to be sold
separately from the resultant subdivision. Language to this effect
must be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
the PUD. Also the proposed plat must receive approval and recorded
with King County Department of Records prior to any construction
activities on the site. I will now turn the podium over to Stephen
Clifton who will discuss the project in light of the City ' s
Comprehensive Plan and the PUD Ordinance.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you' re about to give?
Stephen Clifton: I do. My name is Stephen Clifton, I 'm with the
Kent Planning Department and I 'm here to present the Planned Unit
Development portion of this project. Before I start, on August 14 ,
we did receive a petition from neighbors which live within the
vicinity of the site and I would like to present that to you at
this time. All signatures are opposing the PUD.
Hunter: We ' ll receive that. I believe there is a copy already in
the file. This has a different notation on the top--it has an
address , so we ' ll receive it as Exhibit 1 .
Clifton: O. K. During my presentation I will be discussing
primarily three aspects of a planned unit development. First, I
will be talking about the PUD and the analysis under the
Comprehensive and East Hill Plans and the elements of those Plans
and how the PUD relates to those elements. I next will be
discussing the PUD density bonus system and how the applicant ' s
achieve an increase in units and following that I will discuss the
criteria which is used by the Hearing Examiner to evaluate the PUD
proposal .
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as SF,
Single Family. Under the Housing Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, Policy 8 , it states that, "To encourage the use of
clustering, zero lot line, planned unit developments and other site
planning techniques to improve the quality of the developments. "
Our finding is that a revised planned unit development ordinance
became effective in October of 1988 and using regulations of the
existing PUD Ordinance, the proposed plan contains 35 percent of
the site for common open space of which ten percent is dedicated
for passive use, ten percent for active recreation and 15 percent
is preserved for native vegetation. Under standard R1-9 . 6 zoning,
common open space and requiring areas for active and passive open
space is not a requirement. Also, under R1-9 . 6 zoning if you were
to achieve or figure out a way to get 39 homes on 9 . 6 zoning it
would also require that also one additional acreage be obtained to
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
create the same amount of homes that are being created on this site
here.
Goal 3 is to assure an adequate supply of housing units offering
a diversity of size, densities, age, style and costs. The proposed
project will provide 39 additional single-family homes for the
City of Kent and currently there' s a two to one proportion in favor
of multifamily versus single-family and it is the City' s intent to
try to balance out this perceived imbalance and we've had a lot of .
citizen concern with trying to increase the amount of single-
family homes which are being developed in Kent because multifamily
out numbers single-family currently two to one. The size of the
homes will also add to the mix of housing types within the
community.
Under the Circulation Element, the Overall Goal is to establish a
balanced, safe and efficient transportation system for all modes
of travel . The PUD allows applicants to modify pavement widths of
the two-way street upon review and approval of the Kent Fire Chief
and the Traffic Engineer. The proposed width of the road in
this . . . in for this PUD development is 22 feet. The applicants ' are
able to reduce it to 22 feet by not allowing on-street parking.
The Kent Fire Department does have concern regarding the access to
the homes and the applicant has held several meetings with
representatives of the Fire Department and I would like to submit
a letter which was sent to the Lt. Mike Evans of the Fire
Department in which the Fire Department and the applicants
negotiated terms for making sure the site will be safe.
Hunter: Letter dated August 30 . Exhibit 2--3?
Clifton: Under the Land Use Plan, the map designates the subject
property as SF6 , Single-Family or 4 to 6 units per acre. This
designation represents the highest single-family residential
density. The minimum lot sizes of the underlying zoning do not
apply in a PUD. Thus, allowing lots to be less than the 9 , 600
square foot size. The overall density of the development is
approximately 5 units per acre as mentioned earlier which falls
within the SF6 density designation.
For the Planned Unit Bonus Density standards, a planned unit
development, the density of residential development for PUD' s is
based on the gross density of the underlying zoning district. The
Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density up to 20
percent greater than permitted by the underlying zone upon findings
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
and conclusions that the amenities or design features which promote
the purpose of this section are provided. Density Bonus Standards
have been met, include: 1) open space--four percent density bonus
can be authorized if at least ten percent of the site is
concentrated for passive use. This would include area around the
perimeter between the lots and the property lines as well as the
corners of the sites. The Kent Planning Department felt it
necessary to assure that Tract B be retained as open space thus the
following condition should be applied to the final subdivision:
The final subdivision linen shall bear a notation stating that
Tract B which is that area surrounding the perimeter of the lots
between the lots and the property line, be retained as permanent
open space and shall not be further subdivided. Open space along
the southern property line consists mainly of tall grasses and
weeds and the landscape plan for Dover Place shows that the
applicant proposes to plant conifers cr evergreen trees along
this . . . the southern strip and also along the western strip along
104th, thus creating an evergreen screen between the development
and the homes to the south and 104th Avenue to the west.
The second Bonus Density Standard is for active recreation area.
A four percent density bonus can also be authorized if at least
ten percent of the site is utilized for active recreational
purposes . This includes, but is not limited to, jogging, walking,
pools, play areas--children play areas and according to the site
plan, ten percent or nearly three-quarters of an acre has been
designated for active recreation. You can see that in the center
of the site and that' s approximately around 3 , 000 square feet.
Incidentally the area surrounding or between the property line as
outlined in green is all the open space they are proposing for the
site. To ensure that the residents moving into the earlier
constructed homes have this open space for their uses, the
following conditions should be applied. The Planning Department
felt that the active open recreation area should be constructed and
useable upon completion of 50 percent of the homes within the
planned unit development. In addition to that, lawn area should
be planted using typical lawn planting methods. This would be
seed, sod, five-way top soil and irrigation to ensure that the
active open space does remain green. The active open recreation
area should also be permanently maintained by the Home Owner' s
Association and a maintenance agreement to this affect should be
included in the conditions , covenants and restrictions for the
project.
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
The third Bonus Density Standard the applicants ' were able to
achieve is a four percent bonus density which can be authorized if
at least 15 percent of the native vegetation on the site is left
undisturbed in large open areas. This would also include the areas
between the property and the parcels and would also include the
corners and primarily along the western side of the property,
northern and northeast corner. There' s significant stands of trees
which the applicant proposes to retain and those will be located
within that 30-foot buffer. To assure that this native vegetation
is left undisturbed during construction and primarily retained as
native vegetation, the Planning Department felt it necessary to
apply two additional conditions and the first would be that no
construction practices of any kind take place within the area
designated to be retained as native vegetation. This includes such
things as vehicular moving, material storage, etc. The conditions,
covenants and restrictions for the proposed project shall require
that the proposed native vegetation areas be designated as
permanent and left as native vegetation and the Planning Department.
also felt it necessary to place in the CCR' s that no voting
majority of any organized Home Owner' s Association be able to
compromise or nullify the conditions of the PUD should it be
approved.
An additional Density Bonus Standard would be the use of a Project
Planning Management Team which would include architects, landscape
architects, engineers . . . it has been found that through the use of
teams like this, developments typically turn out to be of higher
quality.
The underlying zoning for the subject property allows 34 .48 units .
The applicants ' have fulfilled four of seven requirements ;
therefore, 14 percent density bonus can be granted. This increase
would allow an additional 4 . 84 units or approximately 5 units
resulting in the development potential of 39 units. In addition
to the Density Bonus Standards, the Hearing Examiner also
determines whether to grant, deny or question an application for
a planned unit development based on several criteria.
The first would be that the proposed PUD shall have a beneficial
effect upon the community and users of the development which would
not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and
shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land
uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. Under standard R1-9 . 6
zoning, common open space and required areas for active and passive
recreation is not a requirement as mentioned earlier. A sports
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript -
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
court and open lawn area has been proposed to serve the residents
of the development. This would be located in the center of the
site. Standard subdivision regulations also do not require this
type of amenity.
The second criteria would be unusual environmental features of the
site will be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design
and benefit the development and the community. No real unusual
environmental features exist on this site. The site is covered in
some areas along the west and the north of the site with conifers
and the remainder of the site is primarily grasses and sage. The
areas designated to be retained as native vegetation includes the
area around the perimeter between the proposed lots and property
lines . As mentioned above, in a typical subdivision application
of 9 . 6 zoning percentage requirements for retaining natural
vegetation do not exist. Using a typical 9 , 600 square foot lot
layout a higher percentage of trees may be removed than the
proposed PUD application.
The third criteria is that the proposed PUD shall not. . . shall
promote variety and innovation in site and building design.
Buildings in groups shall be related by common materials and roof
styles but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the
use of architectural detailing, building scale and orientation.
As mentioned previously, the proposed project will provide 39
additional homes. The sizes of these homes ranges anywhere from
1 , 222 square feet to approximately 910 square feet. These homes
will be one and two stories in height and the applicant has stated
that as many as five different housing plans will be constructed
within the development. A few of these plans can be seen on the
walls over here if anyone would care to take a look at those after
the meeting.
The fourth criteria is that building design be based on the unified
design concept particularly when construction would be in phases.
The applicant claims that all homes are proposed as single-family
structures each with two car garages . Building plans submitted
indicates different square footages but overall similarity in style
does exist. The applicant also has proposed that these homes will
be built one right after the other and starting on one of the ends
of the site and moving back.
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria
for granting a PUD and preliminary subdivision, the City staff
recommends approval of the proposed 1.7 . . . .39-lot subdivision
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
subject to the conditions listed on pages 20 through 22 of the
staff report. Any questions.
Hunter: Yeah, a couple of questions on the density bonus aspect
dealing with the open. . . active open space. What' s the nature of
the sports park. . . is that something open to the general public use,
you 'd think typically, or would it be only for residents in this
development?
Clifton: The open space as proposed has been proposed for people
living in the subdivision. If the applicant is willing to open
that up to the surrounding area, that has not been determined at
this time.
Hunter: There ' s no parking provided. . . extra parking spaces for
that. . .
Clifton: Correct.
Hunter: The design team, bonus aspect, where 's it indicated. Is
in the report, whose on the teams, on the site plan, we have one
required from four different professional areas apparently? If you
are not familiar with that we can ask the applicant.
Clifton: Right. Well , the names can be found on the site plans
themselves , the engineering firm, the architectural firm. The
landscape plans which were done by Cliff Woolworth and Associates,
which is a landscape architectural firm.
Hunter: And has there been a parking assessment study submitted
to the Planning Department by the applicant?
Clifton: Through SEPA review, the applicant has alternatives to
conduct surveys or, I believe, submit fees for future projects and
our traffic engineers are here tonight who can answer that question
if you would like them to .
Hunter: O .K. Very good. Thank you, Steve. . . .Stephen. O.K.
We ' ll turn now to the applicant. if there' s someone here
representing the applicant, and is there just one from the
applicant that will make a presentation, you, sir?
Voice: Actually, I have my traffic engineer and my engineer who
will also be making short comments upon parts of the staff report.
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place WSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: O.K. , fine. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and
the whole truth in the testimony you 're about to give?
Eric Campbell : I do.
Hunter: Thank you. Begin by stating your name.
Campbell : For the record, I 'm Eric Campbell with CamWest
Developments . I would first like to start off. . . I 'n going to turn
it over to our traffic engineer, Rory Grundley from the Transpo
Group. He ' ll address any traffic concerns in regards to Dover
Place.
Hunter: Sir, if you would raise your right hand. Do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimonv
you ' re about to give?
Rory Grundlev: I do. My name is Rory Crundley. I 'm a licensed
professional engineer employed with the firm Transpo Group in
Bellevue, Washington. My address 14715 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100 ,
Bellevue 98007 .
Hunter: Spell your last name, please?
Grundlev: G-R-U-N-D-L-E-Y . I would like to submit to the record
my professional resume and that of my fire.
Hunter: Marked as Exhibit 4 .
Grundlev: We were hired by the applicant to review the off-site
traffic impacts of the proposed development. Done this according
to both local and national standards for reviewing traffic impacts.
The first step of this process was to conduct the traffic
generation of a proposed site, given the 39 proposed houses that
is estimated to generate 390 daily trips on an average week day.
Of those 390 trips , 39 of those would occur during the peak hour.
Excuse me. Of those 39 peak hour trips, 25 would be in-bound to
the development and 14 would be out.
Based on traffic patterns observed in the area, we 've assigned
these trips to the roadway system. Essentially this assignment
and distribution pattern routed 50 percent of the proposed
development trips north on 104th Avenue, 15 percent to the south
and 35 percent west on 228th, out towards 104th and then down
towards 240th. Existing p.m. peak hour counts also conducted at
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
the intersections of 228th and 104th Avenue SE as well as the
intersection of 103rd and 228th. counts were conducted during
middle of August this year.
As you can see from the figure, assigning the 39 trips throughout
the roadway shows that seven of them will be turning north on
Benson Road, two of them will be outbound turning south; the
opposing movements, twelve will be coming southbound on Benson
turning onto 228th and four will be coming northbound out
towards. . . on 228th towards 104th Avenue; five will be turning left
from the development while nine will be turning in. Again, this
is during the peak hour which typically occurs between 5 and 6 p.m.
During the morning peak hours, the movements will in essence be
reversed; however, the traffic volumes will somewhat lower than the
39 trips .
Superimposing the project traffic trips onto the existing counts
there were conducted shows these turning movements . These turning
movements again are just taken on one day and so they can reflect
somewhere in the neighborhood of a ten percent variation just in
daily traffic. However, for general purposes it' s typically
accepted that through the methods of analysis that the analysis
results are fairly accurate through this methodology. Conducting
a level of service analysis which considers such things as roadway
geometry, traffic flow conditions, traffic volumes, lane widths ,
etc. , the congestion levels can be rated. Congestion levels range
from level of service A which is very good and indicate very little
delay to level of service E which indicates that the intersections
are approaching capacity and level of service F which generally
indicates the intersection is operating above capacity or
experiences extreme delay.
Conducting a level of service analysis reduced to intersection with
the project traffic added results in the level of service A for the
project driveway access at 103rd and level of service D at the
228th and 104th Avenue. Generally, the accepted levels within the
City of Kent are level of service D, excuse me, level of service
E and F with anything level of service D or above being acceptable.
For an unsignalized intersection, level of service D as that
occurred at 104th and 228th, is generally considered very good
during peak hour conditions. Those levels of service, that is
level of service D is only representative of the side street
traffic. The through traffic on 104th is still at level of service
A conditions .
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Based on these analyses we find that there is really no significant
adverse impacts to surrounding off-site roadway system. The 39
trips during the peak hour results in just over one vehicle every
two minutes occurring on the roadway system. These results are in
line with those found by the City of Kent during their review and
as outlined in the Determination of Nonsignificance. Addressing
the three concerns that the City imposed for mitigation upon the
development, the City required that the developers shall conduct
a traffic study to identify the off-site traffic impacts to the
City of Kent road network. In lieu of this study, the developer
shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement for future
contribution to the South 224/228th Corridor Improvement Project
with this contribution estimated to equal $41, 964 . This is
actually calculated by the 39 trips times $1 , 076 for each p.m. peak
hour trip.
As our study shows there ' s really no significant level of service
threshold that would require such contribution. However, in light
of the impending traffic conditions out there we feel that this
reouirement is reasonable to expect developers to fund future
roadway improvements . However, the percentage of traffic that
would actually be using such 224th or 228th corridor improvement
would in essence only be the 50 percent that deflected to the north
and the 35 percent to the south. The 224th/228th corridor project,
in essence, just allows for future planning of some type of
east/west corridor somewhere in the range of neighborhood 224th and
228th to carry traffic both from the East Hill and down to 167 and
back uD across the West Hill . With that in light, only the 50
percent that ' s directed towards the north and the 35 percent that
may be going down 240th would be using that corridor; therefore,
the total is only 85 percent of the 39 trips assigned to the
roadway system. That 85 percent equals 33 peak hour trips at
$1, 076 per peak hour trip, the contribution would, in essence, then
total $35 , 508 . The funding strategy of this type of future
improvement would need to be negotiated between the developer and
the City. Typically, these types of operations are some type of
encumbrance attached to the actual lots sales and titles themselves
for the future improvements . That or the lump sum could be made
in advance.
The City also required that the developer execute an agreement with
the City for future financial participation and construction of a
traffic signal at the intersection of 228th and SR 515 (104th
Avenue/Benson Road) whichever you would like to refer to it as,
when, if, the signal warrants are met and the signal determined as
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
necessary by the City ' s traffic division. We feel this is a
reasonable request but it should be noted that the existing traffic
volumes on 228th Street are far below what would be required for
this intersection to met National signal warrant standards. Even
the traffic forecast for the year 2010 which were developed as part
of the EIS for the 515 widening, they do not show sufficient
volumes on 228th to warrant the signal installation.
The developer is also required to dedicate a portion of right of
way along the frontage of 104th to DOT for future roadway
improvements along 515 . The City, excuse me, DOT policy to date
has been to establish 100 total width right of way along their
state highways . Presently, the right-of-way width totals 60 feet,
30 feet on either side of the centerline. This would, therefore,
require an additional 20 feet dedication to the DOT.
We 've briefly looked at varying access alternatives to the
development other than the 103rd Avenue access. However, we found
that the 103rd Avenue access is probably the best viable location.
Based on our analysis and review and conversations with
Mr. Richard Arst of the Land Development Unit of DOT, we 've
basically come to the following conclusions. That DOT would not
like to have any additional access points located along SR 515 .
The more numerous the access points along a major arterial, the
farther reduced the carrying capacity of that roadway becomes .
Additional , additional access points along 515 will create
additional hazards by increasing the number of intersection
conflict points. Should access be required to 104th directly from
the project site, it should be located somewhere at least 250 feet
north of the 228th intersection and preferably with. . .as an
intersection it should be located something in the neighborhood of
500 feet. This would put it in the location that is less than 250
feet south of the 226th Street intersection that tees off to the
east. Therefore, the DOT would require that the project access be
aligned with the 226th Street access so as to not create an off-
set intersection. However, to align that intersection is not
within the property rights of the development and, therefore, it' s
really not a viable location.
Additionally, moving the access farther to the north, really
hinders the available intersections site distance coming around
the reverse corner of, I 'm sure all the surrounding residents are
aware of. The DOT is , at this point, just gearing up for
construction to widen 104th Avenue or SR 515 to a five-lane cross-
section and straightening out these curves slightly is. . . includes
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
as part of the project and that will help the site distance along
these intersection. Along. . .through the s-curve. However, an
intersection site distance along there would drastically be
impeded.
Additionally 103rd Avenue has already been platted and constructed
as part of the Brier Lane development with the intent of providing
future access to this parcel . Therefore, we come to the conclusion
that the 103rd access would not create any significant adverse
impacts and, therefore, should be the preferred access alternative.
I would like to submit also for the record a letter of today' s date
addressed to Mr. Eric Campbell that in essence summarizes the
conclusions of our report.
Hunter: O . K. Exhibit 5 .
Grundlev: That will conclude my presentation unless you have any
questions .
Hunter: No, no questions . Thank you very much. Further testimony
from applicant?
Campbell : Yes , from my own testimony. Basically, . . .
Hunter: You want to restate your name?
Campbell : O.K. Name ' s Eric Campbell . I 'm with CamWest
Developments , Inc. O. K. Dover Place has been a combination of
efforts between CamWest Development, Inc. , City of Kent and
numerous other agencies and firms to create a development that not
only meets the minimum requirements of the Planned Unit Development
but exceeds them with site design and layout. Dover Place should
be approved for the following reasons: Firstly, Dover Place meets
the goals, objectives and policies set forth by the city of Kent.
Second, Dover Place by being a Planned Unit Development has a
beneficial affect upon the community and the users of the developer
which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot
development. Thirdly, Dover Place promotes variety and innovation
in site and building design. And, lastly, Dover Place is within
a density allotment as stated by the Comprehensive Plan for the
area.
The first reason that Dover Place should be approved is that Dover
Place meets the goals , objectives and policies set forth by the
City of Kent and stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Throughout the
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place $SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
last year the City of Kent through the directive of the Council has
encouraged Planned Unit Developments within its boundaries . The
reasons why the City of Kent has set forth this request are
numerous . One of the most significant reasons is the City' s desire
to create an opportunity for more single-family development and to
balance a growing multifamily units in the City of Kent. This PUD
serves as a mechanism to bolster single-family housing stock as
well as enhancement in the community of Kent. As first stated by
the City of Kent, it ' s expression for a Planned Unit Development
was by passing the Resolution 1172 on July 5, 1988. Resolution
1172 passed by the City Council specifically asked the Planning
Department to conduct a study and update the Housing Element of the
City Comprehensive Plan. Part C of Section 2 of the Resolution
specifically requested the study to explore ways to encourage new
single-family residential development and to maintain existing
neighborhoods. Further, Section 4 of Resolution 1172 asked the
Planning Department to present to the Council revisions of the
Planned Unit Development ordinance in order to encourage and
increase the applications of planned unit developments. This
Resolution demonstrates the desire of the Council and the Mayor in
increasing the opportunity for single-family development within the
City of Kent and especially a Planned ?Jnit Development. Dover
Place is a result of this policy put forth by the City of Kent.
The Planned Unit Development is reaffirmed by the Comprehensive
Plan for the City of Kent which encourages Planned Unit Development
and innovative site planning that is permitted by the PUD that a
traditional subdivision does not allow.
The Comprehensive Plan first states this in the overall goal as I
quote, the overall goal for the Housing Element for the
Comprehensive Plan is : "Assure a decent home and a suitable living
environment for families desiring to live in Kent. " Specifically,
Policy 8 states : "Encourage the use of clustering, zero lot line,
planned unit development and other sitf: planning techniques to
improve the quality of developments. "
Dover Place follows this policy exactly by using Planned Unit
Development Ordinance 7#2802 passed by the City on September 6,
1988 . The important aspect of this policy is the word "Quality"
and that is what Dover Place provides. Not only for it's potential
users but for the community of Kent. Quality is the use of open
space, preservation of native vegetation and thoughtful design that
benefits the public. Dover Place uses all these elements to create
a living environment that will set the standard of how innovative
design can maximize neighborhood appeal .
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Goal 3 of the Comprehensive Plan in the Housing Element states:
"Assure adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering a
diversity of size, density, age, style and cost. " Policy 4 of this
Goal states: "Encourage creative approaches to housing design and
development. " Dover place not only adds to the greatly needed
single-family residences in the City of Kent but also does a
creative approach through the PUD process. The PUD offers
amenities not usually found in traditional approach towards
development. These amenities not only enhance the development but
also increase the value of the neighborhood.
In the Comprehensive Plan, Goal 4 of the Housing Element also
states : "Assure environmental quality in residential developments. "
Objective 1 of this Goal is : "Preserve and maintain as much of the
natural environment as possible, " and Objective 2 is "Provide open
green areas in the City' s residential neighborhoods. " The goal and
its objectives clearly state a growing trend in trying to plan with
environment physically and socially. The importance of trying to
preserve as many natural features as possible and also creating an
environment that is conducive to the community. Dover Place by
being a planned unit development allows this goal and objectives
to be met. Dover Place by having 35 percent open space fulfills
both objectives. Of the. . . it provides, Dover Place, 15 percent
retention of native vegetation area and also ten percent of the
site to active recreation area. To underscore this fact, numerous
local governments are trying to protect and enhance as many of
these features as possible as evidenced by King County's open space
bond issue, the City of Kent' s high priority of creating as many
park areas as possible.
The second reason why Dover Place should be approved is by Dover
Place being a planned unit development has beneficial effect on
the community and users of the development which would not normally
be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development. The reasons why
Dover Place has a beneficial effect are first, the buffer around
Dover Place. The buffer around Dover Place is a unique feature
that is rarely seen in single-family development. The buffer is
multipurpose in its function. Not only does it serve as a green
belt for the proposed homes in Dover Place but also minimizes the
impact of Dover Place on surrounding neighbors. A typical
subdivision could create a situation where there is as little as
eight feet separating a home and the backyard of a neighboring
yard. But Dover Place by providing a buffer of 30 feet for the
southern boundary of the property, the neighbors of Brier Lane
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes "
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place nSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
receive a permanent green belt that numerous homeowners throughout
the region are paying a premium to obtain. Also to combine with
this buffer Dover Place shall have evergreen screen along the
southern boundary of the property. This decision was made from
input I gained by concerned citizens that attended an informational
meeting on June 29 , 1989 .
There is no part of the planned unit development ordinance that
mandates this type of land plan design. This is simply good
planning that not only benefits the homeowners of Dover Place but
also the surrounding community.
The second benefit of the PUD is that Dover Place not only benefits
the potential homeowners of the site but the community of Kent
because over the 35 percent of the site is retained as open space.
This is significant when compared to the traditional lot-by-lot
development that usually provides no open space whatsoever. This
35 percent open space shows how the planned unit development
adheres to the policy set forth by the City in assuring an
environmental quality in residential deve'opment.
The third benefit of Dover Place is that Dover Place provides an
active recreation area. The active area will serve as a visual,
social point for the development. The active recreation space
serves as an opportunity for the potential homeowners to gather
for social and recreational activities. This is especially
important fact in considering children, the necessity to provide
them of opportunity to play in an area that is safe from traffic.
In the proposal for the Housing Element update prepared by the Kent
Planning Department in January of 1989 , report states, and I quote:
"Open green area also increases the quality of life for City
residents . " The open space provides recreational opportunities,
a meeting place for the neighborhood and natural vegetative buffer
which filters air and water impurities and provides visual
character.
The fourth benefit of the PUD is the retention of native
vegetation. Fifteen percent of the site is retained for native
vegetation. Not only does this benefit Dover Place but the City
of Kent as a whole. There is a larger amount of trees retained in
a planned unit development than a typical subdivision. This is
significant because of, the importance that has been placed in
preserving as many trees as possible. In the proposal for the
Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan the proposal states , and
I quote: "The value of trees in residential development has been
17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 'rSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
continually stressed by Kent residents. " Trees provide visual
barriers, stabilize the soil and guard against soil erosion,
monitoring flooding, and increase human comfort through service as
windbreaks. Trees moderate temperature, providing shade and canopy
against rain and reduced noise levels, glare and reflection. So
simply put, saving as many trees as possible is an important goal
for the benefit of the citizens of Kent. Dover Place helps Kent
meet this goal.
The third reason why Dover Place should be approved is that Dover
Place promotes a variety and innovation of site and building
design. As numerous reasons have already been discussed. Dover
Place is innovative in site and building design. By providing open
space throughout the development, Dover Place will create a park
like atmosphere that benefits the potential homeowners in the
community together. The land layout demonstrates how the active
open space is designed so it is the focal point of the development.
By blending the remaining open space through the development, Dover
Place serves as a model of how a planned unit development should
be designed.
And the fourth reason why Dover Place should be approved is that
Dover Place is within the density allotment stated by the
Comprehensive Plan for the area. The Comprehensive Plan states
that the area should be zoned for 4-6 units per acre. Dover Place
is only five units per acre. Also, Dover Place is only single-
family homes which is so greatly demanded within the City of Kent.
Dover Place is also based upon R1-9 . 6 zoning. It is through the
density bonuses that were awarded to Dover Place that the
additional 4 . 53 units were gained.
In conclusion, Dover Place is able to fill. the needs set forth by
the City of Kent. First by Dover Place being a planned unit
development that Resolution 1172 specifically asked the Kent
Planning Department to encourage. Secondly, the City of Kent ' s
Comprehensive Plan ' s Overall Goal is to assure decent homes and
suitable living environment for families seeking to live in Kent.
Dover Place fulfills this by not only providing 39 new single-
family homes but also in a quality development. Thirdly, the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of planned unit development
and encourages creative approaches to housing design. This
describes Dover Place perfectly. And lastly, the goal of the City
of Kent is to assure environmental quality of residential areas.
The goals obtain by Dover Place by providing 15 percent of
retention of the site ' s native vegetation and a ten percent active
18
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place ttSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
recreation area. Dover Place is unique in that it enables not only
potential homeowners the benefit but also the community by
providing retention of 35 percent open space. The long term
benefit of Dover Place is significant and that is what we concur
with the Planning Department' s recommendation for approval of Dover
Place. Do you have any questions?
Hunter: Are you in concurrence with all of the conditions also
recommended?
Campbell : I 've just got a couple of issues that I want to bring
up. I 'm going to have my engineer, John Newell, bring those up.
Hunter: O. K. Thank you.
Campbell : O.K. Thank you.
Hunter: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and the whole
truth in the testimony you are about to aive?
John Newell : I do. My name is John Newell, I represent John R.
Newell Inc. , P. S . , we are civil engineers, PO Box 396, Renton, WA
98056 . I only have a couple of items to bring up. One of them I
will address to the staff. I think there is a statement on page
3 that reads, the proposed PUD is in effect a binding site plan and
no lot will be permitted to be sold separately from the resultant
subdivision. I would like to ask some clarification because it
seems to me that we are doing the PUD in a plat. I 'm sorry. . . It ' s
on page 3 and the proposed. . .
Hunter: I understood the question. Let me do it this way, the
question can be directed up here and then. I will collect them and
then we will ask staff at the appropriate time. You' re seeking
clarification of the statement on page 3 , it says the proposed PUD
is in effect a binding site plan, and no lot will be permitted to
be sold separately from the resultant subdivision.
Newell : Correct.
Hunter: And we will ask for clarification of what the City staff
meant by that.
Newell : The other question I have is how to provide biofiltraticn
in treatment of the storm drainage runoff. The site, it would seem
to me, that we would be tearing into the 30-foot buffer around
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 Pm
Verbatim Transcript -
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
such a system. I would like to have the
there to provide such a. . . perhaps, the deletion of
water
staff consider and the Examiner consider,tment of the
p i e directly to
that requirement of bred easements whitration ch we can F Storm
runoff .
We have a, n ze the downstream capability of that
an existing system and we analyze
system. you would ask for a deletion of that
Hunter: And the reason that
requirement? requirement
in my estimation, in
Newell : The reason I would ask for the deletion of the
is because we would have to con would be struct that back e the ditch line
the buffered area and eventedtfrom planting easement e the City,
we would probably be prevented a detriment to this
except grasses and I think that would be
development to do such. what you are
Hunter: Let me understand what you mean by that,
saying is that you can' t touch the vegetation?
Newell : No,
I 'm saying we' ll construct a ditch and typically a
broad, flat ditch•
biofiltration trench is a very
Hunter: O.K. , understood so far.
O.K. , and we plant grasses back in that which we would
Newell : plant trees .
probably not want to p
Hunter: I 'm with you still . effect of a
So that, at takes away from
Newell : the s :reening
buffered area to the neighbors.
Hunter: I see,
so you are indicating there might be removal of
trees and replaced by grasses .
Newell : Certainly , we will have to remove trees the trench will
,
to In feet wide. And I would like really,
of that design have
have me consideration
lofferlat
be 10 element. And that' s,
this time.
Hunter: O.K. , and you' re referring • • . and that condition is the one
that is noted on page 22 or which one are you. . .
Newell: I believe so.
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: On-site storm detention is required and water released
off-site.
Newell : There' s another one that speaks specifically to
biofiltration. Page 15 .
Hunter: I see City staffs recommendation, page 20 through 23 .
Oh, I see, you are referring to a condition that was applied at the
time of SEPA review, sir?
Newell : Yes , yes .
Hunter: O. K. , we are not hear to revisit those. We appreciate
your input. O. K. , is . . . Stephen or Carol did you want to
clarify. . . Carol , clarify the gentleman' s question about that
statement on page 3 . Do you want to give a little bit about what
that meant?
Proud: Again, my name is Carol Proud. I 'm with the Kent Planning
Department. I think the purpose of this statement is just simply
that no individual lot of this subdivision can be sold separate
from the conditions , covenants and restrictions for the plat as a
total . So, therefore, say homeowner x twenty years from now
doesn' t want to buy into the CCR' s for the project and wants to go
their separate way that, in fact, that lot is a part of the PUD and
they can ' t do so. O. K. And with regard to the condition for
biofiltration, that is , in fact, a condition through the SEPA
review process and there ' s no appeal and that condition is imposed
and there isn' t really any way around that at this point in time
and I would recommend that the applicant and his engineers work
with staff to try to accommodate the biofiltration swale and the
required landscaping. Also, the City Engineer is with us tonight
and if you have any further questions on how that would work or
questions relating specifically to Engineering concerns he ' s here
this evening.
Hunter: Very good. Thank you very much. Is there someone here
from the City regarding traffic concerns--traffic engineer? Yes,
I wonder if we might have you step forward. Do you swear, affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you are
about to give?
Ed White: I do.
21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: You ' re Mr. Ed White?
White: White. Yes , I am, Ed White, Assistant Traffic Engineer.
Hunter: Just for my information, you heard the testimony from Mr.
Grundley regarding traffic impacts and the studies they have
conducted for the applicant?
White: Yes , I have.
Hunter: O.K. , are you in agreement basically with that study or
is it too early to tell or what are your thoughts on that?
White: Well, I was not furnished a copy or staff was not furnished
a copy of the report, so I would like to kind of defer any comments
until we 've had an opportunity to review thoroughly and determine
exactly where his numbers came. It does sound very familiar to me
in that the numbers that they were basically using in terms of the
trips generated and the assessment fee come from a similar report
that I made for the development but I would like to defer until I
had an opportunity to see their report before I make any comments .
Hunter: So, their report was submitted just today, I guess, it ' s
date September 6 and you have not had an opportunity to review it.
White: That is correct.
Hunter: And your testimony about your own studies is that they
appear to be consistent but you can' t tell until you review the
report.
White: Correct. Yes, in terms of the trip generation and the
assessment fees, those are consistent with the staff
recommendations.
Hunter: Thank you very much.
White: Um hum.
Hunter: O. K. , we' ll turn now to public testimony on the project.
A few additional people have signed up, we have approximately 20
people signed up to testify. ' I would like to indicate before we
begin this segment of the hearing that I have reviewed the petition
that was submitted basically in opposition, I think, to the
currently proposed PUD in it ' s present form and there are four
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
reasons on the petition. Just to let you know that I have reviewed
it, it ' s part of the file even before it was submitted tonight, so
I 'm generally familiar with the objections relating to the density,
single-family residence density, the substandard roads. . . I 'm
quoting from the petition. . . lack of on-street parking, concerns
about the parking aspect, emergency vehicle access, the single
entrance and exit on SE 228th, concerns about traffic problems and
finally, that the proposal with it' s limited access and immediate
proximity to the only major north/south traffic route on the East
Hill is potential for extreme danger in emergency situations.
Those are the four reasons that I am sort of paraphrasing and
quoting from just to let you know that I 've seen that and what we
are interested in hearing are your explanation of other items that
should be considered by me before I make a recommendation. So, I
will begin in the order that you signed up and, again, if you have
questions of City staff, direct them to me, and we'll collect them
and at an appropriate time we ' ll ask the appropriate City staff
person to respond. If there ' s items that you want clarified,
similarly the same. . . ask them of me and we ' ll collect them and then
take a break to get a City staff person up to respond. What we are
most interested in is testimony relevant to the planned unit
development criteria . It ' s in the Zoning Code in the preliminary
plat criteria in the Subdivision Code, but we are hear to listen
to your concerns . So, with that, Betty Hoff is the first on the
list? Would you like to step forward, we ' ll swear each of you in
and take your testimony. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
and the whole truth in the testimony you ' re about to give.
Betty Hoff: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Hoff: I am Betty Hoff. I am resident of Brier Lane, subdivision
south of the recommended PUD and a mother and a member of PTA. I
am bringing my concerns for the opposition of the PUD and I have
spoke today with the Kent Public School 's District which also has
gone on record as saying that they are opposing this. . .the
development. . .and a letter has been written to Mr. Harris that I
will share a copy of today that goes into much detail and I will
share that with you if you would like when I 'm done reading off it.
Our children and the children of PUD would be going to East Hill
elementary. This is within walking distance of the school , so all
the children in the PUD would have to come through our development,
down 100th to East Hill elementary. It would be nice if I had a
City map but I don ' t.
23
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place ##SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: I understand the situation. I 've viewed the site as well
as viewing the video tape and the testimony tonight. The letter
you are referring is it dated June 20 , 1989?
Hoff: Right.
Hunter: That is a part of the record. It ' s a one, two, three page
letter. . .
Hoff: Right.
Hunter: I have reviewed that and I see the points being made. If
you want to highlight certain points out of that, that's fine.
Hoff: Part of that was the projected enrollment for East Hill is
being 625 . As of today, that ' s several more, as it states in the
paper, on an article written today in the Kent paper, East Hill is
well over it ' s enrollment projections as well as all the other
schools on the hill and at this point, says in the paper, that we
have an increase of 794 students or will have by October 1 and that
is the capacity of the three new schools which have yet even been
finished. So, as of this point, there ' s 88 portable buildings
being used on our school system. My child is not even at school
yet because our school is still under renovation. In the letter
it recommends that there be a delay of t .is development and all
others that contribute to the overcrowding until adequate classroom
facilities are approved and constructed or contribution by the
developer to the school system to off-set the cost of providing
temporary facilities for students generated by this development and
at, they have broken it down., it would cost approximately $600 per
single-family unit that they would be asking for from the
developer.
The next issue that it seeks. . . it talks about is safety and
transportation of these children and that is my mine concern
because right now my children are being driven to school because
of the safety issues on 100th. One Hundredth is not a safe street
for our children to be walking on. There's no sidewalks and
towards 100th and James, 240th Street, there was just recently put
up the crosswalk which we asked about for over a year ago. We
still have not received the lighting situation that was proposed
to us over a year ago that would be built when Fred Meyer ' s was
built on that corner and we don 't understand the delays. We have
brought our concerns , the PTA last year gave our concerns to the
24
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
City of Kent stating that we wish sidewalks be in place and there
aren't any at this point. We also would recommend bussing but we
have not seen that. The development shows no place that there
would even be a place for a bus to pull in and get through the
development. And, I spoke with them today and they said that a
substandard street with a width of 22 feet would impede the
operation of handicapped business and this street width would only
be acceptable with recorded covenants denying any on-street
parking. Well, supposedly that' s in place as a homeowner, I know
that' s not going to be the case. Some visitor is going to come in
and block the pathway, if not a homeowner themselves much less the
mailman, the garbage man, the UPS truck and anyone else who pulls
in there. So, in essence, our handicapped busses will not be able
to pull into this place to pick up any handicapped children.
The school system has also said they want full sidewalks, both
sides of the streets, so children won't have to crossing back and
forth across the streets in order to get from one side to the
other. That ' s also a problem further down in our development.
The situation as you come out of Dover Place and onto our
development is a steep hill and cars can gain several miles per
hour just going through that hill so that by the time these
children are at the bottom of the hill, the cars are also traveling
at excess of 45 miles per hour without a problem. I get that from
information last fall when we had the Police Department out in the
development radar gunning traffic through there and I asked for a
report of that and it said- . . I was told that most cars reach 35
miles per hour before ever coming out of their driveway. So, we
get an awful lot of fast traffic through it and we have brought our
concerns up to the City. I myself has talked to the City over an
accident that happened in the area and was asked what we could do
and how many children needed to be hurt before we needed. . .before
the City would do anything and I was told 12 children. Seriously,
I wish now that I had the name of the person who told me that. I
guess I can' t emphasize the safety of my children. That in essence
is the School Board' s stand on this . They wish that they could be
here tonight but because of a prior commitment were unable to. our
PTA, our Principal of East Hill also wished she could be here to
give her input because she too is opposed to any more children
coming into the East Hill school system until they are equipped to
handle it.
And my other standpoint, I guess , is just as a parent and a mother
of all of the kids on the streets out there, I. . . our children are
not safe to cross the streets now. And I can't imagine these
25
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
children being put on our streets . If they are planning on putting
a street light on the corner of 240. . .or Benson and 228th, that
street light is going to generate more traffic off of Benson
through our development to short cut onto 240th. That' s a problem
now and I can only see it getting worse. My other concern is for
the safety of the individuals in the homes of the development. I
can ' t see on-street parking. . .no on-street parking as being
legitimate. . . it will not work. And, I have no facts to back it up
but it just a gut reaction. We have had homes injured. . .damaged
by cars traveling at more speeds than they should be coming through
the development and other people out here, I 'm sure, will address
that and from experience, I know, that when I have to leave the
development and come up to the intersection of Benson and 228th to
make a left-hand turn at 4 : 00 in the afternoon, I have sat there
for ten minutes without a problem. At 4 : 00 , that ' s not even peak.
Hunter: O.K.
Hoff: O.K.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Rudy Hoff? Do
you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the
testimony you ' re about to give?
Rudy Hoff: I do. I 'm Rudy Hoff and I reside at 10023 SE 229th
Place in Brier Lane. I have some photographs that I would like to
present you. I guess I should let my wife do it. But they are
photographs of the hill on 228th/229th. This is a hill, a severely
steep hill , that cars pick up speed on that they are proposing to
put an extra 390 cars a day through_
Hunter: Would you like to submit these as an exhibit then, that
we have in the file. O .K. Three , four and five photographs which
show the hill on 228th. O. K. Exhibit 6 .
Hoff: That hill wasn ' t addressed by the traffic planner. There' s
also, as you notice on those photographs, blind spots.
Hunter: Do you have any thoughts about what could be done. . . speed
bumps help out on that kind of situation or what can you do. Let
me. . . let me. You have to wait, we have do this orderly.
Hoff: I ' ll concur with my neighbors.
26
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: I heard a response. O.K. , any further concerns that you
would like to address?
Hoff: Yes. The sports court and recreation area. There is no
provision for maintenance of that. Also, nothing was said about
garbage pick-up, how do garbage trucks get in and out, the school
buses , and the moving vans . Someone that parks on the street, do
they have to tow a car before they collect garbage. O.K. and I
have something to read here from the Kent Planning Agency staff
report on this development #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1, according to comment
received during the PUD review, the Kent Fire Department feels that
the access and parking problems which might be associated with the
development creates serious concerns about the department' s ability
to deliver an adequate level of service to this development. So
the Fire Department is saying here that they can't guarantee
reasonably the safety of residents of this development.
Hunter: You were quoting from the staff report?
Hoff: Yes , I am.
Hunter: O . K. , fine I just wanted to know which document. . .yes, the
staff report for this evening' s hearing.
Hoff: And this concern is not addressed in this report other than
to say that there be no parking on the streets. It doesn't say
anything about enforcement of that. It is an unenforceable law.
I would like to contrast that response to the responses given in
another planning report for Canterbury Development #SU-89-3 ,
September 6 , 1989 . It lists several objectives of the Kent
Planning Department with.this development. Objective 3 on page 8 ,
coordinate with King County, the Kent School District and the state
to develop and implement the community program to assure the safety
of students traveling between home and school. That is not
addressed in this PUD. On page 9 , the goal and objective support
the City ' s efforts to accommodate Kent's school district
transportation needs and schools have requested that the developer
of the Canterbury plat consider providing school bus waiting areas
and/or pull-offs to serve the children from the subdivision. This
would protect students and others from in the area from possible
bus/automobile conflicts . That is not addressed. . Goal 3 ,
establish and maintain the highest feasible level of service for
East Hill . The overall goal as stated in the Canterbury report,
establish a planned and coordinated system of public facilities and
services for East Hill that protects the health, safety and welfare
27
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #ESU-89-2/PUD-89-1
of the community. That can't be done with this narrow street.
Would you like this for evidence.
Hunter: I 'm familiar. . .you quoted from the staff report this
evening and the Canterbury staff report, I believe, was heard
earlier today. So I do have those. Thank you very much for
bringing your concerns forward. Dennis D'Eath? Do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you ' re about to give?
D'Eath: I do.
Hunter: And, if you please, spell your last name and give your
address . Our clerk here is trying to keep up with all the
testimony.
Dennis D ' Eath: Dennis D' Eath. D- ' -E-A-T-H. I live at 10220 SE
228th Street. With all these number of people, in coming up to
speak, I know I have something here that they don't have . So maybe
I ' d better address that and maybe only that because of the numbers.
Although I do have one or two comments on what was said. I think
it would have been fairer to have had a local traffic expert study
the traffic patterns and not one associated with the developer who
comes from Bellevue . Because, obviously, peak traffic is not at
6 : 00 in the evening on the East Hill, it' s' ranging from 4 to 5 : 30 ;
6 : 00 is relatively clear. I ' ll remind some of our people here that
two streets don 't comprise a neighborhood; they represent two
streets . The City of Kent has a high priority to provide park
areas . We here this described as a park-like structure. I fail
to see the park-like--it would be great if the City of Kent was
really, really sincere that they would acquire all of this land and
make a park for the existing tenants in that area because their
kids have no where to go ; only play on the street that is a short-
cut to Ms . Freddies and James (104th) intersection. O.K. , let me,
let me do this . I had no experience of PUD's before I heard about
it at the presentation that was made here about a month ago. I was
told, oh, yeah, that ' s a nice PUD out at Issaquah and I didn't feel
like going out to Issaquah not knowing exactly where it was ; I had
inquired where and, oh it ' s right off the freeway, you know, sort
of thing. But, I do have a relative of mine who works in real
estate in Portland or outside of Portland. Now, they say. if you
don 't observe history you don ' t repeat it. And, let me show you
what I have here and I can it leave it with you. What I did, I
went done there and I saw three PUD' s. The city of Gresham is
about 71 , 000 people in that city and it is abutted with the Town
28
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
of Troutdale which has about 7 , 000. So the people of Troutdale
they rent the capability of the Council people, like the planners
and the rest of the things. So the planners that they get have
experience in Gresham which they apply to the little town of
Troutdale. I saw the first PUD that Gresham ever built. And it
was built with homes on 4 , 500 to 5, 000 square feet. It was built
on, what they term, substandard streets which are 30 feet wide and
I have pictures which I hope you would like to see but. . .this was
developed incidentally in 1972 , our history. History of PUD' s.
Hunter: Well, sir, I can indicate that as an exhibit. I do want
to caution just from a relevant standpoint. I think the PUD
question is very appropriate. Different jurisdictions will have
different standards . We ' re trying to reference the standards your
City Council has adopted.
D'Eath: Basically, this was like the one being proposed for here.
A small , substandard streets , small lots . The condition of that
after seventeen years where the CCR' s, the CCR' s, said oh, you
can 't do this , you can ' t do that; for instance, no trailer, camper
pickup or coach shall be parked or within sight, in actual fact.
But, if you look at the pictures, you' ll see. I mean this is for
your edification. There has never been another substandard street
PUD built in Gresham or in Troutdale. In fact, the experience with
this one was so bad that the City of Troutdale with there first one
over reacted, they made full-sized streets to them, like 40-foot
streets , 40-foot paved that is ; not only that, they had no on-
street parking, they provided parking slabs in the front of each
house and they increased their required lot size for that PUD.
But, it was a big PUD, I mean, it wasn't 30 houses it was more like
300 houses . It was a big one. Then they went to their second one
which. came up in 1983 and that was six years ago. They had dropped
back, they said they are going to keep the full-sized streets ,
we ' re going to have on-street parking and we 're going to have lot
sizes of 4 , 500 to 5 , 000 square feet. Which they did, on the back
of each one of these sections, I have given you a plat map to show
the relationship of the with the surrounds and this one sits right
in the middle of two other larger lots, larger home sites. But you
can see the difference in the area and the atmosphere here. I
would not be adverse, and I understand the City of Kent planners
are talking now about having a R1-5 . 0 zoning for the City of Kent.
I wouldn' t be adverse to living in .this cne, to be honest with you
but I sure would be adverse to living in this first one. Their
homes set on the market. When they come up for sale, they set on
the market from seven to twelve months and when these people go
29
Hearing Examiner Minutes _
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
into a realtor and say I want to sell my home, the realtor says,
Why me, God? Direct quote. So, I ' ll leave this with you and it' s
very obvious, the three different. . . I would like to get it back in
time for the appeal .
Hunter: O.K. , would you like to have this just for reference or
do you want to submit it as an exhibit.
D' Eath: I took the photographs, you' ll see me in one of the
photographs . So, just to show I was there this weekend and the
photographs were taken like at 10 : 30/11: 00 on a Sunday.
Hunter: O.K. , well , I can. . .we can introduce it as an exhibit and
we will enter it as evidence relevant to what PUD's look like in
other areas . All right, sir, thank you for coming. Next would be
Irene Bouffard? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you ' re about to give?
Irene Bouffard: I do.
Hunter: If you will please state your name and spell your last
name, please.
Bouffard: My name is Irene Bouffard. B-0-U-F-F-A-R-D. For me and
my family the major issue against this particular development is
the effect it will have on our quality of life. First of all
expecting an additional 78 more cars , that ' s 39 families, that' s
just not 39 people moving in, using one small access as their sole
entry into the development will cause a severe congestion problem
in our neighborhood. One home has already had a car run into the
front of it. Adding that many more cars will be very dangerous to
all the children we have living in Brier Lane. Secondly, the lack
of ample visitor parking and the lack of concern by the Commission
about it. There is to be no parking on the street at any time.
How can the developers expect 39 families to have only 12 visitors
in their complex at one time. Are they assuming that the overflow
will park in Brier Lane and walk in. I doubt if that will be the
norm. Most people want to walk as little distance as possible when
it comes to parking their car and if they do use our streets for
guest parking this overflow will definitely congest our
neighborhood. Even the Kent Fire Department is very concerned
about it. Their suggestion is to install sprinklers in the units .
This may help in case of a fire, but what about the person who may
a victim of a heart attack or choking where seconds count.
Sprinklers won' t save their lives. All it will take is one car
30
Hearing Examiner Minutes
i' September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
parked on the street one time for a tragedy to occur. I speak from
the experience of living in a PUD, no amount of CCR's will make
everyone obey the rules all the time. And the by-yearly letter of
reminding that no parking is allowed on the street at any time,
that ' s once every two years, not twice a year which is more
appropriate. How many times has the thought. . .I 'm just running in
for a minute. . . it' s happened to all of us . . .we' ll just run in for
a minute. My other major concern is the already overcrowded
situation in the area schools . The superintendent of Kent's school
district stated in his letter that they do not have room for the
children that will be generated by this development. This directly
affects the quality of education my three children will get for
years to come. My son' s sixth grade class will have 41 kids in it
when they start tomorrow. This is unacceptable. How far will it
go before the city of Kent realizes that real limits have to be set
on growth. When schools can't keep other than other services must
be suffering also. Crime will increase and instead of a beautiful
city that we now have, things will start to deteriorate. It.
happens quickly. When we moved to the area we choose Kent as the
place we wanted our children to grow up. Brier Lane for it ' s
peacefulness. We did not choose to live with overcrowding,
traffic, speeding cars , noise and overburden teachers.
Hunter: Thank you. Kcoresh Kharrazi? O.K. Thank you, sir.
Ismael Melendez?
Ismael Melendez : O . K. I live at 10004 SE 229th, my house is the
last house on the right when you go through the development, all
the way to the left.
Hunter: I ' ll swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Melendez : Yes, I do.
Hunter: Please state your name.
Melendez : My name is Ismael Melendez. I live at 10004 SE 229th
Place. Last house on the right, by the stop sign. I 've lived in
the house three years now and I 've seen increase in traffic go up
and down 100th Avenue and some people think it's a raceway. I 've
seen kids walk down that Avenue, I 've seen them come around
the. . .go through the development like a bat out of hell . My
primary concern is the safety. I lived where. . . I grew up in New
York City where we had substantially wider streets. I lived on a
31
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
on. . . for these reasons, I feel the PUD is an ill-conceived idea and
that it should be disapproved. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Kim Durnwirth? Thank you, sir. Richard
Phillips or Diane Phillips? Do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth and the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Richard Phillips : I do. My name is Richard Phillips. I live at
22829 103rd Avenue SE in Kent_ . Our primary concerns have been
addressed by most people here so far this evening. A big issue
with me is parking. My feeling that 12 parking spaces for 39 units
is insufficient especially given the fact that they cannot park on
the street. My feeling is that 228th and the cul-de-sac off of
103rd that exists right now will become the overflow parking for
that area. In addition to the issues brought up by the Fire
Department and emergency services people. Second issue that I
would like to bring up is the wild spaces and the open spaces. I
applaud the idea of a PUD that has a barrier around the outside of
the facility. My only problem is that in this we have not really
addressed with the City of Kent and the people who live in it have
not really addressed how to maintain and manage that facility. In
the past, in the open wild spaces that exist currently, especially
in the green belts in the area, grass clippings, paper, pop bottle
rockets and things of that nature tend to inhabit the area. Very
little of it is usable or remains green for very long. The
additional . . . one other thing that I would like to mention that has
been brought up quite a bit is the school district problems. I
don' t think that we should increase the problems that the school
district is currently facing without providing them with funds to
meet those and finally, past experience with associations, i. e. ,
and this addressing the covenants, codes and restrictions. Past
experience with several of them has indicated that they have a lot
of problems funding such things as insurance for the open areas and
the active areas, the do need to be insured; there's quite a bit
of liability especially with an area that is developed. It tends
a lot of times to become a juvenile hazard; kids get hurt, people
get sued including the Board of Directors of the area and the
homeowners as well . Basically, I 'm not in opposition to PUD's but
I think we need to plan them out a little bit better and I think
we need to understand a lot more before we go off and develop them.
Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you. Roger--Diane Phillips, did you want to speak.
Roger Records? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you ' re about to give?
33
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Roger Records : I do. I 'm here as a frustrated. . .
Hunter: Please state your name.
Records : Oh, excuse me. My fault. Roger Records. I live at
10844 SE 228th in Park Orchard. I live across the street
from. . . across the Benson from the proposed development and I 'm here
as a frustrated resident of East Hill of Kent. I have one plus.
I 'm happy to say that I 'm not here tonight fighting an apartment
development. I commend the City of Kent for that improvement. I
share a number of the concerns that other people who have been at
this podium have shared. I would like to emphasize one that has
not been emphasized. I am not a traffic engineering person, but
I am the victim of severe traffic on Benson Highway. I can tell
you that one reason why that might be too many cars coming out of
228th and trying to turn on to the Benson is because it is
virtually impossible to do that in any kind of a time frame when
you are in rush hour . We in Park Orchard frequently drive over to
240th so we can get out on the Benson at the stop light. If you
are going to Renton, that ' s four blocks the wrong direction simply
to be able to get out on to the Benson, even making a right-hand
turn. The S-curve is the worse place on the Benson. The. . .I
presume it was just for space restriction but that was shown nicely
on the graphic that the traffic engineer put up here but it' s right
adjacent and I speak as one whose wife and daughter was rear-ended
at the intersection of 228th and Benson trying to make a left-hand
turn onto our street and I would suggest that the reason they were
rear-ended was someone was somewhat distracted coming around the
S-curve plowed into my wife and daughter, destroyed our car,
fortunately they were not severely injured. I guess it' s from that
bias I speak here in frustration that I see a high density
environment suggested here. I would plead for the Planning
Commission to stick to the low value of: four houses per acre;
restrict that to 30 houses instead of 39 . I think that would
be. . . if the developer wants innovative housing available in that
area, we already have lots of crowded housing in that area; why not
build some that have a little space around the house. I think the
9 , 600 square feet lot certainly would represent a much more
attractive home site and it would be innovative for the East Hill
of Kent. I 'm very concerned about the issue raised about our
schools . I served on the school levy committee last year and have
listened to the frustration of our school directors trying to build
schools as far as people move in and I suggest that the City of
Kent has a major responsibility of trying to help them out and I
34
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place '#SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
would just plead for you to listen to the people in our community
and listen to the people who are responsible for our school, help
preserve the quality of life that we have here in Kent.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. James Egelston? O.K. Paul Kiehn, I
believe it is, or Kline. . .we ' ll find out. Do you swear and affirm
to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony you' re about
to give?
Paul Kiehn: Yes , I do. My name is Paul Kiehn. K-I-E-H-N. I live
at 10015 SE 229th Place. I guess my primary purpose in speaking
is to kind of underscore a little bit some of the concerns about
traffic that have already been expressed. But, a mention has
already been made about a house that was run into and that was my
house. And, I would like to enter into the record as some evidence
some pictures .
Hunter: Three photos that show a partially destroyed garage.
We ' ll admit these as Exhibit 7 , I believe it is.
Kiehn: Now, I live at the top of the hill . There ' s a, basically
has been described as a dipped point through the neighborhood and
cars reach a very high rate of speed there. Apparently what
happened was a vehicle going to fast could not negotiate the curve,
ran over my cherry tree and drug several large rocks into the
garage, they knocked off a corner of the foundation, took out a
center support and end up, the car ended up completely in the back
of the garage against a. . . it' s about a four-foot high retaining
wall which I am thankful was there, it basically stopped their
momentum. I think, you know, some of the studies that have been
presented here by the professional traffic engineer are very good
and it' s nice to know that we have level of service numbers that
are within the constraints of the Kent City Codes. But, I think,
speaking for the people that live in the development reality is a
little bit different story. Density of traffic on 228th and 229th
is heavy in my opinion (2-566) (2-000) for a residential
neighborhood. It may not be for downtown Kent but as far as a
residence there ' s too many cars and they are going to fast. I
think there ' s a legitimate traffic and safety concern. I think the
other concerns mentioned about the fire access, the narrow streets,
schools , you know we have a school board basically against this
development. And, I would just like to underscore that, you know,
there' s a price to be paid for these planned unit developments.
I think they are. . .the concept for a planner may be great and the
concept for a developer, you know, he might think it' s a great idea
35
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
too, but the fact of the matter is that those folks are not going
to be living in the neighborhood. They are not going to be buying
those places and they are not going to be subjected to the impact
and that ' s about all I have to say.
Hunter: Thank you very much. Curt Betchley? Do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you ' re about to give?
Curt Betchlev: I do. I 'm Curt Betchley. I live at 10213 SE 228th
Street and I share a lot of the concerns that have already been
voiced this evening. I have a three-year-old daughter and a two-
month-old son and I am concerned about their safety and what the
school situation will be in a few years. I would like to address
the quality of this development. The Council said that one of its
goals was to maintain existing neighborhoods in its study of
housing in Kent. And we have a very nice neighborhood there and
I 've lived there for five years . I 've lived in Kent for eight
years and was one of the first houses in Brier Lane. I watched the
neighborhood grow and know many of my neighbors for a long period
of time and unfortunately I work quite a bit at Boeing and my wife
knows a lot more of the neighbors than I do. It' s a very good
community, there ' s a feeling of neighborhood there and the logical
extension of that neighborhood is across the street into this area
being proposed for Dover Place. To say that Dover Place is going
to benefit the neighborhood that exists, or that its going to
benefit the City of Kent is I think in error. There are a lot of
costs associated with this . I do not view this as a quality
development. The parks that are there are for the development.
Basically, you are putting in a high density development with just
barely sufficient amenities for the people in that development and
they are expecting the existing neighborhood to take up the slack.
The amenities, in my opinion, are not well thought out, my
experience with common property is that if it' s everybody' s
responsibility, it ' s nobodies responsibility. I also happen to be
a member of a condominium association where I own a small unit,
where I originally lived and in that association there are
mandatory dues for maintenance every month. And those dues are
assessed and I think a similar situation ought to be in place for
Dover Place otherwise the green belts and natural areas will
deteriorate. You are putting in a housing development which is
very small , you are putting in. . .and it' s only 39 units and it ' s
crammed in at high density. The affect of this is to basically
have an isolated neighborhood next to an existing neighborhood.
The only purpose I can see for the green belt is to actually try
36
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
to make that isolation, to try to separate the Dover Place
neighborhood from the existing Brier Lane neighborhood where, in
fact, the beneficial development for that area would be to extend
the Brier Lane development--type--at 9 . 6 rating into that area.
The trees, the buffer zone, is basically to block out a quality,
what I think will become an obnoxious neighborhood. The tendency
will be to have a juxtaposition of such different styles to
eventually have those units in there become rental units and have
nonresidents owners in there renting those houses with the
consequence lack of maintenance. And this certainly is going to
impact the quality of life that presently exists in the Brier Lane
neighborhood. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Lucille Lemon. . .Lucille Lemon?
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in
the testimony you ' re about to give?
Lucille Lemon: I do. My name is Lucille Lemon. I have one
question that I would like to start out with. I would like to know
where ' s the demand for these types of homes. Who is demandina
them? Is it the people or is it the developers? An example I
would like to give is a little place called Strawberry Lane, it
consists of three homes . Strawberry Lane is next to the elementary
school , I don 't know if you are aware of that area, it' s on 240th
and 100th. The lot sizes on Strawberry Lane are 7 , 200 feet. The
proposed homes in Dover Place are 4 , 500 . You take those homes and
you take the yards completely aware. Whose going to live there?
I don ' t want to live in a place like that. We went to the Planning
Commission office approximately one week ago and asked the
addresses of the homes that they show as an example. We were given
an address in Renton and an address in Federal Way. Renton is
under construction right now, we viewed both places. We did not
take a measuring tape with us , there is approximately five feet
between home which is the minimum required. There is absolutely
no back yard. The only exception to these homes, I must admit, is
that they were very beautiful homes but are we going to have those
types of homes or the homes on Strawberry Lane? These homes in
Strawberry Lane have been built approximately three years on 5 , 000
square foot lots, they have street parking. I asked if there were
any in the area, 5 , 000 square foot lots that do not have street
parking, there are none that we could view. I have a fear that
these homes are going to turn into rentals which means you are
going to have two or three families living in one home. Whose
going to buy a home for their family that has no yard. I didn' t
know it was everyone ' s goal to own a home with no yard for their
37
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place WSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
kids to play in. Well , we' ll compensate that we'll create an open
space, they can go there and have picnics there, that will turn
into a hangout for teenagers, it' ll become a popular areas for
Valley Kee which is down the street, the projects. I 'm sure you
are all aware of Valley Kee. Valley Kee has no "yards" it' s all
open space. My son was threatened in Valley Kee delivering papers ,
the police have recommended that adults do not go into that area.
This is what can happen to our neighborhood. Another issue I would
like to address is parking. I didn' t know they were going to be
restrictions on this development that only adults could live there.
If it ' s going to be for families , I myself have three children; two
of which are teenagers. Now, right now, we have two cars in
approximately two to three years we will have four cars. I have
a two-car garage, we do not park our cars in the garage because we
use for storage which is what most people do; lawn equipment and
anything else you don ' t have room for in your home. These homes
that are being proposed you could not build a storage shed in the
back yard because there ' s not enough room. The only available
parking will be in the driveway. Now, what do you do when you have
more than two cars, you have twelve spaces allotted, where do the
visitors park? Unless no one has friends, is that going to be
another restriction? For anyone that moves into this development,
no children, no friends , no more than two people per home. It' s
not meant to be sarcastic, I 'm trying to be realistic here. I
don ' t see where no street parking is going to work. It' s not
really a family home there and it ' s not really apartments . I see
this as a mixture of two, kind of an experiment. You have a
parking lot in the middle of homes, that ' s what apartments do.
Another concern I have is there ' s no access road other than through
our development. Our children walk to school, the elementary
school right now on 100th Avenue. They are walking on the streets .
I see the City opening itself up for lawsuits when one of those
children get hit because of the increased traffic from this
development. I think that ' s a serious matter this City should take
into consideration. The way the homes are going to be situated,
the lot size, it' s nice to see pictures of what they plan on
developing there. I don ' t think they are going to fit into our
neighborhood. If you look around our neighborhood, there ' s a lot
of space between each home. I don 't see where this development is
going to improve our neighborhood. Whoever owns that land,
purchased that land as an investment, we also purchased our home
as an investment, not to decrease the value of it but to increase
it. No one in this world is looking to go down, we're all looking
to go up. I don' t think we need to cut our lot sizes by more than.
38
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
one-half. That' s all I have to say, unless you have any questions
of me?
much for your testimony. John Lemon was
No testimony? And then
next on the list to testify. Jim Orr?
Hunter: Thank you very
Sir, we ' ll give you a change to enter those after we. . . Mr. Orr
is the last one signed up. If there aroeothers wear and affirm to tell
we' ll get to them after Mr. Orr. Do y ou're about to
the truth and the whole truth in the testimony y
give?
Jame___ s Orr: I do. My name is James Orr. I reside at 2To0lbut
Avenue SE. I 'm quite a ways away from this proposed project
ect
it. I think this would be an ideal place
I have SE own views on
for a PUD as long as the minimum o loAssfar was on-st on-street parking,-
maximum of 12 , 000--great way to g street parking; so is
Kent Shires has. . is not supposed to have on- '
Walnut Park. We live next door to Walnut Park. Before theabl to complex
was finished I drove in there and the only way good a backer.
back out was to back out loo feet and I 'm not he
There' s no way you can turn around in cne of these 22 foot wide
streets . If you need an emergency vehicle in there, forget ain, lwe
they' re going to have to pack ' em out on a stretcher. Ag
hear about they want to save the trees. Now, they are just saying
they are going to have to wipe out the trees--sounds like LeBlanc
all over. East Hill elementary school across from
start the ing to st be
there' s 18o units and those units are oDus East Hill elementary
occupied and those kids are going to g
school . Across from the Canterbury development going to
approximately 3o0 new units being built; those kids are
g g
have to go to East Hill
ort bles . Lookingschool-
in this sheete thatrthe
going to be a ks li
lot more p towards
proposed site, there ' s 12 parking place. I think its up
the north. Now, if I want to visit le home andlikeothe woman here hsays maybe
en I first
drive in, and there ' s two peoplethem
they don' t have kids , so I wouldn't go see pull u unless they didn't it' s a
have kids ; if both people are home and I p P
ky enough to get in to one of these twelve
rainy day and I luc
bout 600 feet to walk backo in
spaces, I only have a 'm not o be able to see
if it happens to be on Christmas, Io gn g o be gone. I just
my friends because those 12 spaces are go']
been very active on the
We've
don't think this is the way to go
East Hill trying to encourage some single family development.
Canterbury had no problem with 7 , 200 square foot lots where they' re
at, they didn't come in here hollering for a rezone or a PUD,
39
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
they' re more than happy to build 7 , 200 square foot lots. I don't
see that a PUD is anything more than apartments to me. It' s the
same thing and this property is zoned 9 , 600 square feet and I think
that ' s what it should be left at 9 , 600 square feet unless they want
to do a PUD with 12 , 000 max and 96 bottom. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. Other. . . is there other testimony or
evidence to present from the public. I see a hand back there--
you, sir, did you want to testify. Did you want to submit that
evidence we can take that now. You 've been sworn in and this is
to supplement the evidence that you already gave. O.K. , these are
three pictures each indicating housing development called
Strawberry Lane, fine, we will admit the:::e as Exhibit, and, I 'm
sorry, your name again is :
Rudy Dodd: Rudy Dodd.
Hunter: O.K. and in conjunction with Mr. Hoff ' s testimony, Exhibit
#8 . Yes, sir, will you step to the podium, please. Do you swear
and affirm to tell the truth and the whclf: truth in the testimony
you 're about to give?
Steve Feller: I do. My name is Steve Feller. F-E-L-L-E-R. I
live at 22912 101 Place SE. I didn ' t come prepared to speak
tonight. I very impressed, in fact, whey, some of my next-door
neighbors are so overwhelmingly prepared and they've addressed a
number of concerns in terms of housing values, traffic, schools
and so on. There are two areas I would like to comment on: One,
I will comment on the traffic. My wife and. I go, sometimes on very
long walks in the evening, and on that hill it is not uncommon for
people to, as previously stated, to use it as a shortcut from James
to Benson and I have many times in the midst of an evening walk at
4 : 30 or 5 , gone out cursing and hollering at people who are using
it as a thoroughfare; hollering that the speed limit is 25 and
finding that they are going much much faster than that. The other
area that I wanted to speak on and part of what (unclear) come up
here, is in reference to the lack of parking and to the street
width. Where I lived previously, we had, I lived there for eight
years, of those eight years I was on the architectural committee
for two years and I was Board president for three years. We had
only 22-foot wide streets and for our 40 units we had 22 parking
spaces and I can assure you that I would say fully half of the
balance of the units, all 22 spaces would be taken up and then
there would be people parked directly in front of their garages,
there was, in fact, no driveway whatsoever, wasn't an option.
40
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #sU-89-2/PUD-89-1
There was a constant problem, thank heavens in eight years there
we never had a call for a fire department. Fortunately, the one
or two times we had a call for the ambulance they were able to make
it through, a fire truck would not have. We frequently a d ce out to e
the fire marshal out, he ticketed. We had the City p
they ticketed--it was a constant problem. We assessed fines, we,
in fact, had association fees ; somebody suggested that as a
possible solution. It might help, I can assure you with all the
trouble you have in getting money from people and in all the steps
it takes to put an assessment against their homes so it cannot be
sold. In fact, you can try and take it from them. That' s a lot
of work, a lot of hassle for the board members and it's not a fun
job and it' s not a very good solution. It would perhaps help the
situation compared to no association fees; but, I don't think it' s
a solution. The, again, the 22-foot wide streets and some 22
parking spaces for 40 units never seemed to be uffi lecient.coul not It as
a constant problem and their were moving vans, p p
through the day get
I moved. our moving van was blocking the street
a substantial part of the day. And I would have to go down and
flag people and ask them to drive around and I believe that if
development is considered here and I think development here is
reasonable, I think it should be in line with reasonably sized
streets, reasonably sized lots and reasonably sized houses. Thank
you.
Hunter: Let me ask you about the parking situation. The applicant
tonight— and I don' t mean to put you on the spot, but since you
testified about parking and have that experience, we have received
as Exhibit 3 , a proposal that there be conditions, covenants and
restrictions which include an impound of illegally parked vehicles .
Any experience with that, did you have similar CCR' s.
Feller: My life. . .
Hunter: We 've all had experience with that.
Feller: My life was threatened by angry towees, I guess is the
word, the ones whose cars were towed. My life was threatened with
guns because of that. Fortunately, I had in fact had to
work for
a while to find a tow company who, the guy
was y a
bigger gun than most of the homeowners had. The. . .I found myself
being awoke at 2 a.m. in the morning by people saying, hay, you
can't tow my car, everybody knows that' s my parking spot right in
front of my garage. We tried such things as issuing annual passes
to allocate the 22 units, excuse me, the 22 parking spaces, which
41
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
meant that some of us, since there were 40 units, clearly some of
us didn't get one. We tried regular ticketing by the City that
didn' t seem to be a good solution in that the City simply couldn't
come through frequently enough. I think if they could have, it
would have been a solution. We tried getting the fire marshal out
there, that, again, he would leave notices but his notices, at
least where we were at, carried no weight behind them. We never
really did find a real good solution. The only times we got lucky
is that occasionally the people who refused to. pay their
association dues were also the ones we had the parking problem with
and there were times when we were able to repossess their home and
kick them out and then turn around and sell the home. That' s a
lengthy, time-consuming expensive process that ultimately led to
higher fees for everybody else in the community.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Any further
input? Yes, sir. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and
the whole truth in the testimony you ' re about to give?
John O 'Rourke : I do. Let the record show that my name is
John O 'Rourke, I 'm a lawyer, PO Box 98741 in Des Moines. I
represent Bill and Pat Norton. Ms. Norton is here with me tonight.
The Norton' s own the rectangle that would square off Dover Place
assuming it were a part of Dover Place w'r.ich it isn't. And, we
have two questions that I want to address to the staff. The first
one is whether or not the State DOT acquisition along SE 104th
which will be widen as, I 'm sure, the staff is aware will affect
or impact the limitation of access along the highway from Dover
Place which is proposed as one of the conditions here tonight. The
second question refers to paragraph 7 at page 23 of the staff
report. That paragraphs recites essentially that sewers to be
installed in Dover Place shall be extended to adjacent properties
as deemed necessary by the City. Now I represent the owners of the
closest property to the proposed development and my question is:
what standards does the City have at this time by which my clients
can know whether or not they can get the benefit of such an
extension? If there are any by ordinance or resolution, I don' t
know of them and I would like to have an answer especially to that
question. And that ' s all that I have.
Hunter: O.K. Since those are related to conditions recommended
by the City staff, is there anyone here from City staff that can
respond to one or both. Mr. Gill and Mr. Clifton. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, and the whole truth in the testimony
you' re about to give?
42
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Gary Gill : I do. My name is Gary Gill. I 'm the City Engineer for
the City of Kent and as far as Mr. O'Rourke's question regarding
the access restriction from the DOT onto the Benson Highway. I
believe the question was more with respect to Dover Court or Dover
Place development. O.K. The. . . since the access will be restricted
and only be off 228th Street there will be no restrictions as far
as access onto the Benson Highway. However, we would have to look
at the future conditions of that access point with regard as to
whether or not a signal will be needed to provide safe ingress and
egress to the people that live in that neighborhood--both Brier
Lane and Dover Place.
Hunter: O.K. Fair enough.
Gill : As far as the sewer extensions are concerned, what we do is
we would look at, if I had known this question was coming I would
have brought our Comprehensive Plan but what we would do is look
at the service area that in that general vicinity and if the sewer
extensions that are required to service the Dover property would
logically also service the Morgans. . . .Nortons, then this developer
would be required to make the extension which would also allow the
Nortons to get service in the future. It could be an extension of
the proposed 103rd Avenue with an easement through one of the lots
or, I 'm not familiar enough with the topography to tell you exactly
how the sewer extension would go but we would look at the different
alternatives and determine how adjacent properties could be served
and not be landlocked or not have an ability to gain access to
public sewers in the future. So that would be addressed as part
of our detailed review of the utility and street improvements for
this project.
Hunter: Very good. I hope you find those responsive. These are
tangently related to what we are hearing tonight but since they are
part of the conditions the City staff did respond and urge you to
explore in more detail outside the scope of this hearing. Any
further public testimony. Any testimony from City staff to clarify
anything raised at all?
Voice: I have a question. It has to do with the traffic study
that was done. I am curious where they come up with a number of
39 . . .you know there are 39 units but it seems like a lot more
people would be traveling during peak times. Many have children,
two people working per houses or something. But I 'm curious how
they came up with each house having just one car rather than two.
43
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place WSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: You' re raising a question about the traffic study that was
testified to earlier. O.K. we can ask the applicant to respond to
that. I first want to see if there ' s any further city testimony.
I think we had. . .yes , sir, please step forward. And do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony
you ' re about to give.
Michael Evans: I do. My name is Michael Evans. I 'm the Fire
Marshal for the City of Kent. First of all I would like to explain
some of the reasons and need for Fire Department access as it
relates to this particular project. The reason you provide Fire
Department access is to provide a means for the Fire Department to
administer and deliver services that it normally provides which
includes extinguishment of fire and other hazardous as well as
emergency medical services . And, I would like to continue by
saving that we cannot guarantee that that particular access will
always be there during an emergency. And some of their
requirements for that are included in Kent City Codes and includes
a 20 foot width. The reason for a 20 foot width is to provide
passage of a fire apparatus normally about 8 feet passed another
apparatus with an additional four feet provided for open
compartments, hoselines being used and so forth. So a total width
of 20 feet . It also includes turning radius for the largest piece
of apparatus . During an aid or emergency medical service
incidence, the largest people of apparatus may be sen to that
particular close So the need may be less than what is provided but
what we are looking for is a worse case scenario, maximum. . .minimum
20 foot width. Letters based on what you have from CamWest dated
8/30/89 , it appears that the letter has addressed all areas of
concern that were previously identified for and towards fire
department access and as basically out lined it is acceptable;
however, we want to reserve the right for approve of the actual
wordage that may be contained in the CCR' s.
Hunter: O.K. , thank you very much. And we had a question raised
about the parking. . . a little more City testimony. . .I 'm sorry Carol
did you have some further comments to make.
Proud: The request was made by the City Engineer if it may be
possible or if you would consider having a recess while we divvied
up on who should answer what questions that were raised. A five
minute break or something to that affect. It' s been about two and
a half hours.
44
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place $SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: O.K. , there are several questions that you see
outstanding. . .noted what those would be?
Proud: Yeah, yes , I do. Right I have
to long sheet
caret o ' answer sure
the rest of us do to, so,
and everybody' s concerns.
Hunter: O.K. , very good. We give a five minute break and then
we ' ll hear City staff respond to some of the concernoslrai ed. A
recess for five minutes--reconvene at 9 :27. If y g Y
address at the time you testified you will be mailed a copy of
that. If you want to make absolutely certain there is a separate
sign-up sheet here at the front table here before you leave tonight
you will want to put your name and address in there once again so
you can receive a direct copy of the decision. We will now an
opportunity some of the concerns that were raised, City staff will
have some clarifications or comments on that and we also had one
question raised for the applicant on the traffic study and Ma ' am
did you have one other question you wanted to raise. O.K. , I ' ll
ask that to when he comes up to do the tr f afic study; when it was
done and how the numbers were determined. Fine, o.k. , that will
be noted and will ask that of their representative. O.K. , Carol
Proud has some further clarifications, additions to her testimony.
Proud: To answer we sort of divided up some of the more pertinent
questions that you all brought up tonight and I want to say that
I really appreciate all your comments because a lot of these
questions and concerns that you brought up we hashed out ourselves
as well. With regard to the school department, the Planning
Department, the City in affect just sent me to a area-wide
conference regarding the mitigation of development impacts to
communities and the concerns that you expressed tonight are
concerns that are not only felt in Kent but county-wide. I work
and had been in contact with both Fred High and Donna Smith of the
school district and so I wanted to explain a little bit about how
their process works and where we are at in taking their concerns
into the overall scheme of things within the City of Kent as best
as I understand them. Basically, these letters are standard form
letters, every single development no matter how big or how small
gets this letter and I want to reiterate the final paragraph of
this letter which states, and this is from George Daniels,
Superintendent of Schools, please allow me to emphasize the
administration of the Kent School District is not, and he ' s
underscored not, opposed to development of this type. We are
however determined that the safety, welfare and basic educational
45
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
needs of the children of Kent will not be ignored. And, if you
will note in the staff report on page 17, we discussed that several
conditions of approval were suggested by the school district some
of which require contribution from the developer to off-set the
costs of providing facilities , urge the developer to create an area
that would be landscaped, equipment and dedicated as a children' s
play area, include bus turnouts and full sidewalks as safety
features and as much as possible the developer to our way of thing
has done that by providing passible play areas and sidewalks and
that sort. However, the City is unable to implement these
conditions without the legislative authority to do so, so the
comments are included in the staff report; included as a courtesy
to the school district to let them know that yes, we understand,
and we hear your plight but unfortunately the planning department
and the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council do not have the
legislative authority to assess these kinds of fees onto the
developer. If that ' s something the community would like to have
then it ' s up to you address it to your appropriate Council person
to have such kinds of things incorporated in City Code but we are
not set up right now to address those in a real . . .you have to sort
of way of doing this . . . all we can do is kind of ask the developer
and say this is what the school district wants and hey guys , what
can you do to mitigate some of these and so various developers have
different responses to that sort of things so we are definitely
aware of the problem and are doing everything within our
legislative power to be able to deal with this situation. I also
would like to address the. . . somebody brought up the conditions and
the different comments brought up in the Canterbury Plat and that
was heard earlier today and I 'm also very familiar with that
particular plat and it' s sort of like comparing apples and oranges .
Yes, there are some certain things that Canterbury was addressed
because of future. . .the way. 100th was going through and different
things kinds in that plat and we typically look at these things
individually based on the surrounding area, what's there and so
what ' s happening at this particular site is a little bit different
than what ' s going on at Canterbury. So that's why we don 't have
the same conditions in every single staff report.
I also wanted to address the concern about parks and this is
something that' s brought up a lot. Brought up by our staff but
unfortunately, again, the Planning Department doesn' t have the
legislative authority to mandate that developers put in parks for
the community at large and, again, if, in fact, the community is
concerned about this and a lot of people are, we all are, then it's
up to the community to go to the appropriate parks people, go to
46
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
that. But, in
your elected representatives
to do oum but ltherat there's nothing that we
the context of this, y y
address this situation right now. So, if
can do legislatively to
you want parks in East Hill you got to go to the appropriate people
to get them there and we' re not them, the developer is not them and
we can't do anything about it at this point in time. Stephen
Clifton has some comments and then we' ll turn it over to Gary Gill.
Clifton: Stephen Clifton with the Kent Planning Department. My
comments are very brief. The first one would be the maintenance
of the open space. And, we did state in our staff report that the
active open recreation area be permanent aoft the ined and d that a
maintenance agreement be created as Fart
covenants and restrictions. That' s primarily with the active open
area or the small park that' s created within the development. We
would ask the developer how he or she or they prop
to mainn
the surrounding or perimeter open space.
My second comment has to do with setbacks and comments made by
Ms. Lemon. And, she stated that in Federal Way the buildings were
separated by only five feet. I would ur sdict on.ke to our standards
standards differ by juout that City
risdiction by j
for the PUD are no different than 7 , 200 square foot lots , 9 , 600
square foot lots, 12 , 000 or 20 , 000 square foot lots. Side yard
setbacks for all of those developments are five feet per lot or ten
feet between homes and that is applied to all lots which are
created in all those different zones . So it's no different than
what we are asking for in the PUD development. The rear yard
nt
well ;setbacks
20 same and
fronthyardoandy20c�feetbfors e he the same as
the rear yard.
One comment or one concern was the devaluation of surrounding to
the development and we might askthat
the developers
this staffkrabout
the cost of the homes . Now, in putting to ge
we did take field trips up to areas like Issaquah and we looked in
to this on the same size lots. Tree years
to homes very similar
ago those homes were selling for $110 , 000oin° that tthe cost of the
for $140 , Oo0 and I would also like to p
home we cannot legally tell a developer what price of home they are
going to be developing on a lot. Another comment was in regard to
rentals . No one can determine whether or not a home will become
a rental or not. At the he community
that these mightubety.meeting t
his
rentals . One
was also brought up
woman at that meeting, as I recall because I was, stated that there
were rentals within the immediate neighborhood of that development.
47
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
you cannot determine whether a house is going to become a rental
or not that' s up to the property owner whether he/she or they want
to rent their property. And, that' s all I have right now. Thank
you.
Hunter: Thank you.
Gill : Gary Gill , City Engineer. I will try to cover some of the
issues in a general fashion and then Ed White our Assistant
Transportation Engineer will probably get in to a little bit more
details on some of the programs that we have to address some of the
concerns that were raised. We too have some of the similar
concerns that some of the property owners raised at the meeting
here tonight and we are trying to address those in a variety of
ways. We are well area of the regional transportation problems
that we have in this South King County area and so those problems
are being addressed on a regional basis along with other adjacent
jurisdictions : Renton, Auburn, King County, State Department of
Transportation. And, it ' s unfortunate that we ' re as fall behind
as we are but we are trying to address thF, problems in as prudent
a fashion. . . .prudent way as possible. We have several planned
improvement projects of which some of them were already brought up
at the meeting tonight. As you are already aware S . 240th Street
is being widened to a five-lane arterial between 104th and 116th
and that project is currently under construction right now. The
County is planning to widen and improve 240th east of 116th as part
of their six-year transportation plan. I believe the first phase
of that is planned for 1990 . The State Department of
Transportation is planning to widen the Benson Highway all the way
from the present city. . .north city limits up to 192nd Street in two
phases and the planning for the dates for construction are still
uncertain because of the State funding that is needed to provide
for the construction monies for those projects but the design is
almost complete for both phases of that widening project. The City
is also recognizing the need for new traffic corridors planning for
future needs and this includes the 228th Corridor, 277th and 196th
Corridors which are planned arterial improvements which the City
Council has placed at the very top of their priorities for target
issues for 89 and the years following. 1. would like to point out
that this particular property is part of a 660 acre annexation
which came into the City just a few years ago. Most of this area
was part of unincorporated King County and so we inherited a lot
of problems when we annexed this area and the residents are
correct, 100th Avenue is a very substandard roadway in need of
widening, curb and gutters, sidewalks. The actual plat of Brier
48
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript Dover Place 4SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
we
have any
Lane was constructed as subdivision
utility service forlthetresidents
part in that other than providing differences that you see between
in that neighborhood. The majorutters
King County an KKngtC as far as ounty doeshallowubforvrolled curb arandage very
minor. refer to go with the standard
and City of Kent does not. We
people from parking on the
raised curb and gutters to p pedestrian use. I would
sidewalks making the area inaccessibl ou°Tet into certain roadway
like to point out that the. . .w or y g
t in a
standards our minimuorhooddwoald beta cul-de-sac de-sac orntial edeadendestreet
single-fame y so and there are no parking
would be 28 feet from curb to curb• residential neighborhoods so
restrictions placed on single-family
you could have vehicles parked on both sides of the robabl which
you use up approximately
could effectively limit the available driving lane to p
than 12 feet. Sixteen to twelve feet r y you are left with
eight feet on each side of the street fer parking
you literally have to
about 12 feet. We do see this in a lot of the neighborhoods in the
area. When you drive through Park Orchard, y
s of the streets and
weave through the parked cars on both for people to drive in and
there' s usually about one lane available for sidewalks so it makes
in that particular neighborhood there to walk through. So
it even more precarious for somebody to try
I 'm not saying that, you know, we have all the answers we obviously
need to look at the present are changes that are
resent codes and if t
council
s the one that
needed th he t°h dinanceslwhich adopt the has tstandardsthat the City
approves the pedestrian needs are, I ' ll let
staff enforces here. As far as the
Ed get in to a littler b h KenteS pool Dist ict detail with h b
to try and identify
department is working
the elementary schools and other schools and where their walking
routes are. . .where the y will not pei hborhoodrovide bus s services
we have can
single-family and multifamily g
to and from school, then we can
accurate record
children a her thosenwalking ghborhoods are located and the
routes t pedestrian improvements because
try to prioritize which roads need p ro ects that are needed
there ' s going to be dozens and dozens of p 7 o in and try
throughout the city . We are going to have to g and
prioritize those and then take that to the council and ttry
are not
monies to et
fund the construction of these
highp priority from both the
ignoring the problem, it is a verylooth
Council and the City staff so we do recognize o onta Avenue,
nd on and on,
94th Avenue, 112th, and I think the list can g previously or are
are all substandard roads that are either were or p
49
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place ttSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
still in unincorporated King County and they are in very definite
need of being improved to meet any kind of current standards.
I believe there was a question raised about lights at the
intersection with the Fred Meyer store and I was a little unclear
as to what the problem was there one. . .
Hunter: There was a concern raised that additional lighting would
cause it to be even more heavily used by pedestrian and even
vehicles.
Gill : So this is more of the traffic signal rather than street
lighting.
Voice: (Unclear) principal of East Hill, spoke with her today and
she said that before Fred Meyers was constructed it was promised
to the School District that there would be lighting on 100th and
240th, on the crosswalk to 100th because it ' s totally pitch black
when you come around that corner and you cannot see the children
and there ' s multitudes of children from the apartment complexes
right down the corner, you cannot see them and the problem has gone
on now for a year-and-half without any. . .
Hunter: This is, I think, a very legitimate concern and one that
should be addressed. I think it ' s outside the scope of what we ' re
hearing tonight.
Gill : Well , yeah, I just wanted it to be clear that it was street
lighting and traffic signal . So, I think, that what we will do is
we ' ll look into that we made a note of it. Fred Meyer had numerous
conditions that were placed as part of that development project;
to widen the road, to put in signals, and we' ll go back and look
at those and make sure that if that wasn 't me.t that we ' ll take some
steps to get that taken care of.
Hunter: Gary, I wanted to ask you about the. . .you testified about
the parking situation. Normally a street is 28 feet wide and you
said that if it was parked on both sides, what is your estimate as
to what that would leave.
Gill : Well , a typical parallel parking space is about eight feet
in width so if you take 16 feet off of that that leaves you with
about 12 feet.
50
Hearing Examiner Minutes _
September 6, 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place ttSU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: So that the concern raised tonight is parking on a 22
foot.
Gill : Right, and that was part of. . .
Hunter: And both sides of that. . . .
Gill : No room, exactly. Less than eight feet. And that was why
when the PUD and that' s why I get back to the ordinance and the
standards that were developed. When the Public Works Department
reviewed the alternatives for street improvements for planned unit
developments, we were given several different scenarios. If they
go. . .they ' re allowed to go in with full width streets which provide
parking or. . .that ' s why we stated if it was a 22 foot wide street
that' s the absolute minimum that would be acceptable for two lanes
of traffic and if that was the street section that was constructed
as part of the planned unit development then there should be
absolutely no parking allowed within that. Then you get to the
problem of enforcement and all the other concerns that the owners
or the people brought up tonight and I don't have any easy answers
to that. That ' s obviously a serious problem that could result
there.
Hunter: O. K. Thank you very much, anything further?
Gill : I believe that Ed could answer a couple of questions
regarding some of the safety concerns and the speeding and
maybe. . . any. . . some other areas that I may not have touched on here
tonight.
Hunter: Ed White, further testimony or clarifications?
White: Again, Ed White, Assistant Transportation Engineer. I
wanted to touch on basically just two points. One in the peak hour
capacity concerns of the intersection of Benson and 228th and then
talk very briefly about a program that we have that is designed to
try and help local neighborhoods in terms of their speeding and
accident related problems . On the. . . in terms of determining a peak
hour. . . I know one of the citizens was concerned about possibly
someone going out around 6: 00 and doing a study. Normally, studies
are conducted within two time frames and a.m. peak that generally
go between. . . somewhere between 7 and 9 a.m. and an evening peak of
somewhere between 4 and 6 . Now the City normally will look at
those two time frames in terms of doing counts and we will either
count the entire two hour period or establish a peak hour within
51
Hearing Examiner Minutes -
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
that two hour period by going out and doing an automatic count
prior to any other analysis that we made need to determine actually
when that p.m. peak hour does occur. And I know that' s a common
practice of most agencies and consultants. And, so that, the
majority of the time when people are talking about p.m. peaks they
will be talking about in a general sense sometime between those
time periods but probably a specific hour within that time frame.
In terms of the capacity of the intersection because that' s a State
route and because there is a lot of growth occurring in the area
along with construction not only on 240th and on Benson but
possibly a lot of private development that may be going on you are
probably looking at capacity or a level of service. . .probably E or
F. I know that will probably also vary based on the time of day
and day of week, month of the year and so on. It' s a problem that
both State and the City is aware of and that there will probably
be a signal at that intersection sometime in the near future. I
know a comment was made as to the fact that a traffic signal there
might encourage traffic to utilize that route. That isn' t
necessarily so. Generally, people when they do use a route it is
because there are fewer constraints. A traffic signal tends to
stop more people on a route. I know it' s. . . it does not sound like
it does but we have studies that have identified increased delays
caused by traffic signals .
On the issue of traffic safety let me briefly just say we have what
we term "neighborhood traffic control program that we basically
instituted about a year and a half ago that was designed to get the
neighborhoods involved in looking at and possibly finding ways of
curing high speed, erratic driving, just trying to bring the
general awareness of the neighborhood bring it up. . .make people
more informed in terms of the things that they can do and that
various jurisdictions cannot do. I will be going over to the
office and picking up the various literature that we have and I
will make that available after the hearing for anyone who wants to
give me their name and address and we can get them involved in that
program.
Hunter: O.K. Let me understand your testimony about the traffic
level E and F that was on what intersection were you. . .
White: Correct. That was at the intersection of Benson and 228th
which is the intersection that has been in question this evening.
Also 240th?
52
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Hunter: Let me ask Mr. Grundley and you can stay right where you
are, the applicant ' s consultant, on the question raised at what
time of day the peak hours were used. What date did you do you
the study and what did you use as your peak hours.
Grundlev: The counts were conducted on August 16 and August 17 , the
actual peak hour time period was 4 : 30 to 5: 30 and 5 : 00 and 6 : 00
peak hour was four cars less just for an indication of variance.
The magnitude between the two hours. I referenced 5: 00 to 6: 00
peak period just because that ' s a general range as Ed has said
that' s indicated by peak hour. . . (unclear) generation of a housing
development. However, the actual counts at the intersection were
from 4 : 30 to 5 : 30 .
Hunter: O.K. , thank you, sir. Any further City response. Yes,
sir.
Evans: Mike Evans , Fire Marshal . A couple of comments. The no
parking restrictions and enforcement and penalties that are
associated and defined in that document presented by CamWest do
present an enforcement problem which there are no clear and easy
solution too. However, based on those requirements, if I were to
apply those same requirements to the neighboring entry of 103rd
Place there would have to be yellow strip on the curb and either
signs or yellow marking in the pavement that says no parking fire
lane on one side. If I applied that throughout the City we would
be painting the City yellow and that' s not our intent. But based
on experience and a little bit about people, how this project would
look in the future we thought that our needs had been addressed
concerning Fire Department access .
Hunter: Your needs are addressed, the enforcement problems are
something that you don ' t have enforcement control as far as
ticketing of vehicles?
Evans : The Kent City Code does allow for the ticketing of vehicles
in an appropriately marked fire lane. Basically, the standards
that are displayed in that document are taken from those standards
and at that point, when marked as such, are enforceable for
impoundment or towing or a fine as defined in that particular
document.
Hunter: And that ' s the yellow strip and the sign says, "by
order. . " .
53
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 6 , 1989 7 : 00 pm
Verbatim Transcript
Dover Place #SU-89-2/PUD-89-1
Evans: And you see the sign in either a 12x18 sign or painted on
the pavement, allows for either.
Hunter: Thank you.
Evans : O . K.
Hunter: Any further clarification from City. Stephen Clifton?
Clifton: Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department. Although it
is stated in the staff report I would just like to make one
correction to my presentation. For those individuals who haven ' t
read the staff report because I understand that quite a few heads
turned when I discussed the square footages of the homes, I
mentioned that they were 1, 200 to 910 square feet; the correct is
that they are 1, 200 to 1, 910 square feet. Thank you.
Hunter: Any further testimony. Yes , sir.
Kiehn: My name is Paul Kiehn. I would like to add something to
my testimony. Betty Hoff had mentioned to me that I. . .guess in my
nervousness I kind of missed a key point and that was the time of
the day that accident occurred, that is the car running in to the
house was 3 : 00 . I think that ' s significant because that ' s about
the time the kids are getting out of schccl. The car crossed the
oncoming line, across the sidewalk and yard and the potential for,
I think, a tragedy is pretty obvious in that case. But, just
wanted to have that added to the record.
Hunter: Thank you very much. And thank you all very much for
attending and presenting testimony. _ I think it has been concisely
presented and clearly presented. Obviously there ' s a full range
of issues to consider some of which are outside the scope of
authority as you heard the City respond and some of which are
within the scope of authority cf the Hearing Examiner and Planning
Department. What the job is to do now is to consider all the
testimony and evidence submitted and to render a recommendation
within 14 days. Those of you that have signed up for a decision
will receive it directly in the mail, others can receive it by
contacting the Planning Department and getting a cop that way. So,
I thank you all for attending and presenting your testimony. It .
will
assist me in making a decision and w;� will have that within
14 days . Meeting adjourned.
54
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1989
FILE NO: DOVER PLACE 4SU-89-2 and -,,PUD-89-1
APPLICANT: Cam West Development, Inc.
REQUEST: A request for preliminary subdivision approval
in conjunction with a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for 39 residential lots and associated
open space . Subject to Kent Zoning Code,
section 15 . 04 . 080 and to the Kent Subdivision
Code.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVES : Stephen Clifton and Carcl Proud
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
I . GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal will subdivide a 7 . 6 acre site into 39
residential lots and a separate tract of associated open
space. The size of the proposed lots will vary between
4 , 500 and 5 , 000 square feet. The tract of open space,
as proposed, will total 2 . 85 acres or 36 . 6 percent (36 . 6
percent) of the site. The tract will include areas of
natural vegetation, formal landscaping and approximately
33 , 105 square feet of active recreational area. A
minimum thirty-foot wide landscape buffer will be
provided around the perimeter of the site. Approximately
1200 linear feet of private roadway terminating at two
separate cul-de-sacs will be constructed. A parking area
for twelve vehicles is proposed at the center of the
northern cul-de-sac. The resulting Planned Unit
Development (PUD) will provide for 39 detached
single-family houses at a density of five units per acre.
B. Location
The subject property is located north of the intersection
of 103 Avenue SE and SE 228th Street and abuts a portion
of the west side of 104th Avenue SE.
1
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1 _
C. Size of Property_
The subject property is 7 . 6 acres in size.
D. zoning
The subject property is located at the northeast corner
of an R1-9 . 6 , Single-family Residential , zoning district
that extends west to 98th Avenue S . and south to
approximately SE 232nd Street. Zoning further south
along the west side of 104th Avenue SE includes an MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential, zoning district,
a small O, Professional and Office, zoning district. and
a CC, Community Commercial , zoning district which extends
to SE 240th Street.
As a Planned Unit Development, the size of proposed lots
may be less than both the required minimum lot size of
9 , 600 square feet and less than the minimum width
specified in the R1-9 . 6 , Single-family, zoning district.
Thirty-five percent of the site must remain in open
space. All future development on the proposed lots are
subject to remaining single-family development standards;
yard setbacks , height, lot coverace and required parking.
The proposal is subject to the tree preservation
ordinance. All trees on the site having a caliper of
six inches or greater must be identified on either the
site plan or on a separate tree plan.
E. Subdivision Code
The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to
provide rules , regulations, requirements, and standards
for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that
the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general
welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development,
and the conservation, protection and proper use of land
shall be insured ; that proper provisions for all public
facilities (including circulation, utilities, and
services) shall be made ; that maximum. advantage of site
characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that
conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
2
Staff Report
-)over Place
4SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
In addition to the standard subdivision of land as
-outlined in the Subdivision. Code, the City provides for
the subdivision of land under the Planned Unit
Development regulations of the Kent Zoning Code.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the
regulations of the Subdivision Code. The private road
system will be developed to Code standards including
curbs and sidewalks except for the width of pavement
which will be less than the required 26 feet. The
proposed 22 feet is consistent with the standards
specified in the PUD ordinance. Because of safety
concerns with regard to fire vehicle access, no on-street
parking will be permitted in the subdivision. Each lot
must provide on-site parking for a minimum of two
vehicles as specified in the Kent Zoning Code. All
proposed sewers , water mains , and other utilities will
comply with applicable City requirements.
The configuration for proposed lot 36 must be redesigned
to accommodate access from the private road and not 104th
Avenue SE per Washington State Department of
Transportation and the City Public Works Department
requirements . Because of a required easement to widen
104th Avenue SE , approximately 6 , 66C square feet will be
removed from the proposed tract of open space.
Preliminary review indicates that the size of the
remaining tract will be 35 . 1 percent, which meets the
minimum requirement for a PUD. The exact dimensions must
be specified on the final plat.
The proposed PUD in effect is a binding site plan and no
lot will be permitted to be sold separately from the
resultant' subdivision. Language to this effect must be
included in the Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions
for the PUD. Also, the proposed plat must receive final
approval and be recorded with King County Department of
Records prior to any construction activities on the site.
F. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
3
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
concerning the future of Kent and the area within the
Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Council , City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth, development, and spending decisions .
Residents , land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City ' s
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for _future land use in the City
of Kent.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as SF - Single-family. Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by
Planning Department comments .
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
Policy 8 : Encourage the use of clustering, zero
lot line, planned unit development
and other site planning techniques
to improve the quality of
developments .
Plannina Department Comment:
A revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance became
effective in October of 1988 . Using regulations of the
existing PUD ordinance, the proposed plan retains 35
percent of the site for common open space, of which 10
percent is dedicated to passive use, 10 percent for
active recreation, and 15 percent is preserved as native
vegetation. Under standard R1-9 . 6 zoning, common open
space and requiring areas for active and passive
recreation is not a requirement.
4
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
GOAL 2 :
Objective 3 :
Policy 6 : Require developments to provide for
all necessary on-site improvements,
as well as their fair share of off-
site improvements needed as a result
of the development.
Planning Department Comment:
As a condition of approval through SEPA, the developer
of the project will be required to enter into agreements
with the City of Kent to participate in future
construction of the 224th/228th Street corridor project
and a 228th Street and SR-515 signal project. The 228th
Street and SR-515 signal project would be installed if
warrants are met and determined necessary by the City' s
Traffic Division.
Proposed private streets within this development shall
be designed to meet City standards regarding pavement
structure, and shall have cement concrete curb, cement
concrete sidewalks, street lighting, drainage system,
street name signs and other appurtenances associated with
street construction projects .
GOAL 3 : Assure an adequate and balanced supply of
housing units offering a diversity of size, densities,
age, style and cost.
Objective 2 : Provide for a mixed residential
community with a balance of housing
types .
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed project will provide 39 additional
single-family homes for the City of Kent. One lot
(designated #36 on the site plan) has an existing home
scheduled for removal, locating a new home in its place.
Samples of floor plans submitted indicate homes ranging
in size from 1222 to 1910' square feet, for one-and two-
story homes respectively. These homes will add to the
existing single-family housing stock in Kent, helping to
balance multifamily and single-family units within the
5
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
City. The size of the homes will also add to the mix of
housing types within the community.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
Planning Department Comment:
The PUD allows applicants to modify pavement widths of
a two-way street upon review and approval by the Kent
Fire Chief and the Traffic Engineer providing they are
sufficient to maintain emergency access and traffic
safety. To ensure that the roadway is kept in a suitable
condition, the following condition should be applied as
required by code :
A maintenance agreement for all private
streets within the Planned Unit Development
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions for the project.
According to comments received during .the PUD review,
the Kent Fire Department feels the access and parking
problems which might be associated with the development,
creates serious concerns about the Department ' s ability
to deliver an adequate level of service to this
development. Although there are tentative conditions to
maintain access , the occupants must be aware that the
Department ' s ability to deliver service will be severely
impaired if the conditions are not met continually.
According to the Kent Fire Department, the owner would
be well -advised to_ consider built in protection of
sprinkler systems .
EAST HILL LAND USE PI.AN
The East Hill Plan Map designates the subject property
as SF-6 Single-family 4-6 units per acre. " Elements of
the East Hill Plan are addressed below and followed by
the Kent Planning Department finding.
6
Staff Report
Dover Place
USU-89-2 and nPUD-89-1
LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS
As mentioned above, the subject property has a land use
classification of SF-6 , Single-family (four to six units
per acre) . This designation represents the highest
single-family residential density.
Planning Department Comment:
Minimum lot sizes of the underlying zone do not apply in
a PUD, thus allowing lots to be less than the . 9 , 600
square foot size. The overall density of the
development is approximately five units per acre which
falls within the SF-6 density designation.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
GOAL 1 : Adequate sewer service for existing development
and those areas adjacent to the collection system prior
to expanding the system.
GOAL 2 : A water system that will deliver cost
effective, dependable supply of high-quality water to
existing development and accommodate the incremental
increase to demand created by new development.
Planning Department Comment
The developer through SEPA review has been required to
provide storm drainage detention and biofiltration of
storm water runoff as well as analyzing the downstream
system to insure that adequate capacity exists. The
developers will also be required to provide a public
water system to meet fire flow and domestic demands as
well as providing for public gravity sewer service to
all lots .
G. Planned Unit Development
The intent of the Planned Unit Development is to create
a process to promote diversity and creativity in site
design, and protect and enhance natural and community
features . The process is provided to encourage unique
developments which may combine a mixture of residential,
commercial , and industrial uses . By using flexibility
in the application of development standards, this
7
Staff Report
Dover Place
4,,SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
process will promote developments that will benefit
citizens that live and work within the City .of Kent.
According to the Density Bonus Standards for a Planned
Unit Development (Section 15. 04 . 080 D) , the density of
residential development for PUD' s shall be based on the
gross density of the underlying zoning district: in
this case, 9 , 600 square foot lots or 4 . 54 units per
acre. The Hearing Examiner may recommend a dwelling
unit density not more than twenty percent greater than
permitted by the underlying zone upon findings and
conclusions that the amenities or design features whiph
promote the purposes of this section, as listed below,
are provided:
1) Ooen space : A four (4) percent density bonus may
be authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the
open space is in concentrated areas for passive
use . Open space shall include significant natural
features of the site, including but not limited to
fields , woodlands, watercourses, permanent and
seasonal wetlands . Excluded from the open space
definition are the area::; within the building
footprints , land used for parking, vehicular
circulation, right-of-ways and areas used for any
kind of storage.
Plannina Department Comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
will be used for passive recreation. Areas of passive
use concentration include the corners of the project as
well as the perimeter areas between the lots and
property lines . To ensure that "Tract B" is retained as
open space, the following condition should be applied to
the final' subdivision:
A. The final subdivision linen shall bear a notation
stating that "Tract B" shall be retained as
permanent open space and shall not be further
subdivided.
Open space along the south property line consists
of mainly tall grasses and weeds . During the
community meeting for this - project, neighbors
adjacent to the south property line expressed
concerns regarding the visual impacts of new homes
8
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and WPUD-89-1
located along the south property line. The
landscape plan for Dover Place indicates a screen
of evergreen conifers to be planted within the 30
foot open space along this southern edge.
Eventually an evergreen screen will visually break
up the facades of homes located along the southern
edge.
Additional landscaping is also proposed along the
south half of the eastern edge. Evergreen and
deciduous trees will help to provide a screen for
new residents from 104th Avenue SE.
2) Active Recreation Areas: A four (4) percent
density bonus may be authorized if at least ten
(lo) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools , children' s play
areas , etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within
accessory structures that is directly used for
active recreation purposes can be included in the
ten ( lo) percent active recreation requirement.
Planning Department comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
(33 , 105 square feet) will be used for active recreation.
The area designated as active open space is located in
the center of the property between lots 27-30 and 31 .
A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court
and open lawn area . To ensure that residents moving
into the earlier constructed homes have this open space
for their use, the following conditions should be
applied:
A. The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
B. Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques • (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil,
seed or sod, irrigation system, etc. )
9
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
C. The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
3 ) Storm Water Drainage : - A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized if storm water drainage
control is accomplished using natural off-site
drainage features . Natural drainage features may
include streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
Planning Department Comment:
Natural off-site drainace features used for storm water
drainage control have not been proposed for this site.
Therefore a two (2) percent density bonus can not be
granted for this project .
4 ) Native Vegetation: A four (4) percent density
bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen (15)
percent of the native vegetation on the site is
left undisturbed in large open areas .
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, fifteen (15) percent of the
site (49 , 653 square feet) will be retained as native
vegetation. The area designated to be retained as
native vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between the proposed lots and property lines. A tree
plan showing the location of all trees on the site with
a caliper of six inches or greater has been submitted.
To ensure that the native vegetation is left undisturbed
during construction and permanently retained as native
vegetation, the following conditions should be applied:
A. No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation. This excludes such activities
as : vehicle maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
B. The Conditions , Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting
10
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
majority by any organized home owners association
shall compromise or nullify the conditions of this
PUD.
5) Parkina Lot Size: A two (2) percent density bonus
may be authorized if off-street parking is grouped
in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or less. Parking
areas must be separated from other parking areas or
buildings by significant landscaping in excess of
Type V standards as provided in Section 15 . 05 . 070,
Kent City Code. At least fifty (50) percent of
these parking areas must be designed as outlined
above to receive the density bonus.
Plannina Department Comment:
Due to the type of development proposed (single-family) ,
off-street parking grouped as mentioned above can not be
achieved. This type of off-street parking requirement
is typically used for mixed use, multifamily or
commercial developments . Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus can not be granted for this project.
6) Mixed Use Types : A two (2) percent density bonus
may be authorized if a development features a mix
of residential housing types . Single-family
residences, attached single units, condominiums,
apartments , and townhomes are examples of housing
types . The mix need not include some of every
type .
Plannina Department Comment:
The proposed project shall consist of only one type
(single-family) of housing unit. A mix of o ndensg ypes
is not proposed. Therefore a two (2) percent
ity
bonus can not be granted for this project.
7) Project Planninq/Manaaement: A two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted if a
design/development team is used. Such a team would
include a mixture of architects, engineers,
landscape architects, and designers. A
design/development team is likely to produce a
professional development concept that would be
consistent with the purpose of the regulations.
11
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
Plannina Department Comment:
A team of designers has been used by the applicant for
this project. These include architects, a landscape
architect, and engineers . Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted for this project.
Density Bonus Determination :
The underlying zoning for the subject property allows
34 . 48 units . The applicants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, 2 , �: , and 7 , therefore, a
fourteen percent (14 percent) density bonus may he
granted. This increase would allow an additional 4 . 84
units resulting in a development potential of 39 . 32
units or 39 total developable lots for a single-family
PUD.
II . HISTORY
A. Site History
The proposed 39-lot subdivision and Planned Unit
Development was reviewed by members of the Subdivision
Committee at a tentative plat meeting held on June 1,
1989 . All relevant comments and concerns discussed at
the meeting are included in the staff report.
B. Area History
The site is located at the northern boundary of the
recent 142 acre East Hill Well Annexation, Area I, which
was incorporated into the City in 1987 . Annexation of
the area occurred as a result of local residents needing
to obtain water services from the City. After much
deliberation by the City Council and community input,
the annexation area was predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6 ,
Single-family Residential .
Review of City and County maps indicate that a
considerable amount of subdivision activity has occurred
in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occurred directly east of 104th
Avenue SE and south of the subject property. The Brier
Lane Subdivision abuts the subject property to the
12
Staff Report
Dover Place
#{SU-89-2 and WPUD-89-1
south. This subdivision as well as other plats within
the vicinity were developed in King County prior to
annexation. King County permits a lot averaging system
that allows for a variety of lot sizes. For this
reason, some lots may be less than the 7, 200 minimum
required under City of Kent standards .
III . LAND USE
Land use in the area is best described as transitional . Some
rural single-family residential development is -located north
and west of the subject property. The area east of 104th
Avenue SE (in King County) is more densely developed with
single-family residences on smaller lots that are part of
larger subdivisions . Directly south of the site is the
previously mentioned Brier Lane subdivision. An apartment
complex with related parking area is located northeast of the
site on 104th Avenue SE. Land uses further south on the west
side of 104th Avenue SE consists of a large apartment
complex, office and retail uses .
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Declaration of ncnsignificance (,urENV-
89-33) was issued on June 14 , 1989 with the following
conditions:
1. Provide storm drainage detention and bicfiltration
of the storm water runoff prior to it entering the
City" system.
2 . Analyze the downstream system to insure that
adequate capacity exists. If adequate capacity
does not exist, the developer shall make the
necessary improvements thereto subject to City
review and approval thereof.
3 . Discharge of runoff from the site shall be at a
non-erosive point in the drainage system.
4 . The developer shall conduct a traffic study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent
road network and traffic signal system. The study
13
Staff Report
Dover Place
tSU-89-2 and tPUD-89-1
shall identify• . all intersections at level-of-
service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes
from the development. These intersections are at
a threshold level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts
thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and the mitigation measures
outlined in the study, implementation and/or
construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance of the
respective development permits. '
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree
to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic
impacts resulting from the proposed addition.
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreemen-- to financially
participate and pay a fair share of the costs
associated with the construction of the South
224th/228th Street corridor project . The
minimum benefit to the above development is
estimated at $41, 964 based on 39 PM peak hour
trips entering and leaving the site and the
capacity of the South 224th/228th Street
corridor.
The execution of this agreement will serve to
mitigate traffic impacts to the above
mentioned intersection and road system by
committing funding for the South 224th/228th
Street corridor, which will provide additional
capacity for traffic volumes within the area
of the above mentioned development.
5 . Execute a signal participation agreement for the
future construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of SE 228th Street and SR-515 if
warrants are met and deter-mined necessary by the
City ' s Traffic Division.
14
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
6 . Deed right-of-way to WSDOT for proposed
improvements to SR-515. Contact WSDOT for exact
right-of-way needs .
B. Significant Physical Features
1 . Toroaraphy and Vegetation
A single-family residence and a large barnlike
structure are located on proposed lot 36 at the
southwest corner of the subject property. The
topography of the site is relatively level with a
moderate increase in elevation from west to east.
The site has a variety of native vegetation
consisting of a dense ground cover of grasses ,
shrubs and stands of mature deciduous and evergreen
trees .
C. Significant Social Features
1 . Street System
All of the proposed lots will have direct access to
103rd Avenue SE and SE 228th Street from the
proposed private road. No access will be permitted
for any lot from 104th Avenue SE. SE 228th Street
at this location is classified as a local arterial
with a right-of-way width of fifty feet and forty
feet of actual pavement width. The average daily
traffic count on the street is 2000 vehicle trips
per day.
2 . Water Svstem
An existing eight inch water main located in 103rd
Avenue SE at the southern property line is
available to serve the proposal . An existing eight
inch water main line located adjacent to the site
along 104th Avenue SE and can also serve the site.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing eight inch sanitary sewer main located
at the southwest ` corner 'of the property is
available to serve the site.
15
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
4 . Storm Water System
The applicant will be required to provide on-site
storm water detention in accordance with the City
Drainage Code . Any natural drainage course across
the property should be main-ained.
5 . LID ' s
None at the present time .
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of the
application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments and concerns have been incorporated in the
staff report where applicable.
On August 11, 1989 the Fire Department received a letter from
the applicant regarding agreed upon conditions to minimize
any potential fire hazards in conjunction with the planned
unit development . These condition:; are included with the
conditions of approval for the proposed PUD.
The Planning Department received a copy of a petition signed
by 49 local residents opposed to the project. The objections
relate to fire safety issues , limited access, increased
density, reduced street width and other concerns . The
original petition will be officially entered into the record
at the public hearing for the proposal .
On June 20 , 1989 the Planning Department received a letter
from the Superintendent of- the Kent School District which
emphasized the critical shortage of classroom space for new
students . The School District is unable to build new schools
fast enough to accommodate the rapic; growth that the Kent
16
Staff Report
Dover Place
4SU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
area is facing.. The Superintendent stated in his letter, "In
short, we do not have room for the children that will be
generated by this development. "
Several conditions of approval were suggested by the School
District some .of which included; require a contribution from
the developer to the school district to offset the costs of
providing temporary facilities for students generated by
these developments ; urge the developer to create an area near
the center of the development that would be landscaped,
equipped, and dedicated as a children ' s play area; include
bus turn-outs and full sidewalks as safety features for
children using school bus service. The City is unable to
implement these conditions without the legislative authority
to do so. The comments are included as a courtesy to the
School District.
VI . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, PUD
ordinance, Subdivision Code , land use, street system, flood
control problems and comments from other departments and
finds that:
A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as SF, Single-family Residential .
B. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as SF, Single-family with a density of 4-6 units per
acre.
C. The site is presently zoned R1-9 . 6, Single-family
Residential , 9600 square foot minimum lot size.
D. The Planned Unit Development ordinance provides for both
reduced lot size and lot width if 35 percent of the
entire site remains in open space and other bonuses are
granted.
E. The underlying zoning for the subject property allows
34 . 48 units . The a�pid cants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, 2 , 4 , and 7 of the Density
Bonus Standards , therefore, a fourteen percent (14
percent) density bonus may be granted. This increase
17
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
would allow an additional 4 . 84 units resulting in a
development potential - of 39 units .
F. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
subdivision will provide for 39 detached single-family
houses at a density of five units per acre which falls
within the density specified for the SF-6 ,
Single-family, designation of the East Hill
Comprehensive Plan Map .
G. The proposed Planned Unit Development and subdivision
will have access to SE 228th Street via a -private road
and all improvements to the site will conform to . the
requirements of the Kent Subdivision Code and ' the
Planned Unit Development ordinance.
H. The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether to grant,
deny, or condition an application for a Planned Unit
Development based upon the followinc review criteria :
Residential Planned Unit Develcr.m.ent Criteria:
1 . The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial
effect upon the ccmmuni�,, and users of the
development which would not normally be achieved by
traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be
detrimental to existing or potential surrounding
land uses as defined by the Comprehensive Plan.
Plannina Department Findinq
A 30-foot common open space buffer is proposed for the
perimeter of the site. This open space buffer is to
consist of existing vegetation, ( including a number of
mature trees) , enhanced along the southern and eastern
boundaries by the proposed planting of evergreen
conifers . The inclusion of this buffer gives neighbors
an additional 30 feet of visu,-_i and physical privacy
than might be afforded by standard site development.
Under standard P.1-9 . 6 zoning, common open space and
required areas for active and passive recreation is not
a requirement. . A sport court and open lawn area has
been proposed to serve the residents of the development.
Standard subdivision regulations also do not require
this type of amenity.
13
Staff Report
Dover Place
4SU-89-2 and 4PUD-89-1
2 . Unusual environmental features of the site shall be
preserved, maintained and incorporated into the
design to benefit the development and the
community.
Planning Department Finding
No unusual environmental features exist on this site.
However, according to the site plan, fifteen (15)
percent of the site (49 , 658 square feet) will be
retained as native vegetation as required by the PUD
ordinance. The area designated to be retained as native
vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between proposed lots and property lines. A tree plan
showing locations of all trees on site with a caliper of
six inches or greater has been submitted.
Under a typical subdivision application, percentage
requirements for retaining natural vegetation do not
exist. Using a typical 9 , 600 square foot lot layout, a
higher percentage of trees nay be removed than the
proposed PUD application .
3 . The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of
openness by using techniques such as clustering,
separation of building groups, and use of well
designed open space and/or landscaping.
Planning Department Finding
As previously mentioned, using regulations of the
existing PUD ordinance, the proposed plan will retain at
least 35 -percent of the site as common open space. 10
percent is dedicated to passive use, 10 percent for
active recreation, and 15 percent is preserved as native
vegetation.
Evergreen conifers are proposed along the south and east
open areas helping to screen adjacent developments to
the south, and 104th Avenue SE from the proposed
development.
4 . The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design. Buildings
in groups shall be related by common materials and
roof styles , but contrast shall be provided
19
Staff Report
Dover Place
$#SU-89-2 and nPUD-89-1
throughout the site by the use of varied materials,
architectural detailing, building scale and
orientation.
Planning Department Findinq
As mentioned on page 5 , the proposed project will
provide 39 additional single-family homes for the City
of Kent. Samples of floor plans submitted indicate
homes ranging in size from 1222 to 1910 square feet, for
one-and two-story homes respectively. These homes will
add to existing single-family housing stock of Kent, and
will also add to the mix of housing types within the
community.
Thus far, three different housing plans have been
submitted to,,the Planning Department. One home is a one
level rambler style, while the other two are two-story
structures . The applicant has stated that as many as
five different housing plans will be constructed within
the development.
5 . Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept, particularly when construction will be in
phases .
Planning Department Findina
All homes are proposed as single-family structures, each
with a two-car garage. Buildings plans submitted
indicate different square footages, but overall,
similarity in style does exist.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code
criteria for granting a Planned 11nit Development and a
Preliminary Subdivision, the City staff recommends APPROVAL
of the proposed seventeen lot subdivision subject to the
following conditions :
A. Conditions applicable to the Planned Unit Development:
1) The final subdivision plat shall bear a notation
clearly stating the total dimension of "Tract B"
including the percentage of open space ; that the
20
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
tract shall be retained as permanent open space and
that the tract shall not be further subdivided.
2) The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
3 ) Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil,
seed or sod, irrigation system, etc. )
4) The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
5) A maintenance agreement for all private streets
within the Planned Unit Development shall be
included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the project.
6) No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation. This includes such items as :
vehicle maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
7) The Conditions , Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting
majority by any organized home owners association
shall compromise or nullify the conditions of this
PUD.
11
8) The development shall shalliva have
roadway at yellow O 50 Kfoot
painted on the p
intervals .
9) In the Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions for
the development, it shall stipulate that on a bi-
t basis a mailer shall be sent to all
homeowners at Dover Place reminding them that
parking is not permitted on the street due to
potential fire hazard.
21
Staff Report
Dover Place
#kSU-89-2 and WPUD-89-1
10) The developer shall install five signs that shall
read . "NO PARKING ON THE STREET BY ORDER OF THE FIRE
MARSH-ALL" .
11) The applicant shall submit to the Planning
Department a recorded copy of the final version of
the -Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions, which
include ' the aforementioned conditions of approval
for the Planned Unit Development prior to issuance
of any building permits for the site.
B. Prior to recordation of final r1at :
1) Proposed private streets shall be designed to meet
City standards regarding pavement structure, and
shall have cement concrete curb, cement concrete
sidewalks , street lighting, drainage system, street
name signs and other appurtenances associated with
good street construction practices .
2) Deed 20 foot right of way along 104th Avenue SE to
City for street purposes .
3 ) Provide utility easement to City for the sewer,
water and storm drainage. Also provide easements
for each individual lot to said utility.
4 ) Provide copy of associated articles denoting the
provisions for maintenance and operation of the
private streets , sidewalks , street lights , street
name signs , open space, parks and facilities ,
private drainage system, etc. to City for review
and approval . Said articles also shall reflect
each- rights of lot owners to utilize said street
and related facilities .
5) On-site storm detention is required and water
release off the site shall be at a non-erosive
point. Said system shall be designed to service
not just the development bi.t the entire drainage
basin tributary. Extension of the storm drain
facilities to adjacent property lines may be
required along with granting the necessary
easements to the City.
6) Provide public water system to meet fire flow and
domestic flow requirements (minimum size line shall
22
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
be six-inch diameter) . The main shall be extended
to service adjacent properties as determined
necessary by the Public Works Department.
7) Provide public gravity sewer service to all lots.
Said sewers shall be extended to adjacent property
lines as determined necessary by the City.
8) Access to lot 36 shall be provided by the internal
private road rather than 104th Avenue S .
9) No direct vehicular access shall be allowed to the
proposed development from 104th Avenue SE.
These conditions will be in addition to the SEPA
conditions already imposed on the project.
KENT PTANNING DEPARTMENT
August 29 , 1989
23
CIT"Y . or. KENT
_ planning..
1 \ l0 181 20
17\ 1 0 r r
16
15
e•
\ 13 � rr' \` ( 24
• � t
.2� 25 ilo�
�f'�; 7FkEtJd-
1,2
uee.
�, \ y 6o
.1 g � - �7_s�': �s� t33.p90��r> r I '• II I\ I
y l \\ y \ 34
.I / fJ x n .ii+ ✓t �, t I
i
�j 1
• e,o.p
jla1 6' r= \5 4 13 9 37 I if
I' � IY6oj. 3� I �• �!
.I.r I ( � I l I l I I •. I I I rax •. 1\ \ \S I
f 7D 27 l :5 a
�I
a�
>-! 1\I
- S.E.S._F c
223th Slrcet-
I
APPLICATION We Dover Place LECENO '
Number #SU-89-2 OaIE September 6, 1989 appfiealiou site
Request Preliminary Plat zauin� boundary
SITE PLAN Clay limits
SCALE = No scale
CITA7 0 . KENT
planning..
O•
X If
fj
q . r� . Irr�■ of Y wr I ra i
' •\ � i I f�•(; i1��jY 't7r,!1�����y1771y����r• I` \�4C�\4:J' \r
1oC.V
CD
✓J L V `� U
' ��\I \\ \\ ,r Cl ` U y r-�rJI 'ad• �Q /� �• O dy
MRG
APP>_UTIDN Nama over Place LEGEND
.Number #SU-89-2 DalCSeptember 6, 1989 applicaliou silt
._ zoulu boundary
Requesl Preliminary Plat — CITY Ilmlls
TOPOGRAPHY/ZONING MAP
SCALE = 1° = .400'
CITY .or. KENT
planning..
1 —
SE
T 0 77CTH �.
- 5T T
W , I 1 1el�-�t 7•K � N rt
R r w
Or N a W
R o N
In r o SZ-
s 222ND
r Pr. c >•II IT 222ND ST ST $l5
r n W
< ^ w
0
. m E 224TH ST 'r P JJ 1-11
R 1 t7 ^�, SE L4TH w oy SL
I Nor O��S 5YH ti m m224TH P.
> SL 22
r < $R ST
d E 5TH
-� I sl 11.■ ■f W" 5E 2P 5Y H ~w
r L
SITE F' �SE 226TH �� ��
1 v sT m m-
r �' • ' 6ii w W S w O .
t,ttt t S 228TH U _ � 227TH ST �> r
1 ST SE 228TH 5T< SE 228TH ■
$T w t■■
SE 229TH E I
S 0 S297H`-
1 PL fIr ■
ST 1-- <
I II11r■ I t - (PV1) ii'vt) ti ? tir SE 230 H
1 ' ST
SE 7�;ST r= SE / Qbt �I SE 23IST W -Y PAR"
ELE
S 23IST Sr wIv~i 230TH� =�
IP r ST Pn) 4a■yo P'-. Sf 222ND 5T
r 5 232N0 5 23ZNC . .1 1SE 232n0 ST w SE -< E 232N
ST _ ST ( ;E 232 ND PL 232NO y ST
PL
t ,�E 233R0<
N
w r • -� .p A ,��•
rr i ■ S STH�i JSSS
r mr "' •o �a SE 236TH $T AVE
Z C�
■ ti o SE 1,ITY 1
m <l�-6 T H - t >✓■ "m t�■f I Am I!■■■I ■
(Pvt) ST In v�
u - _' 5E 236TH PL w
Ys "' o
'�n-��� SE 237TH 5T > uj
i z a
I. I'A _ E 228TH }'
m
�j r l
SE 231)TH
a�S238TH L. 5T N
2: _x �..1.1i -
O Z
N
PI S.239, PL --
240 ST
I APPLICATION Name Dover Place ►EGEND
1� Numher #SU-89-2 Dal2 SPpteTihPr 6 1989
applicaliou site
zouiilq houudary
j R2quesl Prel iminary Plat Clly IImIIS
VICINITY MAP
SALE — r = 1000:1
c�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1990
r Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CAM WEST APPEAL DOVER PLACE PUD-89-1 AND SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At the December 19 Council meeting, a
public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Cam West
Development, Inc. of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of
conditional approval of the Dover Place PUD-89-1 and Preliminary
Subdivision #SU-89-2 filed by Can West Development, Inc.
The hearing was completed and closed.
3 . EXHIBITS: Notice of Appeal (see Other Business section Item
4A of packet for additional material on Dover Place)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 10/25/89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITX COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/modify/deny the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of approval of PUD-89-1 and SU-89-2 with 17 conditions.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
i
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson 8 BurJell
ROLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500 - OBTH AVENUE N.E..>2:00
BELLEVUE,WAS HiN GTON 9800-1
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0362 FAX:(206) 454-5719
(206) 453-171I �V 01`/
Y u 19V9
CITY OF KEA1T
CITY CLERK
November 17 , 1989
Mr. Jim Harris
Planning Director
City of Kent
220 4th Ave. So.
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Re: Dover Place File No. PUD-89-1
Appeal of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision
Dear Mr. Harris:
I understand that the other parties who have filed an appeal
in this matter, Lucille and John Lemmon, have requested -a
continuance of the hearing before Council . The appeal hearing is
scheduled for . next Tuesday, November 21.
We have no objection to a continuance for two weeks, to
December 5 , provided that both our appeal and the Lemmon' s appeal
are set over to the same hearing. It would be difficult for
Council to act on our appeal request separately from the Lemmons ;
therefore, in order to coordinate the hearing process , we agree to
a two-week continuance.
Sincerely,
Nadine Zackrisson
NZ : cb -
c-cc':- Marie Jensen, City Clerk -,
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
FROM:CITY OF KENT TO: 226 454 NOU 7, 1969 9:34At1 P.02
I �
Office of the City Clerk
220 S . 4th 859-3370 NOV 8 19
89
City of Kent CITY OF ►(ENT
Order for Transcript for CITY CLERIC
Appeal from Decision of Hearing Examiner
[Resolution 896
ordinance 2233
Date 11-08-89 Appeal filed 11-OS-89
Anpellant ' s Name 'Cam-West Development , Inc . (Eric Camobe l
Address P . 0 . Box 308 , Kirkland , WA 98083-0308
Phor,e 454-9160
Hearing Examiner ' s File No . Dover Place #PUD ' 89-1 and nSU-89-2
Reconsideration
Date Of Ilearing rxaminer Public Hearing_ 9-6-89 f; I -� 1 n-04-8°
Reconsideration decision
Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision 9-2 -89 issued 10-25-89
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of
-he action taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $ 25 filing fee . Treasurer ' s Receipt 4— 7 )r(f)
Within 3C days of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision, the appellant shall
order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held before
the hearing Examiner and must post at the time of the order, security
in the amount of $100 for eacl: tare to be transcribed. If the actual
cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant
shall be required to reimburse the City for the excess ,mount. if
edne
cost is less tham the amount posted , any credit duet 'wil be
to the appellant.
i
Order for Transcript received Transcript of 9-06-89 Hearing has alrEa_a y
een preparea. (lOO . CC)
Treasurer' s Receipt #I
kit,
.o
i
CITY OF KENT
1 CITY COUNCIL
2
3 iAppeal of Hearing Examiner ' s )
; Decision and Recommendation )
4 on Dover Place #PUD-89-2 )
5
and #su-89-1, ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
)
Cam-West Development, Inc. , )
6 Appellant )
7 )
8
1 . Appellant . Cam-West Development, Inc. , the applicant for the
9 Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat.
10 2 . Basis for Request . The Kent City Code provides that an
aggrieved party may file a written appeal to the City Council
11 within 14 days of the Hearing Examiner' s decision. The
Hearing Examiner issued a decision on reconsideration in this
12 matter on October 25, 1989 .
13 3 . Grounds for Apoeal .
14 a . The Hearing Examiner has erred in the interpretation of
Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 of the Kent Zoning Code. By
15 applying an incorrect interpretation of this section of
the Planned Unit Development ordinance to the Dover Place
16 PUD, the Hearing Examiner has required a reduction in the
number of residential units from 39 to 38 .
17
b. Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 concerns Density Bonus Standards
Is in Planned Unit Developments, specifically the density
bonus which may be granted for active recreation areas .
19
Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 Active Recreation Areas.
20 I A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
21 recreational purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pools, children ' s play areas,
etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within accessory
23 structures that is directly used for active recreation
purposes can be included in the ten (10) percent active
74 recreation equipment.
25
065AO046 1 11/3/89
i
FERGUSON 5 BUROELL j
ROLL CENTER BELLE` UE
500- 1 OBTM AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE•WA 98004
(206)453.17 1 j
I
c. The Hearing Examiner has misinterpreted Section 15 - 04 . 080
D. 2 by finding that only that percentage of space
1 contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be counted toward
2 the active recreation area requirements, and by finding
that the four percent density bonus for active recreation
3 areas must be denied because the minimum area requirement
within accessory structures is not met. (Exhibit 1. )
d
d. The staff report submitted to the Hearing Examiner for
5 the September 6 , 1989 hearing clearly states that the
site plan for Dover Place PUD shows ten percent of the
6 site will be used for active recreation, describes the
location and nature of the active recreation area and
7 proposes condition as to timing of completion and type
of planting materials. Staff found that Dover Place PUD
8 met the requirements for the four percent density bonus
allowed under Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 . (Exhibit 2 . )
9
I e. Section 15 . 09 . 060 of the Kent Zoning Code concerns
10 administrative interpretations and provides that the
Planning Director has the authority to make
11 ill interpretations of the previsions of the code.
(Exhibit 3 . )
12 �� f . Section 15 . 09 . 070 of the Kent Zoning Code concerns �
13 Appeals of Administrative Interpretations and provides
that appeals of administrative decisions relating to
11 interpretations of the Code shall be heard and determined
by the Board of Adjustment. The Hearing Examiner has no
1� authority within the Zoning Code to make official
interpretations of the zcning ordinance or to overrule
16 the interpretations of thF Planning Director.
(Exhibit 3 . )
i
17
g. The Planning Director, on November 1, 1989 , made an
13 administrative interpretation cf Section 15 . 04 . 030 D. 2
and found that there is no provision in the PUD chapter
( 15 . 04 . 080) that says a PUD development shall have an
19
accessory building with active recreation before the ten
20 percent open space calculation can be made. The four
percent density bonus may be granted based on active
�1 recreation areas located entirely in outdoor areas .
(Exhibits 4 - 5 . )
22
h. The Hearing Examiner makes no other adverse findings in ,
23 his reconsideration which provide a basis for denial of
the four percent density bonus allowed by Section
L4 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 .
25
065AO046 2 11/8/89
FERGUSON 6 BURDELL
KOLL CENTER BE'_LE'JUE
500. 108TH AVENUE N.E
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE, V!A 96004
(206)453-1]1 1
, I
I
i. The Appellant accepts all other conditions of approval
as recommended by the Hearing Examiner in his decision
1 of October 25, 1989 .
2 4 . Relief Requested. The Appellant requests that this appeal be
granted, and that PUD-89-1 be approved for 39 units as
3 submitted-, consistent with all applicable regulations.
4 DATED this 8th day of November, 1989 .
5 l
6 By: I�IIG�CGf� r� i1/1 . 2;tCY>>j;'YI
Nadine M. Zackrisson
7 Attorneys for Applicant Cam-West
Development, Inc.
8
9
i
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
065AO046 3 11/8/39
FERGUSON 6 BUROELL
ROLL CENTER BELLE VUE
500. 108TH AVENUE N.E.
SUITE 2100
BELLEVUE, WA 98C04
(206)453 1711
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
47tPUD-89-1 and YSU-89-2
guests only. This means each residence will have four on-
site parking spaces (above all code minimums) with reserved
guest spaces for 15 vehicles . Conditions to implement this
are detailed in the Decision below. The Hearing Examiner
understands the concerns of the Fire Marshal and citizens
surrounding the site regarding violations of parking
restrictions . However, the Hearing Examiner has no authority
to modify Kent ordinances which address parking requirements.
The applicant has prepared a Parking Assessment Study which
has been reviewed and agreed to by the Kent Planning
Department. The applicant has revised the street widths
beyond what is strictly required by the Kent Zoning Code. Any
further concerns about street widths and parking restrictions
should be directed to policy makers.
4 . The new evidence provided on the proposed active oven space
area shows that the four percent density bonus should not be
allowed. Section 15 . 04 . 080 (D) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code
states that, for a PUD proposal :
A four (4) percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes . . . Only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be included in
the ten (10) percent active recreation requirement.
(emphasis added)
The applicant provided a clarification of the type of active
recreational area proposed as part of the "Notice of
Reconsideration" . Exhibit on Reconsideration n3 designates
an area with a green border as the "proposed active open space
area" . Statements on the Exhibit indicate that the active
recreation area is for "field sports" and that there would be
one "sport court area" . The designation of the "sport court
area" was changed from a previous indication of a "possible
tennis court" . Thus , although no dimensions of the "sport
court area" are indicated, the size of the "sport court area"
is assumed to be about the size of a tennis court. The
"Notice of Reconsideration" on page 3 states that the "active
recreation area is approximately 28 , 000 square feet" . This
calculation clearly includes all area within the green border
as an active recreation area. This is in direct conflict with
the ordinance which states that only that percentage of space
contained within accessory structures that is directly used
for active recreation purposes can be counted toward the
active recreation area requirement.
6
PYUTP.TT 1
Decision on Reconsideration
Dover Place
#PUD-89-1 and $SU-89-2
The Exhibit indicates no accessory structure for active
recreational purposes . Even if the "sport court area" were
to become an accessory structure, the area designated would
not meet the ten percent requirement. The applicant has
requested a density bonus for an active recreation area. The
granting of this bonus is discretionary. However, certain
minimum code requirements must be met before the bonus can be
` requested. The four percent density bonus for active
recreation areas must be denied because the minimum are--
requirement within accessary structures is not met. The
ll
number of proposed residences shown on the revised preliminary
plat (Exhibit on Reconsideration r2) should be reduced
accordingly. This means that 38 dwelling units should be
authorized rather than the proposed 39 . The Hearing Examiner
recommends that the residence be removed from Lot 12 on the
proposed Preliminary Plat and that space allocated to
additional open space or additional quest parking. The final
determination on implementation of density bonus reduction,
however, can be made by the Planning Department.
ii
Staff Report
Dover Place
#SU-89-2 and #PUD-89-1
located along the south property line. The
landscape plan for Dover Place indicates a screen
of evergreen conifers to be planted within the 30
foot open space along this southern edge.
Eventually an evergreen screen will visually break
up the facades of homes located along the southern
edge.
Additional landscaping is also proposed along the
south half of the eastern edge. Evergreen and
deciduous trees will help to provide a screen for
new residents from 104th Avenue SE.
2) Active Recreation Areas : A four (4) percent
density bonus may be authorized if at least ten
(10) percent of the site is utilized for active
recreational purposes, including but not limited to
n' s play
jogging/walking trails, pools, childre
areas , etc.
Only that percentage of space contained within
n.
accessory structures tha is directly used for
active recreation purposes can be included in the
ten (10) percent active recreation recuirement-
Plannina Department comment:
According to the site plan, ten (10) percent of the site
(33 , 105 square feet) will be used for active recreation.
The area designated as active open space is located in
the center of the property between lots 27-30 and 31 .
A landscape plan indicates the location of a sport court
and open lawn area. To ensure that residents moving
into the earlier constructed hories have this open space
ollowing conditions should be
for their use, the f
applied: '
A. The active open recreation area shall be
constructed and operable upon completion of 50
percent of the homes within the Planned Unit
Development.
B. Lawn areas shall be planted using typical lawn
planting techniques (e.g. 4 inches 5-way topsoil ,
seed or sod, irrigation ;system, etc. ) -
9
EXHIBIT 2
Staff Report
Dover Place
4,SU-89-2 and ttPUD-89-1
C. The active open recreation area shall be
permanently maintained by the home owners
association. A maintenance agreement to this effect
shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions for the projec_.
3) Storm Water Drainage: A two (2) percent density
bonus may be authorized :if storm water drainage
control is accomplished using natural off-site
drainage features . Natural drainage features may
include streams , creeks, Fonds, etc.
Planning Department Comment:
Natural off-site drainage features used for storm water
drainage control have not been proposed for this site.
Therefore a two (2 ) perce::t density bonus can not be
granted for this project.
4) Native Vegetation : A four (4) percent density
bonus may be authorized if at least fifteen ( 15)
percent of the native vegetation on the site is
left undisturbed in large open areas .
Planning Department Comment:
According to the site plan, fifteen (15) percent of the
site (49 , 658 square feet) will be retained as native
vegetation. The area designated to be retained as
native vegetation includes the area around the perimeter
between the proposed lots and property lines. A tree
plan showing the location of all trees on the site wit::
a caliper of six inches or greater has been submitted.
To ensure that the native vegetation is left undisturbed
during construction and permanently retained as native
vegetation, the following conditions should be applied:
A. No construction practices of any kind shall take
place within the area designated to be retained in
native vegetation_ This excludes such activities
as: vehicle 'maneuvering, materials storage, etc.
B_ The Conditions , Covenants and Restrictions for the
project shall require the proposed native
vegetation area to be designated as permanent and
be left as native vegetation. Further, no voting
10
a
V
Staff Report
Dover Place
1SU-89-2 and $PUD-89-1
Planning Department Comment:
A team of designers has been used by the applicant for
this project. These include architects, a landscape
architect, and engineers. Therefore a two (2) percent
density bonus may be granted for this project.
Densitv Bonus Determination:
The underlying zoning for the subject_ property allows
34 . 48 units . The applicants have fulfilled the
requirements of numbers 1, O 4, and 7, therefore, a
fourteen percent (14 percent) density bonus may be
granted. This increase would allow an additional 4 . 84
units resulting in a development potential of 39 . 32
units or 39 total developable lots for a single-family
PUD.
II . HISTORY
A. Site History
The proposed 39-lot subdivision and Planned Unit
Development was reviewed by members of the Subdivision
Committee at a tentative plat meeting held on June 1,
1989 . All relevant comments and concerns discussed at
the meeting are included in the staff report.
B. Area History
The site _ is located at the northern boundary of the
recent 142 acre East Hill Well Annexation, Area I , which
was incorporated into the City in 1987 . Annexation of
the area occurred as a result of local residents needinc
to obtain water services from the City. After much
deliberation by the City Council and community input,
the annexation area was predominantly zoned R1-9 . 6 ,
Single-family Residential .
Review of City and County maps indicate that a
considerable amount of subdivision activity has occurred
in the area prior to annexation. Most of the
subdivision activity has occi.:rred directly east of 104th
Avenue SE and south of the subject property. The Brier
Lane Subdivision abuts the subject property to the
12
E. City Council Action
omprehcnstve Plan
'I
in ays or the receipt of the recommendation from the
Planning Commission for the Comprehensive Plan for the area of the proposed
annexation, the City Council shall consider the Comprehensive Plan at a
public meeting. The Council may approve or disapprove the Comprehensive
Plan as submitted, modify and approve as modified, or refer the
Comprehensive Plan back to the Planning Cor:nission for further proceedings.
If the matter is referred to the Planning Commission, the Council shall
specify the time within which the Planning Co.�nission shall report back to
the Council with findings and recommendations on the matters referred to
it. An affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total members of
the Council shall be required for approval. Upon approval of the
Comprehensive Plan for the area of the proposed annexation, the Planning
Director shall cause an application to be made to the Hearing Examiner for
recommendations for initial zoning pursuant to the procedures set forth in
this section.
2. -Initial Zonin .
pon p of the recom-endations of the Hearing Examiner
for the initial zoning of the area of the proposed annexation, the Council _
shall hold two or more public hearings at least 30 days apart. Notice of
the time and place and purpose of such hearing shall be given by publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and in the area to be
annexed at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The ordinance adopting the
initial zoning may provide that it will become effective upon the annexation
of the area into the City. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of
the ordinance and any accompaning maps or plats with the County Auditor.
15.09.060 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIGH
The Planning Director nay make interpretations of the provisions of this
code. S.:ch administrative interpretations shall Include determinations of
uses permitted in the various districts, approval or disapproval of
development plans, and zoning permits. Other interpretations may be made as
specific circumstances arise which require such interpretations. The
purpose of such administrative interpretations is to provide a degree of
flexibility in the administration of this code while following the intent of
the City Council.
15.09.070 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS
Any appeal of administrative decisions relating to the enforcement or
interpretation of this code, unless otherwise specifically provided for in
this chapter, shall be in writing, and sh?U be filed with the City Clerk
and the Planning Department within ten (10) days after such decision stating
the reasons for such appeal.
A. Said appeal shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment and the Board
of Adjustment shall render its decision within sixty (60) days after the
filing of such appeal with the City Clerk and Planning Department.
6/28/85
143 -
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF
• I.
November 1, 1989
Nadine M. Zackrisson
Ferguson & Burdell
Koll Center Bellevue
500 - 108th Avenue N. E. 14r2100
Bellevue, WA 98004
Re: Administrative Interpretation of Sec`--ion 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 of the
Kent City Code
Dear Ms . Zackrisson:
I have reviewed Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 of the Kent City Code as per
your request dated October 31 , 1989 , and find that your
interpretation of this section is correct. The section clearly
states that when there is an accessory structure, only that part
of the structure directly used for active recreation purposes can
be included in the ten ( 10) percent active recreation requirement.
I cannot find any section in the PUD Chapter (15 . 04 . 080) that says
a PUD development shall have an accessory building with active
recreation before the ten (10) percent open space calculation can
be made .
If you have questions concerning my interpretation, please call me
at 859-3390 .
cerely,
James P. Harris
Planning Director
JPH: ca
14
wIl Z
>- F.XHTRTT 4
LAW OFCICES O
FerO tison & Burden
RLL CENTER BELLEVUE
5" - "'1- AVENUE N.E..-2,OC
BELLEvUE. WASRINGTON 9600-1
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON. AICP TELEX: 3?-0382 EAX:(206)
(206) .53-1711
October 31 , 1989
Mr. Jim Harris , Planning Director
City of Kent
220 - Fourth Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Administrative Interpretation of
Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 Kent Zoning Code
Dear Mr. Harris :
Under Section 15 . 09 . 060 which provides for administrative
interpretation of the Zoning Code by the Planning Director, I would
like to request an interpretation of Section 15. 04 . 080 D. 2 . This
section concerns Density Bonus Standards in Planned Unit
Developments, specifically the density bonus which may be granted
for active recreation areas .
Section 15 . 04 . 080 D. 2 Active Recreation
Areas .
A four (4) percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least ten (10 ) percent of the
site is utilized for active recreational
purposes, including but not limited to
jogging/walking trails, pool: , children' s play
areas, etc.
Only that percentage of space contained
within accessory structures that is directly
used for active recreation purposes can be
included in the ten (10) percent active
recreation requirement.
My reading of this section is that it contains two separate
standards by which a project is evaluated. The first is that in
order to obtain the four percent density bonus, at least ten
percent of the site must be used for recreational activities such
as jogging, tennis , children ' s playgrounds (which might include
swings , slides, etc. ) and similar uses . The entire ten percent can
be provided by such activities, and thereby warrant the four
Mr. Jim Harris , Planning Director
October 31, 1989
Page 2
percent density bonus . However, if the applicant chooses to
include a clubhouse or community building, a second test is
applied. Only the portion of the building which is actually used
for active recreational purposes can be counted toward the ten
percent requirement. For example, a community building might
include a lounge, meeting rooms , an office, and racquetball courts.
Only the area occupied by the racquetball courts would apply toward
the ten percent active recreation requirement; the other areas
would not.
In other words, it is not necessary to provide an accessory
building as a condition to meeting the ten percent active
recreation requirement. on the contrary, the intent of the
ordinance appears to be to encourage outdoor recreational
opportunities and to discourage or limit the use of indoor space
for active recreation.
I have discussed this question with Stephen Clifton of your
staff and think that my understanding of the ordinance is
consistent with the department ' s interpretation. This question,
as you may know, is relevant to a recent Hearing Examiner' s
decision on a small PUD called Dover Place (PUD-89-1) . As we would
like to consider whether or not an appeal should be filed in this
matter, I would very much appreciate a response as quickly as
possible.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
71
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ : rlm
cc: Eric Campbell
Stephen Clifton
__._ .�.,_ ._. ...._...._. . .... _ .... _ _-.... .............. ..... ... _.............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ _ January 2 , 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: DOVER PLACE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-89-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On December 19, the Council received
information for consideration of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of conditional approval of the Dover Place 39-lot
residential subdivision No. SU-89-2 . The property is located
north of 103rd Ave. S .E. and S.E. 228th St. intersection
abutting a portion of the west side of 104th Ave. S.E. This
plat is part of the Dover Place planned unit development also
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
3 . EXHIBITS: See Other Business section Item 4A for entire
packet of material .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 10/25/89 conditional approval
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
/P FISCAI SO EL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: None
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmemberi; ' moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/jnodify/deny the findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
concur with/disagree with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
of,'approval; of Dover Place Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-2
with- seven conditions„
DISCUSSION
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
v
� V Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL RADIO AND DATA TOWER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Fire and Police Department have been
researching potential lease agreements and alternate sites for a
ratio and data tower. Negotiations with King County Water
District No. 75 have been positive but there are some long term
uncertainties. The other alternative is to place the tower on
the Cambridge Fire Station site. Notice has been given that
this subject will be discussed tonight.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Fire Chief
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT__ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended____ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION• _
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
MEMORANDUM
DECEMBER 11, 1989
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS PAUL 14ANN AND CHRISTI HOUSER
FROM: NORM ANGELO, FIRE CHIEF
/. i v /=
SUBJECT: SITING OF WEST HILL RADIO AND DATA TOWER
-------------------------------------
Background: For the last several months, we have been attempting
to work a lease agreement to place a radio tower and building on
property owned by King County Water District �75 . They have been
very cooperative, however, the best we have been able to do is a
license agreement which gives us short term guarantees . There are
some concerns as to our control of long term usage and costs . The
other alternative is to place the tower and building on Fire
Department property to the east of the West Hill station. Few, if
any trees would have to be removed. The tower would be sited south
of the water tower. While 30 feet of the narrowed portion of the
tower would be above the trees , the majority of the tower would be
seen only from Military Road and would tend to blend into the
trees. The West Hill site, although our second choice, would not
significantly impact our radio/MDT system capabilities. It would
be a more controllable site for Police and Fire needs, have less
ongoing operational costs, and give us a more stable long range
relationship and system. The question is one of community
acceptance and desired direction.
Recommendation: That this information be taken to the Council as
a whole, under"Other Business and obtain public input. Further,
it is the request and desire of the Mayor to conduct the meeting
on West Hill . We propose the first council meeting in January as
time is of the essence.
Budget Impact: None on capital budget. Could make a difference
in future operational budgets .
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 2 , 1989
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: OVERLOOK ANNEXATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to meet with the
petitioners of this proposed annexation, consisting of
approximately 35 acres in the vicinity of South 228th Street and
94th Avenue South. The City's Property Manager has notified the
petitioner of this meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map and excerpt of Public Works Committee
minutes of 11/28 and supporting material
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to authorize circdlation of the 75% petition for the proposed
Overlook Annexation subject to the land use plan and assumption
of the existing bonded indebtedness for the annexation area.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
Public Works Committee
November 28 , 1989
Page 2
suggested when 38th is scheduled for overlay we look at making
those improvements at that time. Wickstrom indicated that is the
normal process. Woods asked when 38th was scheduled for overlay.
Wickstrom confirmed it is not in the current schedule. Woods
suggested we point out' to Mrs . Crook the level to which the volume
has decreased. The Committee concurred that no action would be
taken at this time and a copy of Marty Nizlek' s memo and excerpt
from these minutes should be sent to Mrs. Crook.
Overlook Annexation
Wickstrom explained we have received a 10% petition for annexation
of approximately 35 acres in the vicinity of 93rd Avenue South and
S . 222nd. If Council approves going forth with this proposed
annexation, the next step would be to set a meeting date with the
petitioners . Harris explained this is in conjunction with the
apartment complex currently under construction in the area. The
City has required annexation in order for the developer to do Phase
II of the project which is currently in the County. It will come
in as 20, 000 square foot lots and they will have to apply for any
change. , Harris noted the Commission will be recommending an
approximate 31% reduction in multifamily but this will not be
detrimental to that recommendation. The Committee unanimously
concurred with acceptance of the 10% petition and scheduling a date
for public meeting with the petitioners .
Third Avenue Street Vacation
Jim Harris distributed a memorandum to the Committee on this item.
On a map he detailed for the Committee the area included in the
previously approved vacation of Third Avenue between Gowe Street
and Titus for the Centennial Building and the property involved in
this vacation request for Third Avenue from Titus to Saar. At the
November 2 meeting with Pete Curran, several conditions were
developed which, if the Council chose to approve the vacation, are
suggested be made a part of the vacation approval. He reviewed
those for the Committee as detailed in his memorandum. Harris
explained it is the intent of these conditions that there is a plan
for improvement and that the applicant works to implement the plan
within a specified - t'ime period. Harris emphasized that the
previously prepared staff report for the public hearing scheduled
for September 19 did recommend denial . The City Attorney ' s office
has recommended that any street vacation approval include a
condition that the City be able to use the vacated area for public
parking at specified times and events. Harris alluded also to Bill
s"I
City of Kent, Washington
Kent Public Works Committee
Date November 28 , 1989
Category
1 . SUBJECT:
Overlook Annexation - Vicinity of 93rd Avenue S. and S . 222nd
Street
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:
The City has received a 10% petition for annexation of
approximately 35 acres in the vicinity of 93rd Avenue South
and S . 222nd Street. A map of the proposed annexation area
is included as part of this packet. The Property Manager has
certified the 10% petition and comments have been received
from the Chief of Police, Fire Chief and Finance Director.
The next phase would be for Council to schedule a date for a
public meeting with the petitioners and to authorize the 75%
petition.
3 . EXHIBITS :
Vicinity Map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY :
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:_ NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE• Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED•
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
20
29
lo
>:� h T. �•.. . . ..
is v — —'.351 }, g
V
I
c
4 I,• Q,1., Q. k
1 I�•�/ I
i Io,J SCALE P-200
LEGEND
¢rapaeod'Annexnlian Area
3s pereakw
I —. Exlsling City Umils
1 III l Lo ,
f'i j � �• I I I I
U�
CITY OF
N CT
TO:
FROM: PROPERTY MANAGER
SUBJECT: /O
ACRES (MAP ATTACHED)
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE / C/1 79 ��� —�� GENERAL TAX MILLAGE •CJ ' 7/
In reference to subject matter please be advised that same has been
received oy this division and filed with the City Clerk on
If you have any comments on this proposed annexation, please do so
on this sheet and return it to this division. Your early response
to this request will be appreciated.
"COMMENTS"
00
1.
9q1
%-4�.2�a-
Pz
a�7 _
CITY OF
OCT 2 5 1989
E�YCINEERfNC DEpr
H CT
TO:_ (J�GG/ C. CL�2 Lott
FROM: PROPERTY MANAGER
,,T' �
SUBJECT: ACRES (MAP ATTACHED)
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE Cilvo2, GENERAL TAX MILLAGE , 7/
In reference to subject matter please be advised that same has been
received by this division and filed With the City Clerk on
If you have any comments on this proposed annexation, please do so
on this sheet and return it to this division. Your early response
to this request will be appreciated .
"COMMENTS"
S
CITY OF CITY OF KENT
N011 0 2 1989
ENGINEERING DEN.
to CT
TO: /I/�1Lc�a%,Z2cG//y/n�1J
FROM: PROPERTY
MANNAGEER� ) /
SUBJECT: ACRES (MAP ATTACHED)
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE Gb a o GENERAL TAX MILLAGE .C) -fZ W/
In reference to subject matter please be advised that same has been
received y this division and filed with the City Clerk on
If you have any comments on this proposed annexation, please do so
on this sheet and return it to this division. Your early response
to this request will be appreciated.
"COMMENTS"
b
�_
I ne.,,'tr��
qF !
V
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