HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 08/07/1990 -777-777777
of
kentCit CounciMeetin �3= ' Cit
'.� kk �
°Y , n d a �
A e
r , � �
: !€€ d I $
!f � AU
•
IIA
' E � 1 �.► Ili` � s�;�l�
, I II � � i d�I i{�>�•
1 9
F : !
Et ,
{II ri it
!r q
1 i4
! Mayor Dan Kelleher
r s , ;
s o
' I
Council Members
� e s
��E
Judy i !
Woods, President €'
Y
Leona Orr Steve Dowell
Jon Johnson
Christi Houser � �
I F r
r .
Paul Mann Jim White
eP
August 7, 1990
Y
$ i
I E> 6! I
k Adr9=,
" Office of the City Clerk
v,
I i�
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
August 71 1990.
Summary Agenda
City of Kent Council Chambers
Office of. the City Clerk 7. 00 p.m.
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the
back of this page.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Employee of the Month
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Zoning of Mortenson Annexation
B. Appeal of Examiner's Recommendation - Foster Co. RZ-90-3
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Council Absences
D. Reclassifications
E. Russell Rd. Picnic Shelter Completion
F. Resource Center
G. LID 335 - Set Hearing Date
H. Goodwin Short Plat
I. Homecourt Hotel
J. Prepayment LID 330
K. Lake Fenwick Property
L. Speed Limit - WVH - Ordinance
M. Rezone Ordinance
N. Drug Penalty Enhanced - Resolution
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Salary Survey ''' ' ';
B. Hemlock Acres No. 17 Final Plat
C. Willis St. Restaurant and Motel, RZ-90-3
D. Senior Housing Advisory Committee Recommendations
E. Glass Artworks for Headquarters Fire Station on East Hill
5. BIDS
A. Signal Modification 84th Ave. S. & S. 208th
B. Signal Modification SR 516 & SR 167
C.
C.7.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS r.^
i
REPORTSADJOURNMENT
/1
V
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Employee of the Month
i.
Kent City Council Meeting
� j Date August 7 , 1990
Category Public Hearings
Z olvitQ 9
1. SUBJECT: MORTENSON ANNEXATION �--
2 . SUMKARY STATEMENT: This public hearing is the second of two
hearings to consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for
initial zoning of R1-20, single family residential (20, 000
square feet minimum lot size) for the Mortenson Annexation
No. AZ-88-2. The property is approximately nine (9) acres in
size and is located in the vicinity of 98th Ave. So. and So.
218th St.
c's �'�t�.. ,' o/ -fire p u o lac
C l oje
MOVED af'Pro%
QM e,'S f-ecdrnrYi eofC.1Gfidn -f-ar- i'nik-i'at
z 6n ,, 9 o f R i -a o -a r -fie /Z1 o rye-,sort
Clu4-hc r 1'7-e +he- A hl
sa ry 0( d, ,,a-,q Ce uJh r fz�-
S��o�ded
S SSION-
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
June 19 , 1990
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C)
COMMUNICATIONS Kaibara. Mayor Kelleher announced that he and
Sister Councilmember Houser had recently visited Kaibara,
Cities Kent' s Sister City in Japan. He noted that the
citizens of Kaibara sent their best wishes to the
community. The Mayor also announced that he had
accepted 1, 000 origami cranes made by school
children, which will be displayed at the Goodwill
Games. He noted that the legend is that if 1, 000
cranes are folded, one wish is granted, and that his
wish is for world peace.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A and B be
CALENDAR approved. Houser seconded and the motion carried.
Consent Calendar Item C was removed by Councilmember
Houser.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
Council meeting of June 5 , 1990 .
ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2A)
ZONING Mortensen Annexation. This public hearing is the
first of two hearings to consider the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation for initial zoning of
R1-20, Single Family Residential (20, 000 square foot
minimum lot size) for the Mortensen Annexation,
No. AZ-88-2 . The property is approximately 9 acres
in size and is located in the vicinity of
98th Ave. S . and S . 218th St. The second public
hearing will be held August 7 , 1990 .
Carol Proud of the Planning Department described the
area and noted that the Hearing Examiner has
recommended approval . Harris noted for Johnson that
all of the lots are 20 , 000 square feet or more. The
Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were
no comments from the audience and WHITE MOVED to
continue this public hearing to August 7 , 1990 .
Woods seconded and the motion carried.
STREETS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4H)
Right-of-Way Acquisition - 228th and 64th.
AUTHORIZATION is requested for staff to pursue
right-of-way acquisition at 228th and 64th Avenue,
establishment of a budget for same, and transfer of
$100 , 000 from the Military Road (516 to Bolger Rd. )
4
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF MAY 21 1990
FILE NO: MORTENSON ANNEXATION #AZ-88-2
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: The request is to set the permanent zoning of
R1-20, Single-Family Residential, to a 393 , 754
square foot area (approximately nine (9) acres of
land) located in the vicinity of 98th Avenue S .
and S . 218th.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: ALICE SHOBE
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: R1-20, Single Family Residential, with minimum
20, 000 square feet lots.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The Mortenson annexation (annexed in July 1989 ,
Ordinance #2860) is composed of approximately nine (9) acres.
A zoning designation of R1-20, Single Family Residential is
recommended by staff for the entire annexed parcel.
All newly annexed land is given an interim zoning designation
of R1-20, Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 20, 000
square feet. This interim zoning remains in effect until the
Hearing Examiner and City Council establish the initial zoning
for the newly annexed area.
B. Location
The Mortenson annexation area is located in the vicinity of
98th Avenue S . and S . 218th. (See attached map)
C. Size of Property
The annexation area is approximately nine (9) acres in size.
1
Staff Report
Mortenson Annexation _
#AZ-88-2
D. Zonincr
The property is currently zoned R1-20, Single Family
Residential . The property was previously zoned SR 15, 000 (King
County) . Surrounding property to the south is also zoned
R1-20. The property to the west (in King County) is zoned SR
15, 000 . The two existing lots exceed the minimum lot size as
specified in the development standards for the proposed
standards R1-20 zoning.
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive Land
Use Plan in 1969 . This Plan, updated in 1971 and 1977,
addresses a broad range of land use considerations. The goals,
objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations concerning
the future of Kent and the area within the Sphere of Interest.
The 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. The area under
consideration in this instance is covered by the East Hill
Plan.
The East Hill Plan Map designates the Mortenson area as SF6,
Single Family, 4 to 6 units per acre.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
GOAL 1: Preserve, maintain and .improve the City ' s existing
residential neighborhoods.
2
Staff Report
Mortenson Annexation
#AZ-88-2
Objective 1: Actively encourage the retention and
improvement of existing residential
neighborhoods on East Hill, West Hill and the
Valley Floor.
Policy 1 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as zoning,
to provide both interim protection to
existing residential neighborhoods which will
not be retained, and to protect and improve
the neighborhoods to be preserved.
GOAL '2 : Guide new residential development into areas where the
needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner
which is compatible with existing neighborhoods.
Planning Department Comment:
This goal supports objectives and policies which encourage
development of new single-family housing and protect existing
single-family neighborhoods from adverse impacts of new
development.
In recent years, the City of Kent has developed at a rapid
pace. In 1989 , the City issued over $170 million in building
permits--one of the busiest years on record. Yet even in this
peak year of construction, the number of single-family
residential permits was minimal (34) . The City of Kent, as of
April 1990 , had 11, 994 apartment units. These units made up
65 . 5 percent of the housing stock. Single-family homes made
up 30 percent, and the balance were mobile homes.
Zoning the Mortenson annexation property for single-family
residential uses would work to address the perceived imbalance
between single-family and multifamily housing types in Kent.
Under the R1-20 zoning, approximately 18 single family homes
could be developed.
II . HISTORY
A. Site History
This area was annexed into the City of Kent in July 1989 by
Ordinance Number 2860 . The annexed area and surrounding area
are predominately residential in nature.
3
Staff Report
Mortenson Annexation
#AZ-88-2
B. Area History
The East Hill area of Kent was first settled in the early
1900s. Since that time commercial and residential development
have grown steadily.
III . LAND USE
Land uses adjacent to the annexation area include: to the east and
north of the annexation area, unincorporated King County
residential , to the south large vacant lots zoned, R1-20, and to the
west developed residential homes zoned R1-12 .
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The proposed annexation area has a rolling terrain with J
the steepest slope approximately ten (10) percent.
2 . Vegetation
Vegetation in the annexation area includes deciduous
trees, evergreen trees, grass, and shrubs .
C. Significant Social Features
1 . Street System
The subject property has access to S . 218th Street and
98th Avenue S . which is classified as a collector
arterial . The streets have a public right-of-way width
of sixty (60) feet while the actual width of paving is
twenty four (24) feet. A widening strip will not be
required to be deeded to the city. New left turn lanes
will not be required. The average daily traffic count on
the street is 1, 000 vehicle trips per day.
This site may be in the 224th/228th Streets proposed
alignment.
4
Staff Report
Mortenson Annexation
#AZ-88-2
2 . Water System
The site is presently receiving water service from Soos
Creek Sewer and Water District and is within their service
area.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line in
S . 218th Street adjacent to the most westerly property
line of the site.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system has already been constructed on the
subject property in accordance with the Kent Surface Water
and Drainage Code. Additional improvements are not
necessary.
5 . LID ' s
There are no existing or proposed LIDS at this time.
VI . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this proposed zoning in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, current zoning, land use, street
system, flood control problems and comments from other departments
and agencies and finds that:
A. The Comprehensive Plan Map and East Hill Plan Map designates
the site as SF6, Single Family Residential , 4 to 6 units per
acre.
B. The property is currently under an interim zoning designation
of R1-20, Single Family Residential . This interim designation
is given to all land annexed into the City until such time as
the initial zoning designations are determined.
C. Land uses adjacent to the annexation area include: to the east
and north of the annexation area is unincorporated King County
residential ; to the south large vacant lots zoned R1-20; and
to the west developed residential homes zoned R1-12 .
5
Staff Report
Mortenson Annexation
#AZ-88-2
D. All nine lots exceed the minimum lot size as specified in the
development standards for the R1-20, Single-family Residential,
zoning district.
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends to the Hearing Examiner that the zoning for the
Mortenson annexation remain R1-20, Single Family Residential .
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 23 , 1990
6
City of Kent - Planning Department
11/ 11 ! II \ \ \ (
) 11 11111 1/1111jf1 I —
I ( I111�//
If
\\ 0
rlI r'a1 \� I I I \\11 \\\\\ I I \1
��I XD, �``I\�ll\ �l\\�} \�1}) 11I I I 1 w 2 I \
\ l \ \ 1 1 \
11!l 1 j III \ \ 1 \ I I \ \ :: �:S>: "?�Z: :::: Q � �—
' .:. i
(\II�JlIII� { 11 � �1 I 1 \ }�:y�Fti4.'1���;;�:;.;'• a'•;•�: �- (\ '��� �iii�
/ 1111`t \ 111 I \ :,.5 �.Y. :::•..: •.:{;:} ::}}' '/ yam J I!(j� ;0
4.7
\ \ � �\ \ \� \� III { \ Illll \ � \�\I, rii g �'�/•� L \ i I I I
I 111\ I 1
Li
[ilk 1/1 III � {� \ l1 / ail \\ 1!� 1 ��_�/'` � �(1 ��\ \ / jl {J I1\1 'j \ \'
1\\\\ 1\IIII
APPLICATION NAME: Mortenson Annexation
NUMBER: AZ-88-2 DATE: May 2, 1990
REQUEST: Maintain Initial Zoning of R-1 20
...............
LEGEND
...............
...............
...............
...............
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
z
ti
ti 5
� 2v
ST
Sc;�T N
1 CE' SE 213TH PL
J0
w� SE 2
Y
218TH ST
' O C
m C
1 m
CD
'?ND ST
/ i f
APPLICATION NAME: Mortenson Annexation
NUMBER: AZ-88-2 DATE: May 2, 1990
REQUEST: Maintain Initial Zoning of R-1 20
LEGEND
..............
...............
...........X.
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 2 , 1990
water system should be eliminated. Ms. Duty stated the project
will meet all performance standards. City staff is recommending
approval with conditions . Ms . Duty requested an additional
condition be added; that is, the site across the street be vacated
and natural vegetation restored. Ms. Duty commented the site to
the west is an illegal use and no storage is allowed.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Will Wolfert, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. , stated the
applicant is in agreement with the findings and memo from City' s
Traffic Engineer. Mr. Wolfert commented the area west of the site
will be vacated and natural vegetation restored.
Ms . Duty requested the area to the west be restored in six months.
Mr. Wolfert asked for a longer time period. He commented the
applicant has been using that site for several years and would need
longer than six months to be in compliance with the Zoning Code.
There were no public comments .
The hearing was closed at 3 : 25 pm.
MORTENSON
Annexation
ttAZ-88-2
A public hearing to consider the request by the City of
Kent, Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98032 ,
to set permanent zoning of R1-20 , Single-Family Residential, on
approximately nine acres of land located in the vicinity of
98th Avenue S . and S . 218th.
Alice Shobe, Kent Planning Department, reviewed the staff report.
Ms . Shobe gave a brief review of the request for zoning. Ms. Shobe
showed the view foils depicting 1) the location of the site and 2)
the zoning of the site and surrounding property. The City staff
is recommending R1-20 , Single-Family Residential, zoning.
There were no public comments.
The hearing was closed at 3 : 27 pm.
2
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: MORTENSON #AZ-88-2
APPLICANT: CITY OF KENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REQUEST: The request is to set the permanent zoning of R1-20,
Single-Family Residential , to a 393 , 754 square foot
area.
LOCATION: The property is located in the vicinity of
98th Avenue S . and S . 218th.
APPLICATION FILED: 7/21/89
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE:
ISSUED• 1/26/89
MEETING DATE: 5/2/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 5/16/90
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED ZONING OF R1-20
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Alice Shobe, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY : None
WRITTEN TESTIMONY : None
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. The applicant requests that the initial zoning designation of
R1-20, Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 20, 000
square feet, become the permanent zoning for the subject
property located in the vicinity of 98th Avenue South and South
218th.
1
Findings and Recommendation
Mortensen
#AZ-88-2
2 . The property was annexed in July of 1989 . It was given a zoning
designation of R1-20 at that time by operation of Section
15 . 03 . 020 of the Kent Zoning Code.
3 . The subject property is approximately 9 acres in size.
4 . Property surrounding the subject property is all zoned for or
developed with single-family development. The property to the
south is zoned R1-20 and the property to the west is zoned R1-
12 . The property to the east and north is in King County and
has been developed with single-family residences. The subject
property was previously zoned SR 15, 000 (Single-family
Residential with minimum lot size of 9 , 600 square feet) when in
King County zoning jurisdiction.
5 . The Comprehensive Plan Map and East Hill Plan Map designate the
subject property as SF6 , Single Family Residential with 4 to 6
units per acre.
6 . All lots within the subject property exceed the minimum lot size
for the R1-20 zone.
7 . Public notice was properly publised, mailed and posted at least
10 days prior to the public hearing held on this matter.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed zoning designation is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plans for the area .
2 . The development on the subject property allowed by the zoning
designation would be compatible with the development in the
vicinity.
3 . There will be no increased burdens on traffic in the area as a
consequence of the proposed zoning designation.
4 . The proposed zoning designation will not adversely affect the
health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of Kent.
5 . The proposed zoning designation will assist in preserving and
encouraging additional single family zones within the City of
Kent consistent with the objective of the Housing Element of
the city-wide Comprehensive Plan.
2
Findings and Recommendation
Mortenson
#AZ-88-2
6 . Because the subject property was annexed to the City in 1989
with an Interim Zoning designation, it is appropriate that the
property now receive a permanent zoning designation.
DECISION
Based on the Findings and Conclusions detailed above, it is the
recommendation of the Hearing Examiner that the request that the
subject property receive a zoning designation of R1-20 be APPROVED
without condition or limitation.
Dated this 16th day of May, 1990 .
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS .
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a 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.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision.
The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information
cannot be raised on appeal . All relevant information and arguments
should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council.
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also
be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final
decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is
filed.
3
City of Kent - Planning Department
r
I
N
, 5
t�
ST CO
d
7]
S
u' SE 213TH PL
o
LL SE 2
218TH ST
w
w v�
o
Q O
m
S 222ND ST
i
i
t
APPLICATION NAME: Mortenson Annexation
NUMBER: AZ-88-2 DATE: May 2, 1990
REQUEST: Maintain Initial Zoning of R-1 20
LEGEND
..............
...............
..............
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
... City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
r(> ` O Q I l\
11
fill I 1
/11 p
1 1
1\\\\\`\\1
1 II II \ \ \\ \ \ -7
\\ 1 I I \\\1 �' I1\ \ �:�k�'�:,••;.i;:•�:;:�.:;...
l l 1 l 1 /CI III \ \ I \ .��':.�•�.(�'i�:,•.k i;: ::;': �;:;��..;.; �rR,
\�
\ 0) (11 11 \ : :`•4:>... , ..1. •:-:•. i. � !!� �®ram----��'�
�1111� \1 11j1 / I �l>� j1 1�1 I :<:s?:��}��-'•f� tij�•`•�„„; ;�`;. ���iy��/�/�����o�\ �-;�I
WN
1111 4
�A1A\VAA1�1 1 ! ! 1 V1 1 \ 11A \ l71! �� �l�`�(�I�w
\ \\\\ 1/1 I Afl 1 l l \ / I 1 \ 1 \ �y� 1A I I \1 I
\\\\ \llll'II(\I\ �l J
\ice\V`\I\\
\. \\\r
APPLICATION NAME: Mortenson Annexation
NUMBER: AZ-88-2 DATE: May 2, 1990
REQUEST: Maintain Initial Zoning of R-1 20
...............
LEGEND
...............
...............
...............
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 1990
Category Public Hearincts
ti
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL-WILLIS ST. RESTAURANT AND MOTEL REZONE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Council consideration of the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation should be considered before this
hearing. See item 4C.
This public hearing will consider an appeal by the Foster
Company (Jim Foster) of the Hearing Examiner's recommended
conditions No. 4 and 5 on an application to rezone a 2 .9 acre
site from M2 , limited industrial, . to M1-C, industrial park
commercial suffix.
3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal form, Ferguson and Burdell letters dated
July 2 and August 1, 1990 with attachments and verbatim minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner May 31 1990
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ,%t"ice!' l moves, Councilmember � rl � seconds
to approvef4eny- the appeal and, if approved, to allow City staff
to condition the approval and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
J
C
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
of: the City Clerk
220 s , 4 th
�8-72-3 3 7 0
it-y of Kent
ordcr for Transc;-iPt- for
Appeal fX.,olij Decision Of llcar"'cJ
ReSOILItiOtl B96
Ordinance 2233
D a t 7/2/90 Appeal
film U3/y -- --' - -
Appel Name The Foster Company - Jim F.oster,,----..-.--.-
Ad d),e s.Ij 40 Lake Bellevue Drive, Bellevue, WA 9800.
Phorle ( 206 ) 454- 0522
).!,jl.e NO . RZ-90-3
Date of blearing2xam.i.nex' Public iienrin(3 ma y 16 , 1990.
May 31 , 1990
Date of IiP-arillg Decision----,_ . . ,-__.-._--I
of
Notice of must be filed with the
by the HearingE)ILFM I-Ilcr ccnm[: an i'�"(I hy
the �icti.on taken
--r ' s
a $2!i f-,jlj.j2j fee . TreaSUrC
Within 30 clays of the jieariL5 Examiner ' s the apL,(:
h zI
order from the �I -y—ClerR a full transcrj'pL
- Ord(
tint)JE! amount
IjamountE!aring Examiner alld must. postpostat the i- rlle� he C(I If. thamount Of $1.00 for each tape to be
FC-C,��t� exceeds L )e amour.*..cost -IA)c,.urre(2 byrsc the City` fo�' excess amol-Int .
shall be requir(-'d to reimburse I)c
cost. :is less thal, posted, any wl
.1 the amount
to the appellant.
Order for Transcript fece.-ved
/3 -S
Treasurer ' s Receipt
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson & Burdell
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500 - IOBT-AVENUE N.E.,02100
BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX:32-0382 FAX:(206)454-57I9
(206)453-1711
July 2 , 1990
City Clerk
City of Kent
Re: Notice of Appeal - Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
RZ-90-3
Dear Ms. Jenson:
on behalf of the applicants in the above-referenced rezone, I
wish to file a notice of appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation on the above-referenced rezone issued May 31, 1990.
The applicants concur with the recommendations and conditions
contained in the Examiner ' s report with two exceptions concerning
Conditions No. 4 and No. 5 .
A request for reconsideration concerning these two conditions
was submitted to the Examiner on June 13 , 1990. This requested was
denied by the Examiner on June 27 , 1990 .
Chapter 2 . 54 of the Kent City Code provides that an appeal
shall be based on specific errors, omissions, or new evidence which
was not available at the time of the hearing.
Subsequent to the May 31 decision of the Examiner, the
Planning Department re-examined the facts and circumstances
pertaining to the drainage ditch and landscaping requirements. The
Planning Department and Public Works concluded that modifications
to the language in these conditions would be both more reasonable
and provide opportunity for better design solutions. This
information was not available at the time of the May 16 hearing nor
could it reasonably have been available as it resulted from a re-
assessment of the project which occurred after the hearing.
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
065AO158
City clerk
July 2 , 1990
Page 2
Please consider this therefore a notice of appeal and a
request to modify conditions No. 4 and No. 5 of the Examiner' s
report. A copy of our request for reconsideration which specifies
in detail the modifications requested is attached.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
Attorneys for The Foster Company
and Jim Foster
NMZ : rlm
attach.
I ,
COPY RECEIVED
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson 8 F)LIrC7ell 1.,,.0
KOOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
500 - IOB'-'AIENUE N.E..'2100 Kent. Gity Atiorne
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 96004 1
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:)206) 454 5719
)206)453-1711
June 13 , 1990
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
Hearing Examiner
City of Kent
220 - Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Reconsideration
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel RZ-90-3
Dear Mr. Hunter:
On behalf of the applicants in the above-referenced rezone, I
am submitting this request for reconsideration pursuant to the
Hearing Examiner ordinances and procedures for the purpose of
modification of a condition. The applicants concur with the
recommendation and conditions of the Examiner ' s report issued May
31, 1990 , with two exceptions concerning Conditions 4 and 5 . The
request is to add provisions to Conditions 4 and 5 which grant to
the City some discretion in the approval of final design and
implementation of the project.
The bases for reconsideration are a) specific errors of fact,
law, or judgment, or b) new evidence which was not available at the
time of hearing.
A change in position by the Planning Department reasonably
constitutes new evidence and therefore supports a request for
reconsideration.
1 . Condition 4 requires:
A landscape strip of at least to feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height shall be provided along the eastern
perimeter of the site to help establish a
visual and aural buffer between users of the
site and users of the adjacent Interurban
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
� c
065AO146
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
June 12 , 1990
Page 2
trail. This condition is intended to provide
a buffer between those using the site and the
users of the Interurban Trail, and to provide
visual buffers around the perimeter of the
site. (Conclusion #5, P. 4 , Hearing Examiner
report 5/31/90)
The Planning Department has indicated that they have reviewed
this condition and have determined that greater design flexibility
would provide opportunity for design solutions which may serve to
both protect the trail and improve on-site development. Therefore,
staff has suggested that the condition be modified to include
language granting the discretion to consider alternative plans
within the intent of the condition as written. In addition, the
site does not abut the Interurban Trail directly. There is a
distance of 37 ' between the eastern perimeter of the site and the
nearest point of the trail. A drainage swale is located between
the site perimeter and the trail .
Given the generalized nature of the site plan that is part of
the consideration of an Ml-C district, the need to modify the plan
in response to the conditions of the rezone, and the usual and
customary alterations which occur during the preparation of final
construction plans, it is reasonable to grant the Planning
Department some degree of flexibility in the approval of
alternative design solutions .
Therefore, we request that Condition No. 4 be amended to read:
A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height, or a design alternative acceptable to
the Planning Department shall be provided
along the eastern perimeter of the site to
help establish a visual and aural buffer
between users of the site and users of the
adjacent Interurban Trail .
2 . Condition 5 provides that:
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas , shall be left in
its existing state and shall not be disturbed.
The applicant has proposed revisions to the site plan affecting the
drainage ditch. This revision would allow two small areas of fill
on the north side of the drainage ditch, with a compensating
C65AO146
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
June 12 , 1990
Page 3
increase in the amount of water area provided in the southeast
corner of the site. (See attached site plan) . A minor
modification such as this provides for the retention of the parking
on the north side of the drainage ditch while still providing the
10-foot buffer.
This revised site plan preserves the majority of the
vegetation including all the mature trees on both banks. If the
vegetation and trees are preserved, the other functions can be
restored. The design includes replanting emergent vegetation for
biofiltration as well as shrubs for bank stabilization and habitat
in regraded and disturbed areas.
One of the principal concerns expressed by Planning Department
Staff at the hearing was the fact that the ditch in addition to its
intended function as part of the Valley drainage system, also now
provides habitat for local wildlife. Any modification of the
drainage ditch must be reviewed and approved by both Public Works
and the Planning Department who can therefore ensure that habitat
functions will be considered.
Both Public Works and the Planning Department have re-
evaluated the project and proposed modification and concur with the
request to modify the language of Condition 5 . This requested
change is consistent with the mitigation conditions attached to the
Determination of Nonsignificance issued January 23 , 1990 .
We request that Condition No. 5 be amended to read:
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in
J its existing state and shall not be disturbed,
unless modifications are approved and
supervised by the Planning Department and
Public Works.
Very truly yours,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
MUNI,
By: Nadine, M. Zackrisson
NMZ : rlm
CITY OF
June 27 , 3.990
Ms. Nadine M. Zackrisson, AICP
Ferguson & Burdell
Koll Center Bellevue, Suit 2100
500 108th Avenue
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Request for Reconsideration, Willis Street Rezone,
Kent File #RZ-90-3 .
Dear Ms. Zackrisson:
We received your letter Request for Reconsideration on June 14th.
Your Request seeks modifications to Condition 4 and Condition 5 of
the report and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner issued
May 31, 1990 in the above-referenced matter. We note that a letter
dated June 14th from Mr. Jim Harris, Director of the Planning
Department, was received by this office in support of modification
of Condition 5 . Although the Examiner is not required to respond
to a Request for Reconsideration, we believe it would be helpful
to you if we did so. This letter is in response to your Request.
Your Request is based on "new evidence" not available at the time
of hearing which, you suggest, is the "change in position" of the
Kent Planning Department since the time of the public hearing. No
specific errors of fact, law or judgment are alleged.
We regret that we have no jurisdiction to accept your Request for
Reconsideration for the following reasons :
1 . A Request for Reconsideration is not appropriate where the
Hearing Examiner merely issues a report and recommendation for
final action by the City Council . Chapter 2 . 54 of the Kent
City Code specifies the authority of the Hearing Examiner.
Section 2 . 54 . 100 (A) states that the Examiner shall enter a
recommendation to the City Council on applications for a
rezone. No final decision of the Hearing Examiner is issued
following a public hearing on a request for a rezone. Section
15 . 09 . 050 (5) of the Kent Zoning Code limits the authority of
the Hearing Examiner with respect-, to rezones to making "a
report of findings and recommendations . . . to the City
Council, which sh 1- h2ve the final authority to act. . . " .
4w,it
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859.3334
Ms. Nadine M. Zackrisson, AICP
June 27 , 1990
Page 2
A Request for Reconsideration should be limited to those
situations where the Hearing Examiner issues a final decision,
not merely a recommendation. Section 2 . 54 . 150 of the Kent
City Code states that:
Any aggrieved person feeling that
the decision of the Examiner is
based on erroneous procedures,
errors of law or fact, error in
judgment, or the discovery of new
evidence which could not be
reasonably available at the prior
hearing may make a written request
for reconsiderati.on. . . (emphasis
added) .
This limitation on the Hearing Examiner to accept Requests
for Reconsideration of final decisions only is appropriate
because the applicant has an opportunity to present his or
her views on a recommendation to the City Council in an open
public meeting prior to final decision. In other matters
before the Hearing Examiner, the decision would be final
without this opportunity unless an appeal was filed. A more
efficient land use decision making process is assured when
Requests for Reconsideration are limited to final decisions .
2 . A change in position by the Planning Department does not
constitute "new evidence" as defined in City ordinances .
Even if it was appropriate to reconsider a
recommendation of the Examiner, the basis for
reconsideration stated in your letter ("new evidence"
would not allow reconsideration. Section 2 . 54 . 160 of
the Kent City Code defines new evidence" as "evidence
discovered after the hearing held by the Examiner" but
does not include "evidence which was available or which
could reasonably have been available and was simply not
presented at the hearing for whatever reason" . A
"change in position" does not qualify as new evidence.
There is ample opportunity to refine positions in
advance of a public hearing. Indeed, a public hearing
is held to listen to all positions prior to making a
decision or recommendation on a particular application.
It is not the time to develop new positions.
It is appropriate to exclude a change in position as new
evidence. If a change in position allowed one to seek
reconsideration, requests for reconsideration could
become routine depending upon the other evidence
Ms. Nadine M. Zackrisson, AICP
June 27 , 1990
Page 3
presented at the time of hearing. Typically, a Request
for Reconsideration is decided without further public
hearing. It could be a violation of due process rights
of other parties to the hearing if a decision was
modified based on a change of position of one party
following the public hearing without allowing an
opportunity for other parties to respond to that change
of position.
For the reasons given above, the Request for Reconsideration will
not be considered by the Hearing Examiner due to lack of
jurisdiction. We believe the applicant has other avenues
available to seek the modifications desired.
Sincerely,
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
TPH: ch
LAW OFFICES OF
Ferguson & Burdell
KOLL CENTER BELLEVUE
BEEL0LEV0UE,„WASH NGTON 98004
NADINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:(206)454 5719 AUG
(206)453-1711 G 01 1990
CITY OF KENT
August 1, 1990 CITY CLERK
Mayor and City Council
City of Kent
220 - Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Appeal of Conditions RZ-90-3
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
Dear Mayor Kelleher and Council Members:
The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of this rezone
and has listed five conditions which should be attached if Council
accepts the recommendation and approves the rezone.
We concur with the recommendation and proposed conditions with
two exceptions. We ask that Conditions 4 and 5 be modified
slightly to allow the City greater flexibility in determining the
most appropriate design solutions as detailed site development
plans are finalized.
Our appeal is therefore limited to a request to modify the
language of Conditions 4 and 5 .
On June 13 , 1990, we filed a request for reconsideration with
the Hearing Examiner to address this same question. Based on
discussions with staff, and our own perceptions that there had been
some misunderstandings at the hearing, we wanted to give the
Examiner the opportunity to re-examine these specific design
issues. The Examiner concluded that he did not have jurisdiction
to reconsider his decision. Therefore, in order to assure that we
were able to present these questions directly to the Council, we
filed this appeal .
The criteria for a rezone are broad in nature and address
issues of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility of
uses, transportation impacts, changed circumstances, and effects on
the health, safety, and general welfare of the City as a whole. In
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
065A0162
Mayor and City Council
City of Kent
August 1, 1990
Page 2
addition, property rezoned to M1-C must be located in proximity to
major arterial intersections, be located appropriately for
commercial activities, and be based on generalized (emphasis added)
development plans.
The Examiner has determined that the proposed rezone meets all
these criteria.
Subsequent to the May 31 decision of the Examiner, the
Planning Department re-examined the facts and circumstances
pertaining to the drainage ditch and landscaping requirements.
Given the generalized nature of the site plan that is part of the
rezone application, it is understandably difficult to find the best
design solution during the analysis of the rezone issues.
For this reason, we ask that Council approve changes in
Conditions 4 and 5 .
1. As written, Condition 4 requires:
A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height shall be provided along the eastern
perimeter of the site to help establish a
visual and aural buffer between users of the
site and users of the adjacent Interurban
trail.
The Planning Department has indicated that they have reviewed
this condition and have determined that greater design flexibility
would provide opportunity for design solutions which may serve to
both protect the trail and improve on-site development. Therefore,
staff has suggested that the condition be modified to include
language granting staff the discretion to consider alternative
plans within the intent of the condition as written. In addition,
the site does not abut the Interurban Trail directly. There is a
distance of 37 ' between the eastern perimeter of the site and the
nearest point of the trail . A drainage swale is located between
the site perimeter and the trail.
Therefore, we request that Condition No. 4 be amended to read:
A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height, or a design alternative acceptable to
the Planning Department shall be provided
along the eastern perimeter of the site to
065A0162
Mayor and City Council
City of Kent
August 1, 1990
Page 3
help establish a visual and aural buffer
between users of the site and users of the
adjacent Interurban Trail.
2 . As written, Condition 5 provides that:
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in
its existing state and shall not be disturbed.
The applicant has proposed revisions to the site plan affecting the
drainage ditch. This revision would allow two small areas of fill
on the north side of the drainage ditch, with a compensating
increase in the amount of water area provided in the southeast
corner of the site. (See attached site plan) . A minor
modification such as this provides for the retention of the parking
on the north side of the drainage ditch while still providing the
10-foot buffer.
This revised site plan preserves the majority of the
vegetation including all the mature trees on both banks. If the
vegetation and trees are preserved, the other functions can be
restored. The design includes replanting emergent vegetation for
biofiltration as well as shrubs for bank stabilization and habitat
in regraded and disturbed areas.
One of the principal concerns expressed by Planning Department
Staff at the hearing was the fact that the ditch in addition to its
intended function as part of the Valley drainage system, also now
provides habitat for local wildlife. The revised condition would
require that any modification of the drainage ditch must be
reviewed and approved by both Public Works and the Planning
Department who can therefore ensure that habitat functions will be
considered.
Both Public Works and the Planning Department have re-
evaluated the project and proposed modification and concur with the
request to modify the language of Condition 5. This requested
change is consistent with the mitigation conditions attached to the
Determination of Nonsignificance issued January 23 , 1990.
We request that Condition No. 5 be amended to read:
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in
its existing state and shall not be disturbed,
065A0162
Mayor and City Council
City of Kent
August 1, 1990
Page 4
unless modifications are approved and
supervised by the Planning Department and
Public Works.
We believe that the requested changes fully protect the City's
interests while allowing the applicant and the staff to work out
design alternatives within the intentions of both existing
regulations and the rezone conditions.
We ask that Council consider this request favorably and
approve the changes as proposed.
Sincerely,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
Ot
By:
Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ :rlm
Attachments
06%13 90 16: 11 THE FOSTER CO F&B BELLEVUE zoo2
B-twelve Associates
Land Consulting
J"Ci 131. IS90
Jim Foster
The Fostar Company
P.O. Bog 1282
Bellevue, WA 98009
EE: Willis Street Eestavrant and motel
Our Job Z90-109
Bear Hr. Foster,
This letter is to conti.=e our discussion an the draiacourse
and associated vegetation at the south end of your progertp.
I set with Eon HealY on June 7th to go over possibilities
for realignment oil the dralncourse to a.cco=odate the Site
design. lu aA7 --ealigximent, we are concerned about the
replacement 4f mat-,!Me Vegetation for habitat. value. We
agrees that of a-1-1 the functions that the Brea provides,
habitat is the most difficult to z' plicate. Therefores
Protecting the matt3re trees is a przor?ty, sl=ca r*plaCetM nt
i.s a long-terra proposition. Rhll& an site, I noted and
marked significant vegetation is this area, of the site.
Vae proposed site plan iaclgdes filling a portion of the
dia-ir ourse on the nortTh side and excavating ou the south
sj.de. See BahilSit: Site Plan. The site design will
preserve the majority of to Pegetation ine-6luding all the
mature trees or both banks of the draincourse. With
preservation of the vegetation, other fuuGti4ns cam to
;estvred_ The design i tcl udes =epz anting emrgent
vegetation for biof ltrstion and shrubs for bank
stabilization and habitat ir3 regraded and disturbed areas_
kt;ccavation is intended to increase area available for
st6=w. a ter deteutioa and bfofiltration lost when the north
e,d of the drainaourse is filled.
Fleas* call me or Sue Bargeraeister if you have any questi6as
or require turth.er informat?on_
Sincerely,
Esther $. $award
WCtlands Biaingist
$27 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98W2 4 2061859-0515
...-.�z5e -32 r--X T,.�-2✓Z y-i_7':�`a S�'S
--
li
it
m --- 1
m RX fit;
cnnpt
o..D 233.LSo3 3HL 6S CI 06-'CI,'90
CITY OF L4�1�i�iV�
June 14 , 1990
Mr. Ted Hunter
Kent Hearing Examiner
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL #RZ-90-3
Dear Mr. Hunter:
I have reviewed the request for reconsideration of the above-
referenced case. In a conversation with Nadine Zackrisson, I
agreed that the requested change to condition no. 5 is workable and
is thus supported by me.
Sincerely,
Jame P. Harris
ning Director
JPH: ca
1111111 Ills)
220 Ch AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (208)859-3300!FAX#859-3334
CITY OF �
it
January 23 , 1990
IN�CTA
Mr. Ron Healey
John Anderson and Associates PS, Inc.
10620 NE 8th Street
Bellevue, Washington 98004
RE: Willis Street Restaurant and Motel, #ENV-89-128
Dear Mr. Healey:
The City of Kent SEPA Review Committee has reviewed your proposal
for compliance with the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) . In accordance with Section 197-11-350 (3) of the Washington
Administrative Code, the following mitigating measures have been
identified that would allow the City to issue a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) :
1. Due to the location of the proposal in an area where the
drainage system discharges directly into the Green River,
the owner/developer must provide 7-day storage, on-site
detention on the subject site. This equates to 8 1/2
inches of water over the entire site.
2 . Provide oil/water separation and biofiltration of
stormwater prior to discharge into the City system.
3 . The open drainage channel and wetland which crosses the
southern portion of the property shall remain as a
natural open drainage course unless an alternative
equivalent, meeting the approval of the Public Works
Department, can be provided.
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 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.
:SoNmbm
220 41h AVE. SO.,/ KENT.WASHINGTON 98032 5895/ TELEPHONE (206)8593300
Mr. Ron Healey
January 23 , 1990
Page 2
The study shall then identify what improvements. are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts thereon.
Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the study
and the mitigation measures outlined in the study,
implementation and/or construction of said mitigation
measures shall be the conditional requirement of the
issuance of the respective development permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree to
the following conditions to mitigate the traffic impacts
resulting from the proposed addition.
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement to financially participate and
pay a fair share of the costs associated with the
construction of the South 272nd/277th Street
corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above
development is estimated at $150, 588 based on 110
PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and
the capacity of the South 272nd/277th 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 272nd/277th Street corridor, which
will provide additional capacity for traffic volumes
within the area of the above mentioned development.
5 . All driveway accesses to be restricted to 74th Avenue S.
No access shall be allowed on W. Willis Street as shown
on site plan.
6. The developer shall be required to execute a traffic
signal participation agreement for the future
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of
West Willis Street (SR 516) and 74th Avenue S .
7 . Construct cement concrete sidewalks for the entire
frontage of 74th Avenue S . and W. Willis Street where
they do not already exist. A pending latecomers
agreement may require payment of fees to the Foster
Company for improvements made to 74th Ave S . and W.
Willis Street which directly benefit the subject
property.
Mr. Ron Healey
January 23 , 1990
Page 3
8 . A pedestrian circulation system (sidewalks) shall be
incorporated into the development connecting the
entrances of the motel and restaurant to sidewalks along
74th Avenue S. and West Willis Street and parking areas
within the site.
A DNS which includes these mitigating conditions will be issued by
the City on January 31, 1990. It may be possible to issue the DNS
at an earlier date with the mutual consent of the City and the
applicant.
If you have concerns or need clarification of any of the
conditions, contact Don Wickstrom in the Public Works Department
prior to this date at 859-3383 .
If you have questions regarding the review process or need
additional time to work with the Public Works Department, please
contact Carol Proud in the Planning Department at 859-3390 prior
to the January 31, 1990 date.
In order for the development plan review process to proceed in a
timely manner it is important that the City issue the DNS on your
project as soon as possible. Further review of your proposal
cannot be held until a SEPA determination has been issued.
Sincerely,
J es P. Harris
'Manning Director
JH/CP/kr
cc: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Kathy McClung, Senior Planner
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT & MOTEL
Rezone
#RZ-90-3
A public hearing to consider the request by John Anderson and
Associates, PS, Inc. , to rezone 2 .9 acres located at the southeast
corner of West Willis Street and 74th Avenue S. , from M2 , Limited
Industrial, to M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
VERBATIM MINUTES
Ted Hunter: What we are doing tonight is taking evidence for the
record which is what the Hearing Examiner bases his decision on or
recommendation. It's a quasi-judicial proceeding which means each
of you will be placed under oath if you care to testify. There
will be opportunities to cross-examine those that do testify or ask
them questions about what they said and to clarify what was said.
The decision that is made by the Hearing Examiner must be made on
the evidence brought forward tonight, on the record. So, with that
being said, we will turn to the City first on the application, then
hear from the applicant and then from any one else that cares to
testify about the application. First item, Willis Street
Restaurant and Motel, request for a rezone. Mary Duty is the
Planner on this one, from the City.
Mary Duty: Right.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth
in the testimony you're about to give.
Duty: I do. O.k. , this is a request to rezone a 2 . 9 acre site
located at the southeast corner of West Willis and 74th Avenue as
shown in the shaded area. The proposal is to rezone the site from
M2 which is limited industrial to an M1-C which is Industrial Park
with a Commercial suffix. The proposal included a request to amend
the Valley Floor Land Use Plan Map from Industrial Park to
Industrial Business Park and this was approved by the Planning
Commission in November of 1989 . This shows the existing zoning of
the site and surrounding properties--M2 , multifamily to the east
and General Commercial on the other side of 167, west of this site.
The applicant is proposing a 6, 300 square foot restaurant and 132-
unit motel. The restaurant would be located on the. . .o.k. , the
restaurant is going to be located on the north portion of the site
and the hotel, the 132-unit hotel is proposed on the south portion
of the site.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Property to the south of this site is. . . .well, is part of the
Foster Industrial Plat and the Foster Industrial Plat has been
developed in recent years and has a conditional use permit that
allows them to have 70 percent of retail and service uses.
Additionally, property directly west of this has been granted a
conditional use permit to develop an office building on a site
right across 74th Street and that' s the 167-Building. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the site as industrial with a C-
suffix which would allow this type of service and motel/restaurant
uses.
The Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan has a goal to
ensure safe, convenient pedestrian movement with and through Kent.
We would like to comment on this since the site does abut the
Interurban Trail to the east. I ' ll keep this out. The Interurban
Trail runs right along this property line. But, the site plan
submitted doesn't show the trail immediately east of the property
and we have noted that because they have parking proposed, a row of
parking and the Interurban Trail runs right here. We are
suggesting that the applicant be required to provide a landscaping
strip a minimum of ten feet provided along with that boundary and
be bermed to shield interurban trail and users of that trail system
from the headlights that will be shining from cars that are parking
there. I do have a video that I would like to show so I can refer
to. . . . . Video Shown (178 to 263) .
Another one of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan Element is to
protect and enhance existing natural resources and this would
ensure the preservation of ecosystems and protect their aesthetic
values and a policy under that is to where developed lands contain
wildlife, landscaping for food and shelter should be encouraged
that non-interference with wildlife use of such landscaping and
that those areas should be protected and enhanced.
Hunter: Where does that show, I 'm looking at this site plan, I
guess, that you had up on the screen and where does it show the. . .
Duty: This darkened area, I believe, is where they are showing
that. . .that's that drainage course that runs along there.
Hunter: That' s the. . .the drainage area. . .uh huh. O.k.
Duty: During environmental review it was noted that this should
remain and in its natural state unless an alternative equivalent
could meet Public Works Department approval. Planning has looked
at this and has determined that an equivalent would not be possible
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
because of the significance and well-established vegetation that
exists there now. It would not be possible to meet what is there
now for another 30 years. So we are recommending that it be left
in its natural state and not be disturbed. The applicant may be
able to utilize that channel and wetland area for biofiltration and
detention of storm water for the site which is an issue for this
property. We've also noted that the quality of the storm water
needs to be suitable for. . . .prior to leaving the site, suitable for
discharge into the Green River. This site. . .the storm drainage for
this area goes directly into the Green River. O.k. , it has just
been pointed out to me by the City Engineer that this may actually
be the relocated drainage channel so. . . so. . . .yeah, so I don't have
a site plan that shows. . .
Hunter: Well, maybe we can find out from the applicant what
the. . .there is an indication that he has that information so we' ll
wait for that.
Duty: O.k. , I do not have a site plan that shows how the existing
drainage channel is located in relationship to the proposed
buildings. O.k. , the Valley Floor Plan is also consistent with
preservation of the open space and encouraging retention of natural
wildlife habitat in areas. It should also be noted that the Zoning
Code does require ten feet impervious setback from drainage
channels, from the top of the bank. Planning Department review
does list the criteria for granting a rezone and number 2 of the
criteria says that the proposed rezone and subsequent development
of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity.
We had a concern about the bulk scale and design of the project in
relation to the rest of the area. The offices and industrial
buildings and residential surrounding the site are all campus
style, basically one story construction. This project will consist
of a four-story hotel. So, to try to minimize the impact that that
might have on the surrounding areas the Planning Department would
encourage the developer to incorporate some sort of features such
as tall landscaping, building modulation, etc. Possibly going
through an administrative design review for this project.
Hunter: Well, are you saying that the development would not be
compatible with development in the vicinity?
Duty: Its possible it may not be if care isn't taken to the design
and the architectural treatment and landscape features, it could be
inconsistent with the surrounding area. It would be the tallest
structure in the vicinity. O.k. We. . .also under number 5, the
proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the citizens. The site is a very visible site
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
being near a very major intersection of 74th. . .Willis and the
freeway interchange 167 . We would encourage substantial
landscaping along the front and side yards to provide a buffer
as. . .since it will be acting as a presentation to the City. And
since the rear. . . let see. . .since residential property is located to
the east as well as the Interurban Trail, we talked about the ten
feet of Type II landscaping which is a heavier landscaping along
the eastern property line to buffer the development from the
Interurban Trail and residential district and that it should be
bermed since parking is what is. . . .along that property line. There
are additional criteria for rezoning to M1-C suffix and those are:
One, the proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to a
major arterial intersections and that the rezone to M1-C will not
be speculative. And this project is consistent with both of those
criteria. The staff is recommending that an approval of this
rezone be made with the conditions that are listed in the report.
Do you have any questions?
Hunter: Well, I 'm looking. I 'm trying to look for the condition
dealing with your testimony about the wetlands. Is that condition
5, drainage channel?
Duty: Right, the drainage channel, associated vegetated and
wetlands should be left in its natural undisturbed state. A ten-
foot setback of all impervious services is required by the City of
Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on all future site plans
submitted. And number 6. . .
Hunter: The other concern you seemed to highlight was the design
of the structure itself.
Duty: Right, and number 6 . . .
Hunter: Six is what you propose to meet that concern?
Duty: Right, going through the administrative design review
process with the Planning Department that we could come to some
sort of agreement for design that would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Hunter: O.k. So, with those conditions, its your testimony that
that it meets the rezone criteria and should be approved?
Duty: With the condition that we recommended, we would recommend
that it be approved.
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much for your testimony. Someone
representing the applicant who would like to testify.
Duty: Do you want any of these?
Voice: Yeah, I might.
Ron Healey: My name is Ron. . .
Hunter: Good evening.
Healey: Good evening.
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, and the whole
truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Healey: I do. My name is Ron Healey with John Anderson &
Associates and I 'm the architect for the project. I have brought
along some documentation which, I think, will help clarify some of
the questions.
Hunter: Are these reproductions. . .
Healey: These are reproductions of the drawings plus I added in a
few extra to help clarify the ditch and (person is not at
microphone; unclear at this point) .
Hunter: O.k.
Healey: I thought it was a little easier to use this than roll out
great (unclear) of paper.
Hunter: O.k. If they have changes on them, they should be. . . .
Healey: They do. I have added some additions to sheet #2 to
clarify where the trail is, which there some questions about and
some other information that I would like to point out. And, I will
make note of those.
Hunter: Let' s. . . let' s have them admitted as an exhibit into the
file, then, to note that they are a bit different than what has
been submitted. And, then this. . .this narrative material is also
submitted.
Healey: Yes, if I could please.
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Hunter: O.k. We' ll have those marked as exhibits so we can refer
back to them if we need too.
Healey: What I 've done is I 've gone through the staff report and
there's obviously been a lot of work put into that and I appreciate
that and I have gone through sort of page by page and put my
response to the City' s comments which, as I say, are for the most
part quite brief and I 'd just like to run through them real quickly
if I could. There was a question concerning pedestrian safety
should be considered prior to the development of the site. . .planned
on-site pedestrian circulation system with connections to the
public sidewalks and METRO bus stops should address this issue. If
you look on either sheet 1 or sheet 2 we have connected the
buildings with sidewalks and both buildings to the sidewalk on 74th
Street and to the sidewalk on West Willis. I believe that is what
the City is asking us to do and I believe that we have conformed
what that. Going on to the next issue, which I happen to be
on. . .well, I 'm not sure what page I 'm actually one, three, I
believe, of the staff report. The site abuts the Interurban Trail
to the east. The site plan submitted does not reflect this, the
proposal shows parking along this property line without
landscaping. If this application is approved, a minimum of ten
foot landscape strip should be provided along this boundary and
should be bermed to provide a buffer to adjacent uses of the
Interurban Trail and adjacent residential uses. Provisions should
be made to allow public access to the Interurban Trail from the
site. If you' ll look on sheet number 2 , I have gone on this and
drawn in approximately where the Interurban Trail is. I know from
a survey where it crosses the south end of the property. I 'm
assuming it is running fairly straight and it appears to be. I 've
also shown the existing abandoned Willis Street which is existing
abandoned pavement going across the Interurban Trail and also
approximate edge of the Puget Power right of way which the
Interurban Trail is in.
My comments are the Interurban site or the site does abut a
100-foot Puget Power right of way which contains the Interurban
Trail within the 100 foot right of way. In actuality that right of
way is 100 feet at its narrow and is approximately 130, and that's
an approximate} at the northern end. The trail is approximately 35
to 40 feet from our property boundary and is separated by drainage
swale which is between two and five feet deep and approximately ten
feet wide. Access from our site directly to our site would be
impossible without construction on privately owned property. We
feel that access to the site on the north end of the property via
the old paved Willis Street Roadway is safer and more appropriate
and I have shown that access and how it interconnects. There 's
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
also mention maintaining a ten-foot landscape strip containing a
berm along the east property line. We can find no reason for the
request nor has staff planner been able to give us one. The east
property line is a rear yard which according to Section 15. 07.060
requires no landscaping. There was some discussion that we needed
because our property abuts a residential zone. It does not.
Hunter: Where does it indicated the access? This is on Sheet #2?
Healey: Two, yes. We are seeing this is really a better way to go
through the trail than to try to bring them across this drainage
swale is actually quite wide (unclear) . (Unclear) . . .there we go.
We do not actually abut a single-family or a multifamily zone.
There is actually a 100-foot or that 130 foot. . . 100 foot at one
end, 130 foot at the other end. . .Puget Power right of way which is
actually zoned M2 . Even if we did abut a residential, the property
would be exempt from any special requirements per Section 15. 04 . 070
F4 since it is separated by a railroad main line which this is an
existing railroad main line and it did show in the video. If the
railroad main line did not exist and our property abutted
residential zoning, we would still not be required to provide ten
foot of landscaping. All that would be required is the greater. . .a
50 foot setback which, except for one corner of the restaurant, now
exceeds that. If you will look again on Sheet 2 , the northern
corner of the restaurant is 49 feet from our property line, and
except for that one little corner, we are set back more than 50
feet as it is. Based on the Zoning Code requirements, I would say
that the City prefers parking along boundaries with residential
zoning since they have increased the setback requirement to 50 feet
in the M1 and the M2 zones. This 50 foot setback would not be left
undeveloped. Outdoor storage is discouraged by the Zoning Code and
that leaves it only to be used in parking in my mind. If it is the
only use, we are using it appropriately and providing landscaping
in accordance with Section 15. 07 . 060. There was some mention of
needing to shield car headlights from the single-family residences
to the east. This is unnecessary, the single-family residences are
over 250 feet away. There is this 100 to 130 foot Puget Power
right of way. There's a 110 foot railroad right of way, there's a
sixteen foot alley and then there' s the backyards to those single-
family. Furthermore, the railroad bed is actually raised above the
height of our lot and the height of the single-family lots and from
a height varying at the north end at about 14 . . .no, four feet to
the south and to the south about 14 feet. Such that headlights
would never make it across to the single family. There was also
mention of needing to shield car headlights from users of the
Interurban Trail. Again, this makes no sense, the trail is a path
six to ten feet wide located in a 100 foot right of way, again, I
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
say its 100 to 130 foot right of way which equates to at least 90
feet of natural landscaping along the trail, 30 to 40 feet of which
is located between the path and our property. We have examined the
trail and could find no place in the City where ten feet of
landscaping and a three foot berm had been provided. Existing
developments directly along the trail were usually separated by
blank building walls, chainlink fences and roads. The trail as it
passes our property is very pleasant and would not benefit from
more landscaping.
Hunter: Let me ask you this, this is a rezone application and one
criteria is the compatibility of surrounding uses. Now, is your
testimony, are you objecting to this recommending or proposed. . . .
•Healey: Yes, Iam. I can see no reason why it will benefit anyone
other than to take up more property and we already, because of the
existing ditch, which we obviously cannot develop are devoting,
actually a lot of area, to landscaping as it is.
Hunter: Even if that leads to the conclusion that there is an
incompatibility of uses? If there is an impact on Interurban Trail
users?
Healey: Again, I don't see how you can say that we are having any
impact on those and definitely we are having less impact than any
other development on the trail in that there is this 30 to 40 feet
which is landscaped or, at least, covered with natural vegetation.
Again, headlights were brought up as being an issue and, again, the
natural vegetation, the grasses and weeds that grow in there are
three, four feet high. Again, I don't know who would be using this
trail at night and if they did, I seriously doubt they would object
to us. In fact, I would think we would be a plus to users of trail
at night in that there are people here at night time which would
make anybody using that trail feel much safer. So, again, I do not
see any reason for requiring that. I could find, at least in my
review of the Zoning Code, no justification for that request. The
next issue was the drainage ditch. A well-developed drainage
channel wetland is located across the southern portion of the
property. I ' ll paraphrase since it already has been covered by
staff. They have asked us to retain that in a natural state.
There has been some discussion about where that it is. It shows on
Number 5, again, it is a little hard to read because I 'm trying to
overlay two pieces of information, one on top of the other. We
have asked for permission to relocate that slightly to the south.
Again, it is a fairly large area, about 85 feet wide and does take
a fair chunk of property out of the middle which limits our use of
the property. If you review the environmental checklist, and the
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
preliminary plans we submitted, you' ll see at the time we submitted
that package, we were planning to enclose the ditch and tightline
it across our property. We were advised by City staff that this
would not be a problem since it was tightlined coming to our
property and tightlined leaving. As a condition of SEPA review, we
were told to retain the open ditch but that it could be moved with
approval of Public Works. We have been in discussion with Public
Works on relocating the ditch and it has never been a problem for
them. In fact, as late as last Wednesday, both Public Works and
Planning agreed that we could relocated the ditch. Since then,
Planning has changed their mind. Several issues become important
here, this is not a natural drainage course, but a manmade ditch.
If it could be built in the first place, it can obviously be
rebuilt. City Zoning Code Section 15. 08 . 24 C allows and sets
guidelines for relocating of major creeks. If a major creek can be
relocated, I cannot see the problem with relocating the ditch. I
have cut a couple of sections through the ditch and you can
basically see what we are doing. We are moving the ditch
approximately ten feet to the south, cleaning up the sides of the
banks and redirecting that slightly. Another very important
consideration is the City of Kent's future plans for this ditch.
The process has begun and it should be completed within five years
of diverting most of the water that travels through this ditch into
a new storm drainage system. The affects of this diversion will be
far greater than any effects we will have in relocating it. I have
a letter which I would like to read, if I could, from Sue
Burgemeister of B-Twelve Associates, she has been involved from the
beginning as our wetland specialist. A copy of the letter is next
page over.
"This letter is in response to your question regarding
status of the drainage course and the potential for
relocating. . . "
Hunter• (Unclear)
Healey: Certainly.
Hunter: Now, which letter are you referring to? Do we have a copy
of it?
Healey: Next page in here I have attached the letter, just turn
the very next page and there should be a. . .your' s is probably the
one packet that it got left out of. There you go.
Hunter: Yeah, I just want to make sure I 'm tracking with your
testimony.
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Healey: Sure, certainly.
Hunter: And I understand that what you are doing here, is that you
are objecting to this proposed condition, number 5.
Healey: Yes, number 5.
Hunter: Drainage channel.
Healey: Yes, yes. And as I say rather than going to the end I 've
tried to follow their. . .through the staff report so that it was in
context with what they have had to say concerning it. If I may
continue:
" . . .as you know B-Twelve was asked to determine if
wetlands were present on the site. In our letter to you
dated April 12 , 1990, we indicated that under the US Army
Corps of Engineers criteria, wetland are not present on
the site. In discussing this finding with City staff we
also agreed that the swale on the site is not classified
as a stream and no fishery use is known by the City.
Therefore, the staff agreed with us that this facility is
a drainage course. This distinction is significant when
considering the issues that should be addressed when
evaluating the functions of that must be replaced if the
facility is to be relocated. It is our understanding
that this Swale is a constructed drain course developed
several years ago as part of the construction of
74th Avenue S. Its primary function is the conveyance of
storm water from a culvert under the railroad tracks
which then flows to the west, across your property to a
culvert under 74th Street. Prior to developing the
design for the relocation of a storm water facility, all
the various functions must be identified and then
prioritized. This approach enables the selection of
alternatives and compromises in the even that one
function is of slightly higher value than another. "
Hunter: You don't need to read the entire. . . .
Healey• O.k.
Hunter: Its in the record. . .
Healey: That' s fine.
Hunter: I don't think we need to. . .couple more pages long.
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Healey: O.k. Yes.
Hunter: Let me ask you what you're getting at here. What I
have. . .we have in the file that was submitted to date. It was
reviewed prior to the hearing; is a letter from the same company,
the B-Twelve Associates. . .
Healey• Yes.
Hunter: But, apparently a different wetlands biologist.
Healey: Same. . .well, it was basically. . .
Hunter: Wetlands biologist, a letter dated. . .
Healey: April 2nd, I believe. That was the original letter that
she made reference to.
Hunter: That refers to it as a (unclear) open water wetland.
Healey: Yes.
Hunter: What we have is a conflict from the experts, is that what
is going on here, even though its the same company and now this
later one is indicating that we don't designate this as a wetland.
Healey: What she' s saying is that there is a ditch but there is no
wetland on the site other than the ditch itself because that was
the original concern by staff was that there was not only a ditch
which conveyed water but also. . . . .associated with that.
Hunter: Its a little disconcerting this letter that you just
referred to is dated today' s date.
Healey: That' s right.
Hunter: I think that's is the first, at least, its hard to respond
to that coming in today.
Healey: Well, again, I can make the same argument in that we did
not know until last Friday that we could not relocate the ditch
and, to be honest, to have to deal with that in a matter of three
days has not been pleasant for us and that' s why it has taken this
long to do and why it was dated today is we have been scrambling to
look at the alternatives and try to find out what the City's
concerns were and why they were changing their mind and changing
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
from allowing us to relocate that to no longer allowing us to
relocate it.
Hunter: So your testimony is based on this, I assume its your
experts someone you retained, B-Twelve Associates, is that this
area that we are talking about is not a wetland, therefore, it does
not need to be dealt with as one.
Healey: No, that is not what she' s saying. She is saying it is a
wetland but she' s not saying that it cannot be relocated just
because it is a wetland. Obviously, a creek is a wetland and we
relocate creek. I don't think that' s the issue whether its a
wetlands or not, the issue is can we relocate it and can we re-
establish value to it. In our argument, if, in fact, the City of
Kent is going to divert water from this ditch, which is the plan,
in fact, my understanding is the first phase design has been done,
money has been set aside for the first phase of the construction,
to actually start diverting water since most of this water comes
from the property east of the railroad tracks. They are going to
divert that water and send it south. She is saying that when that
is done, this will probably not be a wetlands that there will not
be enough water in it to even consider it a wetland at that point
and that' s our concern. Is, if in fact, the City is going to do
far more damage to it than we are going to do in relocating it,
what is the problem with relocating it. It seems consistent with
City zoning, so we don't see why that restriction is being placed
upon us and especially being placed upon us now just a few days
before the hearing. Any other questions?
Hunter: Well, I guess we can continue to take testimony. I 'm. . I 'm
a little. . . little disturbed. It seems like there's a lot of new
information that' s coming in and to be able to respond to. . . like
this letter of May 16, is one that we are just know reading and if
we are going to be concerned about the appropriate designation for
that area, wetland or nonwetland, being able to move it or not move
it. Its. . .I think its appropriate to allow some time to respond to
this new information. I guess I 'm not inclined to just. . .one
letter from an expert to say, that ' s what I rely on. And, I don't
imagine that there' s anyone here that' s going to be able to dispute
that. We don't have any expert testimony on this issue other than
Susan Burgemeister who is your expert.
Healey: And, again, that' s my concern. Again, the staff is coming
with this determination that we can' t remove it and as far as I can
see there is no expert on their point saying that we have been in
discussion with Sue who is the wetlands or water quality specialist
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
with the City and, again, she had no problem with relocating the
ditch.
Hunter: What is happening is that this issue is beginning to
overwhelm the issue of rezone criteria. We are looking at rezone
criteria which have to do with compatibility and have to do with
the appropriateness based on surrounding uses and expected
development. And we are getting overwhelmed here with the question
of drainage and wetland and relocations. I guess maybe my inquiry
is the relevance of this to rezone comes up only because of the
proposed condition. Is that correct?
Healey: That' s correct. Yes, it has, in my mind, very little do
with rezoning the property but it is, again, brought up and we feel
that we have obligation to respond to that now rather than accept
it. . .blindly accept it as a condition.
Hunter: Um hum. Your response raises some issues that perhaps
cannot be resolved tonight and, I feel, disinclined to try to
resolve them based on the record without allow an opportunity to
respond. Maybe, you know, you are going through a lot of different
issues. How many others do you
Healey: Basically, just a couple. And as you say it really isn't
as long as seems. . .
Hunter: The issue and see what kind of response there is or we can
go through your whole testimony and then see what kind of response
you might have.
Healey: And, again, it doesn't really matter to me. I. . .
Hunter: O.k. , why, why don't we go ahead and let. . . finish your
testimony.
Healey: O.k. , finish. O.k. , great. O.k. The next issue brought
up open space within the development and recreational needs of
users. Again, just, I will, again, since it is all written and it
is in testimony, I will just briefly address that. The site is
visible from 167 . Actually, in the rezone, we are increasing the
required landscaping both along the street frontage and the
sideyards by five feet, going from 15 to 20 along the front and
from 10 to 15 on the sides. So, again, I think the rezone
definitely does what the City is asking. Again, the three single-
family residences to the east. Again, I don't see where
landscaping in that is going to have any benefit on them, virtually
will be unseen by them as previously stated. As far as recreation
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
and open space, again, not mentioned in the report, but the motel
is planned to have a swimming pool, spa and an exercise room as
well as there is an existing park to the south that was put in by
the owner of the property when the industrial plat to the south was
approved. So, again, I think, as far as recreational facilities
that is being addressed very well. Another issue that I 'd like
just briefly cover was in the environmental assessment.
Hunter: Let me just. . .why is recreation an issue. I 'm trying. . .
Healey: Its really not an issue, other than the fact that they
brought it up in the report.
Hunter: O.k. , again, to focus on rezone criteria. We do have some
conditions that have proposed. These aren't ones that have been
applied. I guess I 'm having troubles tracking with the open space
here. I don't see it in the conditions.
Healey: In the final conditions.
Hunter: At least what's been proposed. You are disputing certain
findings of fact..
Healey: I 'm just trying to clarify and make sure that they
understand what we are doing. Again, they make their evaluation on
very little submitted information. They did not ask for floor
plans, they did not ask for some of that information. Again, they
seem to have a concern about that. I just wanted to dispel that
concern. Also, the next issue was under the environmental
assessment. There has been considerable discussion about retention
of the storm water. We have, as they say, met with Public Works.
They have, in fact, told us that we could pay a fee in lieu of
retention of approximately $12 , 000 and use the existing storm
facility that has been designed for this site when the industrial
plat was put in. I ' ll skip the next one since it probably doesn't
have a whole of lot bearing from what you are saying. The Planning
Department has concern about bulk scale and design. Again, I would
have. . .put that as a restriction. I don't really feel that is
true. In fact, I 've even included some floor plans and elevations
in there to show you that. . .
Hunter: Don't feel what is true?
Healey: That. . .that this is a bulky big building. It is not. It
is very modulated. It is. . . it's has projections on all four sides
of at least seven feet, there' s no section of the building that is
over 20 feet without some modulation to it. The largest portion
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
without a major modulation is 74 feet. The building is not tall,
it's only 43 feet. We're allowed a height of 60 feet. We're
allowed a lot coverage of 65 percent. We have a lot coverage,
including the restaurant, of less than 16 percent of the site and,
I believe, the motel covers less than nine percent.
Hunter: So, you don't want to go through a design review.
Healey: I do not want to go through a design review. In fact, I
would step out of sequence slightly and I am now back on the last
page, we feel that placing that restriction of going through a
design, what they call administrative design review is unnecessary
and, in fact, according to Section 15. 090. 45 of the administrative
design review is to provide additional site planning flexibility in
fulfilling the intent of multifamily transition area requirements
and shall not include design elements that are directly
related. . .are not directly related to site plan and layouts.
Examples of included items are: building colors, textures, siding
materials and the like. First, we are not in a multifamily
transition zone. Second, those very items that they wish to have
control over are the very items excluded from review. Third, those
items they wish to have control over, are handled by the architect
and, as I 've already stated, the building is not large. It is not
a huge mammoth thing. We could easily go in and do a building that
covered 65 percent of the site and 60 feet high.
Hunter: Well, it's hard for us to ever have an objective standard
on that on what 's large or what' s not large.
Healey: That' s very true.
Hunter: In your opinion, it' s not large.
Healey: It is not large.
Hunter: May be large.
Healey: There's a building to the south that's 132, 000 square feet
under one roof. That, to me, is a large building. No, I think
it's very, very compatible. We are in an industrial zone. We are
not in the middle of a single-family. . .
Hunter: Compatibility is more of the issue.
Healey: And, again, very compatible. If you look to the, again,
if you actually look, we're 110 to 130 feet away from a multifamily
zone. That multifamily zone actually allows a 40 foot height
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street JRZ-90-3
limit. We are 43 feet high. If we go on over to the MRD, that
allows a height limit, if I remember, of 30 feet or 35 feet.
Again, 40 feet is not incompatible with what could very easily be
developed on these properties. By the same token, much of the
Foster Industrial Park to the south and to the west is undeveloped
and even though now they do have one story buildings, and, again,
that is a commercial one-story, that' s not a residential one story,
which, again, are different. Again, nothing says that what' s going
in there is going to be one story or even of similar height. The
Zoning Code very clearly allows buildings to 60 feet high. If
anything, we could be very easily dwarfed by them and, obviously,
we have no control over what goes in therein the future. I think
that pretty much concludes. Let me just run through the
recommendations at the end. There was on Item 13, of the staff
recommendations, they were asking for landscaping of a minimum of
20 feet along the western, northern and southern borders of the
site. I believe that is a typo in that 20 feet would be required
on the west and north but only 15 would be required on the south.
As stated, I believe, on page 15 of the Zoning Code. The landscape
strip, we've already covered. The drainage ditch, we 've covered
and the administrative design review, we covered. So, if you have
no questions, I ' ll conclude my testimony.
Hunter: Well, it appears there's a lot of questions about the
facts, findings of facts and the proposed conditions. And, I guess
you raised a number of objections to proposed conditions based on
some concerns about the facts in the file. I think its appropriate
to allow the City an opportunity to respond to that. Is there
anyone else here that wants to testify on this application. This
rezone. I guess not. Would the City want to respond at all to the
testimony.
Duty: Now.
Hunter: Sure.
Duty: There were a number of issues covered and I attempted to
write each of those down. Initially, the pedestrian circulation
that's. . .I really wouldn't take issue with that, it seems that has
been addressed adequately. The Interurban Trail location. On the
site plan submitted to you today as an exhibit, sheet 2 shows the
Interurban Trail on the east side of the Seattle/Tacoma railroad
right of way. I just want to point out that that is. . .maybe within
right of way but that the actual rail lines are to the east of the
Interurban Trail and the Interurban trail is basically level with
this. . .approximately level with this site as you could see from the
video. And then there is a ditch with grass but you can certainly
16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
see from the trail over to the site without any problems. As far
as access from the site to the trail, we were not thinking of any
elaborate sort of system but maybe more than just a cement sidewalk
somehow linking this site to the trail. A four-foot sidewalk, you
know, just through the landscaping, even a gravel path. But
nothing more than that. As far as landscaping along the east which
we are proposing where the parking is located. Basically, we were
asking for that landscaping not to protect single-family so much
because there is some topography differences with the rail lines
but for the Interurban Trail which does not have the luxury of a
topography difference. The drainage ditch, as noted, is lower than
this site and the Interurban Trail, the headlights would shine
directly across. And, to my knowledge, when I was standing on the
trial, I was not very far from fruit trees that are located on the
site, just directly across the trail. I don't know what distance
that was and certainly you're welcome to have the video to look.
Hunter: Do you have a sense of the height of vegetation as part of
the applicant's testimony was that the vegetation was high enough
to screen, the natural grasses and whatnot.
Duty: The natural grasses between the trail and the site were
maybe three feet.
Hunter: I imagine this is the time they would be the highest.
Duty: I imagine, yeah, absolutely, I 'm sure. That' s a seasonal
thing.
Hunter• O.k.
Dutv: So, when we do feel that that is a critical to have some
sort of a buffer between their parking which I 'm not sure how much
of. . .what is there of grasses and the fruit trees are going to be
eliminated to accommodate this project which would leave very
little natural grass at all. I clarified the railroad location, I
believe, indicating that the actual rail lines are on the other
side of the trail, east of this development. O.k. , it was also
indicated that none of the other projects in the area had to
protect this trail. As I noted in the video that was showed, none
of the other developments south of this project have parking that
are perpendicular to the trail. And, so, and they did have
landscaping or it was left in its natural state along that line and
there was no parking there. So, there was not an issue of
headlights, it was the building, and then landscaping or natural
vegetation. As far as fewer impacts on the trail, the whole issue
of this rezone is to be able to do more intense uses that are
17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
commercial and service oriented. These are higher traffic
generators and they are going to have a lot higher use than typical
industrial uses. So, the impact is going to be greater both to the
traffic system and the Trail than potentially go in there and that
is what this rezone and conditional use hearings are for is to
identify potential impacts and mitigate those as condition of
approval. A lot of the testimony was based on Zoning Code. . . . the
strict. . .what the Zoning Code says and a lot of what we use when
we're looking at a potential change to Zoning Code boundaries or
zoning map boundaries is what the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan and if they would be supportive to that change in use. Or, if
there is some way to condition it so that. it could be compatible
with those policies. When we talked about open space, and I will
jump down, and recreation on page 6 of the staff report.
Basically, we used the Valley Floor Plan Open Space Element to. . .as
justification to further justify that retaining the drainage swale
area to the south in its open and natural state, could provide
passive recreational uses, we were not talking about whether or not
they had on-site recreational facilities for the guests of the
hotel. As far as the drainage channel, I know there was a lot of
concern about whether it was a wetland or not and that is not our
concern whether it is or is not a wetland. Our concern is that it
is a natural feature. I would like to use as an example another
natural manmade feature and that is the old sewage lagoons. The
old sewage lagoons have been designated as, by the City Council, as
unique and fragile. They cannot be disturbed, filled or disrupted.
It is prohibited by the Zoning Code and those were, in fact,
manmade in 1960. They are significant wildlife habitat and are
protected by the Code. So that' s just an example of a manmade
facility that has unique and fragile characteristics. Certainly
we're trying to save those sorts of amenities that are left rather
than letting them be destroyed and mitigated or try to mitigate
those losses. Gary Gill, City Engineer, will talk more about the
issue of enclosure or not to enclose it. As far as enclosing it,
entering and leaving the site, I think I showed on the video that
it is piped under the trail and under 74th, but it was open on both
side. It was open in all phases except under the streets so I did
not see other than those instances that it was piped. He indicated
that we allow relocation of major creeks. The Code does provide
for a proposed relocation. Its not something we get a lot of
applications for. In fact, since I 've been we haven't gotten any
to my knowledge. If we did, it doesn't necessarily mean that
relocation would be approved. Its merely, its there in case there
was a situation where something, for instance, Mill Creek is
contaminated, well, probably in many places, but the Western
Processing site, they will need to do a cleaning and in that
instance it may be critical to the public health and welfare to
18
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
relocate it, to clean the hazardous substances out of it. But,
again, that's something we would look at very closely and very
detailed and wouldn't necessarily stamp an approval on it. It
would probably have significant mitigation to do something like
that. As far as not knowing they couldn't relocate it from last
Friday, I spoke with the applicants prior to the report being
mailed out and indicated that these were conditions that would be
applied to this project. O.k. , then, as far as the bulk and scale
and design, we weren't picking on this building as being a bulky
building, it really depends on the setting and in this setting,
given the existing developments surrounding this site, it could
appear bulky if careful attention isn't paid to architectural
detail and landscaping because existing structures are not four-
stories or even two-stories. He indicated 60 feet is allowed for
Code. Under the M1-C suffix the height limitation is 35 feet;
however, developments can go up to a height of 60 feet with the
corresponding increase in setback. The abutting properties that
are zoned multifamily, the MRM district allows a maximum height of
40 feet and MRD, 35 feet. And, as far as the design review, it was
target specifically at multifamily originally, but, we feel it is
certainly appropriate to use that mechanism in other instances that
appropriate as is this case, we feel, to protect surrounding land
uses and to make developments as compatible as possible with their
surrounding land uses and the adjoining freeway. Do you have any
questions, I 'm going to let Gary talk more about the ditch.
Hunter: O.k. , let me just ask you. In your opinion, then, without
these conditions related to landscaping, ground perimeter buffer
between the Interurban Trail, drainage channel or ditch location
and administrative design review, in your opinion, would you still
recommend approval as meeting the rezoning criteria.
Duty: My personal opinion is no, I would not recommend approval
with out those conditions.
Hunter: Thank you. Mr. Gary Gill from the City. Do you swear,
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're
about to give.
Gary Gill: I do. Maybe just a little historical perspective on
this open drainage course. And when the project was first
submitted for environmental review and we made a field
investigation of the site, the Engineering Department' s Water
Quality Engineer and myself, at that point in time we had indicated
as shown on page 8 of the staff report that the open drainage
channel and wetland which crosses the southern portion of the
property should remain as a natural open drainage course and then
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
after discussions with the Public Works Director and the applicant,
they added the clause at the end that said unless an alternative
equivalent meeting the approval of the Public Works Department can
be provided. At that point in time we had a meeting with the
applicants and some of the maps that our Water Quality Engineer had
which were State maps designating wetland areas throughout the
Green River flood plain area indicated that maybe a substantial
portion of this site may be also classified as wetlands. So, one
of the requests that we made of the applicants was to have this
evaluated and that' s the re-evaluation that was made by B-Twelve &
Associates. I believe our Public Works Director had made a
determination that it was more acceptable to relocate the channel
based on what he heard in telephone conversations that there were
not wetlands on the site. However, after seeing the letter of
April 2 , I believe, that' s in the staff report or included in the
package to the Examiner it definitely states that that drainage
area that crosses the site was palisade wetland, I forget the exact
designation or terms which she used and I think that' s pretty clear
when you go out and look at the site its very significantly
different from the other surrounding portions of the property. So,
I think that did clarify it for us that the other portions of the
site would not be classified as wetland areas but that there was
some importance to this area that drainage that crosses the
property. I think this letter that' s written today kind a is a
little misleading. Whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers
criteria, I really question whether or not the Army Corps of
Engineers criteria would not classify this particular area as
wetlands. I think they indicated in their earlier letter that
would be classified as a wetland, that portion. I think the idea
whether it is manmade or not is of absolutely no significance. Its
an existing drainage course that has been established for a number
of years. It was not constructed as a part of the 74th Avenue
construction. It was there well before that road and the culverts
going underneath the railroad tracks are a good indication that
that drainage course was already established back in the time the
railroad was built or they wouldn't have put a culvert there in the
first place. So that drainage course has been established for a
number of years. Its obviously been altered since the freeway was
built, since 74th and other construction activities have come in.
So other culverts have been put in place to convey that water to
the Green River. It actually goes under SR 167, goes under the
site where the Valley Publishing facility is and goes into the
Green River over there. We do have plans to put in some
substantial drainage improvements in that South Park area. So the
area on the east side of the railroad tracks is very very severely
flooded during major storm events. There' s not a good drainage
system over there at all. So the City does have plans to put in a
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
major drainage system that would convey the water from that area
and eliminated some of the serious flooding problems that occur
down there in the winter months. But, based on the information
that we've received from B-Twelve and from our observation on the
site, we definitely see that this wetland area has some
significance and in the design of any future drainage facility we
would try to provide base flow or water that could recharge this
area and not allow it to just dry up and disappear and that's
something that we would work with. . .with our environmental people
in our department as well as any input we might get from the
applicant and B-Twelve. We are more than willing to sit down and
work with them on minor adjustments in the area. But, I think the
main thing is that we want that to virtually stay intact as it is.
Maybe there's some minor changes or relocations that they are
suggesting that could be done and still save the, you know, the
major part of the site. I don't know that' s something we would
have to work with the Planning Department on and the owner and the
applicant to see if that would be feasible and still accomplish the
objective which is to save that area and maintain it. So I don't
want to preclude, you know, you know, just totally say that no
relocation can be made at all. Maybe something can be done and
still achieve the goal of maintaining that area. That' s something
we'd have to work out. But, the main point is that we want it to
stay as natural as possible and disturb it as little as possible.
I think that probably summarizes it. I think the letter from
B-Twelve kind of rambles on but they say over again that its not a
wetland, that seems to contradict their earlier evaluation so I
would say that its, based on my judgment, that it is a wetland.
How much value it has I definitely couldn't make any determination
on that. Its obviously is not a Fisheries resource, it does not
support any Fisheries functions at all. So, it doesn't have as
much value as may be some others. Just one last point on the. . .the
drainage system that serves the railroad tracks. There some major
ditches that run along the railroad tracks and near the Interurban
Trail. Those will still have to be maintained. And, the runoff
from that system collects would still run through these culverts
and go through this drainage course. So between that and any
additional storm water that we may have to continue draining in
this system and try to do whatever we can to maintain this natural
area. Unless you have any question, I think that covers most of
it.
Hunter: No, I guess not. That covers the drainage issue.
Gill: Thank you.
21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Hunter: Does anyone else want to say anything about this
application? O.k. , fine. (Unclear) . . .or as a clarification.
Kathy McClung: Clarification, that would be the best description.
I just wanted to clarify on the building bulk condition. That we
didn't want any panic on that condition. The reason that it was
added to the staff report was that in the original SEPA application
site plan that was submitted, for the SEPA review, there was more
of a building modulation on the east side of the building and when
the plans were resubmitted for the rezone application. A lot of
that modulation had been removed and we didn't want to say that
this building was. . .was going to be a big problem, we just wanted
to call attention to the fact that looking at this architectural
profiles of the building, you don't always get a real. . .you're
looking kind of at a flat drawing and so we wanted to make sure
that the landscaping that was put in front of those. . .that building
was a taller variety and that' s the type of things that we wanted
to look at, we don't want. . . .we aren't going to run any formal
hearing process typical of other design review that other City' s
might have. That's not what we have in mind. We are talking about,
an information discussion between staff and the applicant to ensure
that as much mitigation of those buildings are done as possible.
And, then, secondly, I just wanted to apologize to the applicant
because I think that we did create some confusion. Partly because
I don't think that we had all of the information on that drainage
channel and I know that I contributed to that. The staff report
was written, I reviewed it and Mary described to me there was a
difference of opinion between our department and the Public Works
Department, I read the letter submitted by the Wetland Biologist
and on first review, I thought, well maybe this. . .maybe we are
being too strong. And then Mary really encouraged me to go out to
the site and I did. And after I was out there, I thought, I read
this wrong, there's been a mistake. I cam back reread the letter,
took it over to the Engineering Department. They changed their
opinion and changed mine and we stuck to the recommendation that
Mary had written in the original staff report. But in the mean
time I had created confusion by talking to the applicant and
telling him that I was leaning towards going with the original
recommendation but, I did call him as soon as we had made our final
determination.
Hunter: Certainly, you have that opportunity right now.
Healey: Just to address one point that Kathy brought up and that
is. . .
Hunter: I 'm sorry, I misplaced your name.
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim May 16, 1990
Willis Street #RZ-90-3
Healey: Ron Healey-
Hunter: Healey.
Healey: And that is our original application, I don't know
necessarily had more modulation to the east. But, one point that
I think is important to make and has not been brought out in the
report and that is we have actually changed the size of the
building. We've actually decreased by about 30 percent. That
original application assumed that we were going to tightline across
the property and, therefore, use that area occupied by the ditch
and allowed us, at that point, to have a building which would
contain 132 units. We have now decreased that to 100 units so the
building itself is smaller and actually the modulation is probably
greater now in that the projection is smaller but the whole mass is
smaller as well. Thank you.
Hunter: O.k. Anyone else want to say anything about the rezone
application for this piece of property. All right. The record is
closed on that rezone application and we will make a recommendation
within the next fourteen days.
23
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember �w'� `wUt'�_ moves, Councilmember i" .�.
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through N be approved.
Discussion
t .
Action
r
"J 3A. Approval of Minutes.
\ Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
July 17, 1990.
j,�V 3B. Approval of Bills.
'21 Approval of payment of the bills received through August 3 , 1990
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
2:00 p.m. on August 14 , 1990.
X ' Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/16 - 7/30 94316 - 94336 114 , 808. 01
7/31/90 94338 - 94989 1,399 ,932 . 37
1,514,740. 38
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/20/90 138639 - 139430 836, 308 . 40
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
July 17 , 1990
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, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator Chow, Acting
City Attorney Williamson, Planning Director Harris, Public Works
Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederiksen,
Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Information Services Director
Spang, Finance Director McCarthy, Personnel Director Olson and City
Clerk Marie Jensen. Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance.
Approximately 30 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
COMMUNICATIONS National Recreation and Parks Month Mayor Kelleher
read a proclamation declaring the month of July as
National Recreation and Parks Month in the City of
Kent. He urged all citizens to support and promote
this observance by participating in Kent Parks and
Recreation programs, including the International Air
Balloon Classic on July 20 and 21, 1990.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B)
National Night out.'
ut Mayor Kelleher read a procla-
mation declaring Tuesday, August 7 , 1990 as National
Night Out in the City of Kent. He called upon all
citizens of Kent to join the Kent Police Public Edu-
cation Unit and the National Association of Town
Watch in supporting and participating in the 7th
Annual National Night Out.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C)
Centennial Quilt Mayor Kelleher introduced Joanne
Virgillo, Denise Good, Kathe Jorgenson and Nancy
Jones of the Kent Federated Womens Club. The Mayor
noted that 3 years ago the Federated Womens Club
wrote letters to community leaders asking them to
submit a design for a community quilt in honor of
the centennial . He noted that the designs have now
been transformed into squares for the quilt. The
quilt was then presented to the City, and it will be
displayed at the Senior Center.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items 3A through
CALENDAR 30 be approved. Item 3P has been removed at the
request of Councilmember Dowell . Johnson seconded
and the motion carried.
1
July 17, 1990
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the
regular Council meeting of July 3 , 1990 .
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
SANITATION Fred Meyer. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and war-
ranty agreement submitted by the Roundup Company for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximate-
ly 628 feet of water main extension, 609 feet of
street improvements and 1, 719 feet of storm sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of
S .E. 240th and 100th Ave. S .E. for the Fred Meyer
store, waiver of the one-year maintenance period and
release of the cash bond.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Hemlock Acres No. 17 . ACCEPTANCE of the bill of
sale and warranty agreement submitted by Sunset
Enterprises, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 522 feet of water main
extension, 495 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 534
feet of street improvements and 353 feet of storm
sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of
114th Place S .E. and S .E. 240th street for the
Hemlock Acres No. 17 project and release of the cash
bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance
period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Hunters Run Too. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Schneider Homes,
Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 851 feet of sanitary sewer improve-
ments constructed in the vicinity of S .E. 229th and
116th Ave. S.E. through the Hunters Run Too project
and release of the cash bond after expiration of the
one-year maintenance period.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Wildberry. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and war-
ranty agreement submitted by Classic American Homes
for continuous operation and maintenance of approxi-
mately 1, 319 feet of water main extension and 2 , 801
feet of sanitary sewer improvements constructed in
the vicinity of S. 233rd Place and 94th Ave. S. in
the plat of Wildberry and release of the cash bond
after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
2
July 17, 1990
HEALTH AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
SANITATION Shannon Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
and warranty agreement submitted by Terhune Homes,
Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 607 feet of water main extension, 246
feet of sanitary sewer extension and 398 feet of
storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity
of S. 272nd St. and 46th Ave. S . of the Shannon
Short Plat and release of the cash bond after expi-
ration of the one-year maintenance period.
WATER (CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS - ADDED ITEM 6A)
Kent Springs Transmission Main. Charles Kiefer
stated the City's DNS statement was not sent to the
Army Corps of Engineers in April, 1988 and noted
that Kent operated under the 1984 version of SEPA.
He stated that his attorney and Jim Harris had ex-
changed letters and asked that these be made a part
of the record. A motion was so made and passed, but
no letters were received by the City Clerk.
Williamson briefly described the background, clari-
fying that the Corps erroneously advised the City
that it did not have jurisdiction over any portion
of the project. Now the Corps has changed its stand
and that there was no intended misrepresentation on
the part of the City or the City's consultant. At
this time the Corps has jurisdiction over a portion
of Phase II of the project. The bid award was
therefore withdrawn and a new call for bids is to be
advertised for Phase I of the project.
He asked that the SEPA official , Jim Harris,
incorporate, by reference, the earlier DNS, now in
the possession of the court, for Phase I of the
project, which contains no wetlands . Williamson
noted that Harris ' earlier letter addressed the
reconsideration issue. He stated that he will
respond to the letter sent by Kiefer' s attorney and
suggested that that response be made a part of the
record. Harris stated that he had responded to
Kiefer' s attorney. Kiefer asked to have the techni-
cal terms of the Washington Administrative Code
(WAC) explained and Mayor Kelleher asked Williamson
to meet with Kiefer.
It was clarified for Kiefer that the annexation laws
permitted the City to annex Kent Springs in 1984
without a public hearing.
3
July 17 , 1990
TRAFFIC (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
CONTROL Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan 1991-1996.
This date has been set for a public hearing on the
update of the City' s Six Year Transportation Im-
provement Plan. Marty Nizlek, Transportation
Engineering Supervisor, noted that they had looked
at traffic safety, traffic congestion and traffic
signals, and that the first year of the plan in-
cludes the new corridor projects. The Mayor opened
the public hearing. Charlie Kiefer, 10926 S .E 274
Street, voiced concern about the number of stop
lights on the Crow Road bypass. White explained
that the stop lights allow north-south traffic to
cross. Kiefer asked that the City study the busi-
ness bypass before adopting the plan. Upon a
question from Johnson, Kiefer noted that he is not
in favor of the 277th corridor. John Kiefer en-
couraged the City to study the 264th bypass issue.
Wickstrom noted that Items 6 and 13 in the plan
refer to the business bypass.
Tracy Faust, 5216 S . 212th, requested that a traffic
bulge be placed at Frager Road to slow traffic. She
noted that a traffic signal would back up traffic.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the
motion carried. WHITE MOVED that Resolution 1251 be
adopted approving the 1991-1996 Six Year Transporta-
tion Improvement Plan. Woods seconded. White
explained that this is an on-going plan, and that he
will pursue tonight' s suggestions with staff at
committee meetings. The motion then carried.
REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Kent East Corporate Park Rezone No. RZ-90-4 . This
meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner ' s condi-
tional approval of an application by Trammell Crow
Company to rezone a portion of a 43 acre site from
GWC, Gateway Commercial , to M-2 , Limited Industrial .
The property is located generally south of S . 212th,
east of 84th Ave. S . , north of S. 218th St. , and
abuts the west side of SR 167 . Planning Director
Harris pointed out the location on the map and de-
scribed the rezone request. JOHNSON MOVED to accept
the findings of the Hearing Examiner to adopt the
Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of the
Kent East Corporate Park Rezone No. RZ-90-4 with one
4
July 17 , 1990
REZONE condition and to direct the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary ordinance. White seconded and the
motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
South 212th St. Rezone No. RZ-90-2 . This public
meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner' s recom-
mendation of denial of an application by Lawrence M.
Campbell to rezone 7 . 76 acres from CM-1, Commercial
Manufacturing, to M-2 , Limited Industrial . The
property abuts the south side of S. 218th St. from
approximately 820 feet east of 84th Ave. S . to the
Drainage District No. 1 drainage ditch.
Mr. Campbell has filed an appeal, which is shown as
Public Hearing Item No. 2A.
Harris clarified that the Hearing Examiner's recom-
mendation is for denial . JOHNSON MOVED to accept
the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to adopt
the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of denial of
S . 218th St. Rezone No. RZ-90-2 . Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
REZONE APPEAL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
Appeal - S. 218th St Rezone.-
ezone This public hearing
was scheduled to consider an appeal by Lawrence M.
Campbell from the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation
of denial of an application as described above. The
City Clerk noted that on this date Mr. Campbell sub-
mitted a letter to withdraw the appeal, and the
Mayor so ordered. The letter has been filed for the
record.
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
AMENDMENT Tree Preservation Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance
2932 modifying the tree preservation ordinance,
amending Ordinance 2452 , as approved by the Council
at the July 3 meeting.
FINAL PLAT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Hemlock Acres No. 17 Final Plat No SV-88-3 AUTHOR-
IZATION to set August 7, 1990 for a public meeting
to consider the Hemlock Acres No. 17 final plat. The
property is approximately 4 . 15 acres in size and is
located on the north side of S. 240th St. approx-
imately 500 feet west of 116th Ave. S .E.
5
July 17 , 1990
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Drinking Driver Task Force. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of a
contribution in the amount of $200 from Kent .Valley
Youth Services for the 1990 Youth Conference.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
Solicitation for Purchase of Narcotics. ADOPTION of
Ordinance 2933 making it a crime to offer to sell or
purchase narcotics.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
Sole Source Purchase of Electronic Home Detention
Equipment - Resolution. APPROVAL of Resolution 1252
authorizing the Mayor to sign resolution relating to
the sole source purchase of Electronic Home Deten-
tion (Home Arrest) Equipment for the Kent Police
Department as recommended by the Public Safety Com-
mittee.
The Kent Police Department Corrections Division has
been authorized the purchase of certain in-house
monitoring system equipment. It has been concluded
that there is only a single regional source of
supply and manufacture of this system, and that such
company is also the only source capable of providing
for maintenance, parts, service, training and war-
ranty work on such system.
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL
City Attorney's office Staff. AUTHORIZATION to hire
outside legal assistance and secretarial support to
provide prosecutors ' s services on an interim basis
pending the hiring of a permanent City Attorney.
Based on expenditures to date the Finance Department
believes these expenditures toaling $19 , 457 for the
interim period can be covered within the existing
budget. Full analysis upon the hiring of a perma-
nent City Attorney may require additional budget
authorization.
Upon Dowell ' s question, Williamson said that the in-
terim personnel will be able to handle the present
caseload. Houser noted that this had been discussed
at the operations Committee meeting. She also stat-
ed that it is their desire to have the new City
Attorney hire the prosecutor. Williamson stated
6
July 17, 1990
PERSONNEL that he has hired Ann Orcey on a temporary contract
basis for $15. 00 per hour, and that there will be
another attorney hired for $14 . 00 per hour. He
noted that he had recently received a letter inform-
ing him that there will be a double set calendar on
Mondays from now on and that the public defender
contract did not anticipate this. Therefore, the
amount is not reflected in the $19, 457 figure, but
Williamson will try to work it out administratively
within the budget if possible.
DOWELL THEN MOVED for approval of Item 3P. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
CITY HALL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
Window Washing Contract. As recommended by the
Operations Committee, AUTHORIZATION to sign an
agreement with Quality Building Maintenance for
window washing services at City Hall, Library, Shops
and the Senior Center Building.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
Elevator Service Contract. AUTHORIZATION to have
the Mayor sign a renewal contract with A & M
Elevators, Inc. for maintaining elevators at a cost
of $2 , 736 annually as recommended by the Operations
Committee.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
Council Chamber Sound System Bids. Bids received
for the Council Chamber sound system are as follows:
Muzak $ 9, 866 . 00
Dimensional Communications 9 , 867 . 00
London Controls 10, 776 .96
Atronics 11, 101 . 00
Electrocom 14 , 962 . 00
Muzak bid the system as specified by the consultant,
without changes, and it is recommended that this
bid, as low bid, be accepted. HOUSER SO MOVED.
White seconded and the motion carried.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2C)
1991 City of Kent Budget. This date has been set to
receive public input for items to be considered in
developing the 1991 Budget. The input will be in-
cluded with department requests for Council prior-
itization at an all day work session on August 9 at
7
July 17 , 1990
BUDGET the Kent Senior Center. Finance Director McCarthy
noted the calendar of meetings and future hearings
'involving the budget. The Clerk noted receipt of a
letter from the Chamber of Commerce, copies of which
were distributed to the Council . The public hearing
was opened by Mayor Kelleher. Suzette Cook stated
that the Chamber recommended that the reserve fund
be allowed to grow so as to total 12% of the City' s
budget. She noted also that the City should con-
sider supporting, through a contingency fund, a
program for youth, such as the School District' s
"Youth at Risk" program.
There were no further comments from the audience and
the hearing was closed. It is proposed that addi-
tional hearings on the budget will be held at
Council meetings of August 21 and November 6.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills
received through July 20, 1990 after auditing by the
Operations Committee at its meeting at 2 : 00 p.m. on
July 24 , 1990 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
6/29 - 7/13/90 93799 - 93819 $ 247 , 378 .99
7/16/90 93820 - 94315 2 , 685 , 160. 40
$2 , 932 , 539 . 39
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
7/5/90 137856 - 1.38638 $818 , 777 . 28
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Central Telephone System Upgrade. APPROVAL to
transfer $80, 000 from 1991 CIP accounts to 1990, to
City Hall upgrade the City' s central telephone system as
recommended by the Operations Committee. Due to new
construction, growth and remodeling of existing
facilities, the existing central telephone system is
rapidly approaching its capacity levels.
8
July 17, 1990
FINANCE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
CLID 328/334 Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract.
Finance Director McCarthy noted that the City' s Bond
Counsel has prepared Ordinance 2931 , providing for
the issuance of bonds for Consolidated Local Im-
CLID 328/334 provement District 328/334 in the amount of
$1, 697 , 303 . 49 . These bond proceeds will be used for
the construction of improvements on West Valley
Highway between S. 189th and 212th St. and for a
sanitary sewer line improvement in the neighborhood
of 121st Ave. S.E. and S. E . 276th St.
Approval of the purchase contract with Shearson
Lehman Hutton, Inc. is a part of the ordinance. The
Operations Committee and the Finance Director have
recommended approval . HOUSER MOVED to adopt Bond
Ordinance 2931 and to authorize the Mayor to sign a
purchase contract for CLID 328/334 with Shearson
Lehman Hutton, Inc. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
EXECUTIVE At 8 : 30 p.m. the Mayor called an executive session
SESSION to last approximately 20 minutes regarding litiga-
tion. At 8 : 50 p.m. the executive session was
extended for another ten minutes.
The Council reconvened at 9 : 00 p.m. and Interim City
Attorney Williamson suggested that an appropriate
motion would be to dismiss certain claims with
prejudice and to strike a trial date in the matter
of Embar Kent Limited Partnership versus the City of
Kent. This would essentially consolidate this case,
which is an existing King County Superior case, with
another sister companion case with which this case
should have been joined. It would, in effect, bind
the parties to the outcome of the current case in
the Court of Appeals, which is Kentview Properties
versus the City of Kent. It would dismiss damage
and taking claims against the City with prejudice,
upon entry of that order and it would, in effect,
allow the trial court to continue its jurisdiction
so it could examine the binding effect of the Court
of Appeals ' decision.
He clarified for Mayor Kelleher that the two cases
are hearing the same issues . WOODS MOVED to pursue
the action described by Williamson. Johnson second-
ed and the motion carried .
9
July 17 , 1990
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 05 p.m.
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
10
e Kent City Council Meeting
Date_ August 7 , 1990
11 Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EXCUSED ABSENCE FOR COUNCILMEMBERS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to excuse the absence of
Councilmember Christie Houser from the August 7, Council meeting.
to excuse absences for Councilmember Judy Woods for the
August 21 and September 4 Council meetings.
Both Councilmembers will be out of town on those dates.
3 . EXHIBITS: ne
4 . RECOMMENDED BY
(Committee, taff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL OTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRE $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
M E M O R A N D U M
To: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
DATE: JULY 30, 1990
SUBJECT: EXCUSED COUNCIL MEETING ABSENCE
Since I will be out of town on August 7th, the next City Council
meeting, I am requesting an excused absence from that meeting.
Thank you for considering this request.
CH:jb
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS /�fQ✓J Nk
FROM: JUDY WOODS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
U
DATE: JULY 25, 1990
SUBJECT: EXCUSED COUNCIL MEETING ABSENCE
Since I will be out of town on August 21 and September 4 , 1990, I
am requesting an excused absence from the City Council meetings
scheduled for those dates.
Thank you for considering my request.
JW:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 , 1990
+ ' Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATIONS
2 . UMMARY STA ' As regnmmended by the Opera`t'ons-'
Committe pproval to implement0`reclassi ica�ion recommendation
in ings of Bill Ewing & Associates, effective September 1,
1990/ The findings identified 72 positions currently working
of their present position classifications. The cost to
adjust the present internal salary inequities within the City,
effective September 1, 1990 through the end of the year would be
$44,982.
I
3 . EXHIBITS: Department memo/fiscal note
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Pers nnel Department, Administration IBC
Operations Committed 7-24790
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCA PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES h
P
FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended /_rji\ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $44 , 982
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Funding absorbed by Departmental
Bud ets Gener 1 Fund
7. CITY COUNCI ACTION:
Councilmemb r moves, Councilmember seconds
1
DISCUSSION•
i
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
4101
_3`2tr
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 24 , 1990
TO: operations Committee
FROM: Don E. Olson, Jr. , Personnel Director
SUBJECT: Reclassifications
----------------------------------------------------------
Administration supports the fact that all employees should be
compensated consistent with other employees having the same or
similar job duties and responsibilities. We also support the
concept of internal equity, within fiscal reasonableness, among
positions regardless of their location within the City. Ewing and
Company, through the reclassification process has presented
Administration with a comprehensive organizational analysis, along
with recommendations that purports to rectify the internal equity
issues between positions and within departments throughout the City
of Kent.
Ewing analyzed 110 positions and recommended 72 of the positions
for reclassification. The following is a breakdown of positions
and cost by departments:
Department Total Positions Cost
Finance 9 Positions 5, 198 . 00
Public Works 31 Positions 20, 440 . 00
Information Svc 4 Positions 2 , 476. 00
Law 2 Positions 584 . 00
Fire 3 Positions 708 . 00
Administration 9 Positions 7 , 840 . 00
Planning 1 Position 472 . 00
Parks 11 Positions 6, 456 . 00
Police 2 Positions 808 . 00
Total 72 Positions 44 , 982 . 00
Subject: Reclassification - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Jim Hansen, Assistant City Admini^s rator
Tony McCarthy, Finance Director�fv\
On July 24th, the personnel department presented the observations
and recommendations from Bill Ewing and Associates concerning the
compensation inequity within City departments. Ewing and
Associates recommended 72 reclassification out of 110 positions
studied.
This years negotiated contracts between the City of Kent and
represented unions provides employees with the right to request
that their positions be reclassified when it becomes necessary in
order to meet the prevailing rate for similar positions, to
recognize major changes in functions or responsibilities and to
align salaries within the bargaining unit in order to correct any
inconsistencies.
The total cost to come into compliance for this year with the
contract agreements and personnel policies for represented and non-
represented classifications is $44 , 982 . Most of the cost for the
reclassification can be contained within present departmental
budgets with overruns to be absorbed by the existing general fund
appropriation City wide. The Informal Budget Committee recommends
implementation without a budget change.
>I �` Kent City Council Meeting
Date Auctust 7. 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC SHELTER
2 . §UMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Parks Committee
thorization to accep p - FusseYi R ad-Picnic
Shelter project, and to release retainage to Golf Landscaping
upon receipt of state release
3 . EXHIBITS: Fiscal note, change order Owing reason for change.
/
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee arks Department
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, C mmission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCALfPERSONNEL NOTE: Rec mmended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 759
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7Kent- erson Peace Park unex ended ro 'ect
funds
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTICouncilmemberves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
_ l
ACTION• I
j Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
TUE l E E l GiiLF LAND = CAP Z NG I NC -
r
� 11 LANb5 PING �
CONS CTION,.ING
May 11, 1990
City of Y.ent
220 4t•h Ave. So.
Kent . WA. 98032
Attention: lielen Wickstrom
RE: Russell Road Picnic Shelter additional cost breakdown.
Redesign and build new foundation, remove unsuitable material and replace with acceptable
material.
Reason for changes City inspection rejected original design due to unsuitable soil conditions.
i
$ 150.00
i, New design- Mortier Engineering
2. M<iterlels;
36' Sauna tube 0 $1,20 per footm$43.20
500' 14 Reber @ $.15 per footw$75,00
125,40
1oo0 Rebar ties 0 $7 20
12.54
Mark-up @ 10%•$12.54
3. Additional Labor: 3/27 thru ,3/30/90
Laborer 45 hours @ $18,00 per hour■ $810,00
1,188.00
Lead man 14 hours @ $27.00 per hourxS378 00
Markup on labor 0 20%•$237 60
237.60
4, Equipment w/operator
580 Case backhoe 24 hours @ $50,00 per hour•$1,440,00
1,440,00
05 00 605.00
450 Dozer 11 hours @ $55,00 per hour`'$6
5. Special concrete inspection, Otto Rosenau & Assoc. $543,00 A/C
$3,750,S4
TOTAL
CONTRACTORL —'
OW
R
�ICKSTROM,HELEN / KENT70/PK - HPDesk print.
-------------------------------
Dated: 06/26/90 at 1538 .
Message.
'�ubject: RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC SHELTER - FISCAL
NOTE Contents : 3 .
ender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN
10: Helen WICKSTROM / KENT70/PK
?art 1.
TO: Helen WICKSTROM / KENT70/PK
Part 2 .
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE PARK COMMITTEE ON 7/11 . AS WE DISCUSSED IT
DOES NOT NEED TO GO TO OPERATIONS COMMITTEE SINCE WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE
TOTAL BUDGET OF THE PARK CAPITAL PROJECT FUND. THE FULL COUNCIL SHOULD
APPROVE THE BUDGET CHANGE AS PART OF THEIR MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT.
Part 3 .
THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING A BUDGET CHANGE ON THE RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC
SHELTER PROJECT. THEY IDENTIFIED THAT BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST TO THE IBC ON MAY
21, 1990 AND NOTED THEY FELT THEY COULD COVER THE BUDGET CHANGE WITH
UEXPENDEDANREJECTIONFOFDTHER ORIGINAL EDESIGNRBYN CITY K CHANGE PROJECT. THE
INSPECTORS DUE TO UNSUITABLE SOIL.
AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST, IT WAS DISCUSSED AT IBC BUT ACTION WAS DEFERRED
UNTIL THE KENT-KHERSON PEACE PARK UNDERRUN COULD BE GUARANTEED. THE PARK
DEPARTMENT FEELS CONFIDENT THAT $3 , 759 IS AVAILABLE IN THE KENT-KHERSON PROJECT
TO COER THE RSSLL TER
TO BEVAPPROVEDUTOE ACCEPT DTHE CPROJECT NIC LAND MAKE GFINAL E CHANGER. THE
PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR.
THE IBC SO APPROVES .
S LJ
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC SHELTER - FISCAL NOTE
-.ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 06/26/90 at 1454 .
FROM: ED CHOW
THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING A BUDGET CHANGE ON THE RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC
SHELTER PROJECT. THEY IDENTIFIED THAT BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST TO THE IBC ON MAY
21, 1990 AND NOTED THEY FELT THEY COULD COVER THE BUDGET CHANGE WITH
UNEXPENDED FUNDS FROM THE KENT-KHERSON PARK PROJECT. THE CHANGE IS RELATED TO
A REJECTION OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN BY CITY INSPECTORS DUE TO UNSUITABLE SOIL.
AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST, IT WAS DISCUSSED AT IBC BUT ACTION WAS DEFERRED
UNTIL THE KENT-KHERSON PEACE PARK UNDERRUN COULD BE GUARANTEED. THE PARK
DEPARTMENT FEELS CONFIDENT THAT $3 , 759 IS AVAILABLE IN THE KENT-KHERSON PROJECT
TO COVER THE RUSSELL ROAD PICNIC SHELTER CHANGE ORDER. THE CHANGE ORDER NEEDS
TO BE APPROVED TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT AND MAKE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR.
THE IBC SO APPROVES.
� � ' Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RESOURCE CENTER KITCHEN REMODEL O
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to transfer $3,217 .80 from
the unexpended Kent-Kherson Peace Park project funds to cover an
overage in the Resource Center Kitchen Remodel project.
i
i
3 . EXHIBITS• None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Commi ee Parks Department
(Committee, Staff, Examin r, commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERS, NNEL IMPACT• NO YES X
FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT Recommended �j Not Recommended
v
6. EXPENDITURE RE UI D: $3 , 217 .80
SOURCE OF FUNDS: ent-Kherson Peace Park unexpended project
funds /
7. CITY COUNCIL CTION:
Councilmemb r moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSIOZ
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
Subject: RESOURCE CENTER KITCHEN REMODEL - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/01/90 at 1311 .
vTOM: ED CHOW
THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING A BUDGET CHANGE ON THE RESOURCE CENTER
KITCHEN REMODEL. THEY IDENTIFIED THAT BUDGET CHANGE REQUEST TO THE IBC IN
MARCH 1990. THE CHANGE IS DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS RELATED TO ELECTRICAL
AND PLUMBING CODE PROBLEMS DISCOVERED WHEN THE WALLS WERE REMOVED. KNOWING
THAT OTHER PROBLEMS MIGHT OCCUR PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE BUDGET
CHANGE REQUEST WAS DEFFERRED TO A LATER DATE.
WITH THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT AND THE COMPLETION OF THE KHERSON PEACE PARK
PROJECT. THE PARK DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE TRANSFER OF $3 , 219 FROM THE KENT
KHERSON PEACE PARK PROJECT TO COVER THE KITCHEN REMODEL CHANGE ORDER. THE IBC
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET TRANSFER.
l
" Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 335 - IMPROVEMENT OF 77TH AVE. S.
2 . SMRtARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set September 18, 1990
as ate forp/public hearing on confirmation of final assessment
roll for LID 335.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map /
I
I
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, ExamLMPACT:
ission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONN NO n YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Reco ended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: i
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
}
l
e 4TH T
S. 194%. ST
196TH ST �+ Q 3 196TH 3T
y % O
19
GQ• �/ u I INDUSTRIAL
c m AREA
v C
i jet
3 200TH 3T Dnve In The.
-
lq '
>
w IS 202ND ST
�
r
J �
}
Industtrisl Road CDS. 204 TH. ST. a ' y ,z
U Z <
U A 206TH ST
AE SPACE ` s 206TH 3 '.= s
m
INDUSTRY PrrFinR
Lot
1 6 S 20
1 \ 206TN fT
rtrlsl Road `\ Industriel Road
$ 12 L.I.D. 335
PPA
g OBRIEN - e 2127E
iELEMENTA E
SCHooL 4
O'BRIEN
s
W
y J
> >
< V
Firs$tat o 6 ~
9,216 th. ST• r <
z
r s 2
W
INDUSTRIAL
J ARE
A
w
C S. 220TK ST.
W t
r
e
S
> n 222
14
1':i' ii? i � F ` ♦'n er uh Station I S
12 7 _
11 12 18
14 13 !~
S226 TH AVE.-
iV
� I Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
t ) Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GOODWIN SHORT PLAT E
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Randall S. Goodwin for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 180 lineal
feet of waterline improvements; 445 lineal feet of sanitary
sewer improvements; 334 lineal feet of storm sewer improvement,
and 745 lineal feet of street improvements constructed in the
vicinity of 98th Avenue South & S.E. 248th Street for the
Goodwin Short Plat and release of the cash bond after expiration
of the one year maintenance. period .
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity m
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staf
(Committee, Staff,Lxaminer, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL NOT : Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember I moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
i
ST
<, � STH
NORT 'i x Zit=
/ KEN z" St zz T
INTC 6 = a 226TH
22 ST 22STH ! 2z7TM\ SE 22BTH P ST�>
ST L 22STH ST< SE 228TH
z + I M w ST w
n
229TN 329THS a
W aQ W PL �" �dh' STSE 230
>.
SE 231 mob ►" ST
I 231ST SE 231ST ST �j jr SE 231STmu
1PARS
pvt) ST w 230TH� O'(� ST zn ■SCI
ST < �• 1 '�f 232ND ST ow
S 232ND S 232ND 232ND ST SE -< E 2321
ST ST 'L.`• SE 232ND PL 232ND j ST
i x PL 0 4�
n g 94TH CT S _ J` '-' 1 �L^ J� y£ 23390<
STH 1 _bd" 1
s „ sf 236TH ST AVE
O a S 236TH
(Pvt) ST -
"'�WY °' z SE 236TH PL
�• > o ~� SE 237TH ST
LORD" < �pE+
WAY VAttEV s.237TH PLC ^ _
` 2381
Pvt \y� ' i �• r W ( ) (Pvt) SE 239TH ST
> > > = S238TN. �+s;� < F G w ST
N
< < 473 z 240 2 .l 8 17 o > SE TH 3T
a
L
+ST
m Ped O.0 gEAST HILL
WS 241ST ST ¢ EELCH�LTARY
D ;
< / <
S 242ND
E Z A ST yr
M RA E ST j YY
Z Z S ST3RD l7 + 6
SMITH Sr = S 44TH ,+
a SE 244TH
ST
GOODWIN
C
ST.JAM ES .s
SCH 0 SHORT PLAT
r4�1,9, ' '✓•�•'11r' WEILAND s 's W S 246TH
TACOMA STO +�O' ST 247TH > PL
n yCw CHERRY Ol (! O,P ST \\ x
r. > W
E DEAN o w HILL ST v. '.1- S 248TH ST''. SE + 248TH ST
ST <E MACLYN ST f';j.. i�••. `Rir• »
I w
q E OUIBERSON ST Jl • < j
' tg•til •.i
E SEATTLE .FW.ST
dSEATTLE ST •�. ••c. 516
♦+
I:Iwntil, r�111D$T �E CHICA00 9T 4� .• ''*F• S 1252NC T SE N0 ST\{C� ar�J��\.} >
sT E LAUREL srIK EAST HILL <
CENTER
V E HEMLOCK ST C 1'• T, �v'-tr`l F,F^th SE 252N1) $ w
RTER .i•'1KIn' Field ST yl
'OST z Y .L. .,.
IRIO '� E flISERT ST 3� _ 'Z $1S
POI
ST WW W W < M W 1� ✓;•✓1 KENT-MERIDIAN <
�� E W �t + Z S Y < �r� ,:;.,y �O iSR.H1. SCHOOL
WA IT » a ST 4
1.` .I y, �•, SE 256TH ST
91W Ilk< MAPLE A l `�",L �� 30 + r^ F a
+ G ST 1�• �. y It > >
fe
k'
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HOMECOURT HOTEL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Young Development Company for
continuous operation and maintenance of 2, 339 lineal feet of
waterline improvements; 1558.4 lineal feet of sanitary sewer
improvements; and 480 lineal feet of street improvements
constructed in the vicinity of South 212th Street and 64th
Avenue South for the Homecourt Hotel project and release of the
cash bond after expiration of the one year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
1
i
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Ex miner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PE ONNEL IMPACT: NO �/ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOT : Recommended Not Recommended
i
6. EXPENDITURE REO UI $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACT N:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
11
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
10 ; 11 12'
J
F
OBRIEN
I iELEMENTA
SCHOOL ,
a
_ < I\, Fir*Station
HOMECOURT TEL,/ _ EB
CY
,T k lid th. ST. ti
Sewa;;e
piti pi,sal( i '
Plant49
\
M /
I �
y i g S. 220TH 5T.
9
Po er SuG Station
10 11 11 12
15 14 S226 TH AVE. 14 13
uj
Q y S 227TH PL
Li = a
N Q I--
W = W IT z
L N
Q m 2 4 ^ 2:
_ � I
a SS
n INDUSTRIAL AREA
l I
s FF
6i
�FS�O
g F > eL
YO s. 23•T►+ F
ST
K NT
8 1978 PO ATO J,-�
1983 POPULA ION 241500 s J
< CLOuor ST
CREEN RIVER v�Fso 3 238TH s
F
ekto w
� 14
JAMES ST 14 13
Kent City Council Meeting
�1 Date August 7 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 330 77TH AVE. S.
2 . Y STATEMENT: As discussed with the Operations
Committee s 'assessmenta their July 24 mee in a o prepay th City
on LID 330 in the amount of $12,733 .41. The
City feels it would be appropriate to prepay this assessment
prior to determining the final bond sale amount thus saving
future interest costs and administrative costs.
Expenditures to prepay this assessment are included in amounts
set aside for annual LID payments each year for LIDS budgeted
for completion during the year but not used.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Finance Departmf�& IBC and Operations
Committee '
(Committee, Staff, Examiner,/Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PE 0 IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Re ommended '9f ', Not Recommended
VT'
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: 2 , 733 .41
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Counc lmanic Debt Service Budget
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
Subject: LID 330 PREPAYMENT
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/01/90 at 1309 .
'ACHED IS THE FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR LID 330, 64TH AVE S. STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
TIME TOTAL COST OF THIS LID AS IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS
$4,869, 549 . 16. THIS PROJECT IS UNDERWAY AND IS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED
THIS FALL.
THE SCHEDULE IDENTIFIES AUGUST 7TH AS THE DATE FOR ADOPTION OF THE BOND
ORDINANCE AND THE EXECUTION OF A BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT, BUT JULY 24TH
IS THE LAST OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING PRIOR TO THAT DATE. ALSO AS THE
SCHEDULE NOTES THE PREPAYMENT PERIOD FOR THIS LID ENDS ON JULY 20, 1990 .
THE CITY OWNS THREE PARCELS WITHIN THIS LID, THE TWO AT THE SEWERAGE LAGOON
TOTAL $815,473 . 63 , THE OTHER AT THE CITY SHOPS TOTALS $12 , 733 . 41. WITH THE
BOND ISSUE BEING A 15 YEAR ISSUE, THE NET INTEREST COST IS EXPECTED TO BE
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 7.7 PERCENT.
THE LAGOON PARCELS WILL BE FINANCED AT THIS RATE BUT THE IBC RECOMMENDS A CIP
BUDGET CHANGE TO PREPAY THE SHOPS PARCEL. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, IT
IS EASIER TO PREPAY VERSUS BOOKKEEP FOR 15 YEARS .
I,
4 � Kent City Council Meeting
Date Aucrust 7 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LAKE FENWICK
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to expend $260. 00 from King
County Bond Issue proceeds to cover recording fees and
administrative costs for the purchase of Tax Lots 44 and 215 at
Lake Fenwick.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letters from King C.6unty, deed, map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Com ittee Parks Department
(Committee, StaffZExa finer, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL NO E: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE U RED: $260 _
SOURCE OF FUNDS- King County Open Space Bond Proceeds
7 . CITY COUNCIL CTION:
Councilmemb r moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION/.
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
� J
King County
Real Property Division
Department of
Executive Administration
500A King County Administration Building
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
(206)296-7470 FAX 296-0196
June 22 , 1990
Alice Neiffer
City of Bent
Parks Administration
220 4th Ave . So .
bent , IqA 98032-5895
RE : County-owned Property at Lake Fenwick
Tax Lots 44 & 215 Sec . 27-22-4
Dear Ms . Neiffer :
Enclosed for your information is a cope- of the executed Deed for
the County ' s conveyance of the above referenced tax title
property to the City of Kent .
Please forward to this office a uarraiit in the amount of $260 . 00
made payable to "King County Finance . " Upon receipt , we will
record the Deed and forward the original recorded Deed to the
City at a later date .
If you have any questions , please cal. 1 Carol Thompson , Property
Management Section , at 296-7498 .
Sin rely,
Pearl McElheran
Interim Manager
C'I'
Enclosure : Deed
COPY
D E E D
The Grantor, KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Washington, for and in consideration of the sum of
TWO HUNDRED SIXTY AND N0/100 DOLLARS ( $260.00) , pursuant to King
County Code 4 .56.140, does hereby grant, sell and convey unto the
CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
the following described parcels of land, situate in the County of
King, State of Washington:
Tax Lot 44, Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M. - Portion of East 220 ft. of North 660 feet of
BE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section lying West of a line
parallel with and 40 feet West of East shore of Lake
Fenwick, LESS Coal & Mineral Rights
Tax Lot 215, Section 27, Township 22 North, Range 4
East, W.M. - Undivided 2/10 interest in following:
Beginning( at S.W. corner of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section;
thence East to centerline of Lake Fenwick County Road;
thence N.08-00-00 E. along said centerline 638 ft. ;
thence East I10 ft. to true point of beginning; thence
5.73-14-00 E. 67.24 ft. ; thence 5.16-08-00 E. to point
960 ft. South of North Section line; thence East 20 ft. ;
thence Northeasterly to point 370 ft. West of Fast line
of Section and East of true point of beginning; thence
West to true point of beginning.
Dated this 20th day of June 19 90
KING COUNTY, 14ASNINGTON
BY L
�irec
TITLE uiv e Administration
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that Jesus Sanchez signed this instrument,
on oath stated that he was authorized by the King County Execu-
tive to execute the instrument, and acknowledged it as the
Director, Executive Administration of Eing County, Washington
to be the free and voluntary act of said County for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated June 20, 1990
6J2n P C -.a O� %YTJ
NOTARY PUBLI in and for the State of
Washington, residing at Seattle
My appointment expires 9-15-92
Copy
SCRLFt I " =800 '
mQ
x �
:r
`` + i Q= UVEFIR FAY
f .. LAKE FENWICK PARK PROPERTY
�: ••' • ' . ._ /, PROPOSED ACDUISITION AREA
t
i PROPOSED TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
�I
� GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR
i
Ir
i
i
i
i
r
i
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
i
r
r
r
CITY OF KENT
L_RKE FENW I CK
TRAIL ACQUISITION RND DEVELOPMENT
�1 �l
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
VIA
Category ConsentCalendar
e' l�r)
1. SUBJECT: SPEED LIMIT CHANGE - WVH 6 1B
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance A3 changing the
speed limits from 50 to 35 mph on West Valley Highway between
S. 180th and 212th during construction.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee Staff
(Committee, Staff, E jaminer, Commission, etc5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: R commended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember mov s, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
5
I
iORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending Kent City Code Chapter
10.08.036 relating to streets and speed limits
on the West Valley Highway; declaring a
emergency warranting the protection of the
public health and safety through a temporary
reduction of the speed limit on a portion of
the highway during its construction and
improvement.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have previously set the
maximum speed limit on the West Valley Highway (68th Avenue South)
from the intersection of S. 212th St. to a point 370 north of
S. 190th St. to be 50 miles per hour, (Kent City Code [KCC]
10.08.036) ; and
I WHEREAS, The City is now engaged in construction and
improvement of a portion of the West Valley Highway between South
212th Street north to 190th Street, an area covered by the above
speed limit; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the construction, conditions have
been created on the roadway warranting a reduction in the speed
limit from 50 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour for safe and
reasonable vehicular operation; and
WHEREAS, restoration of the original speed limit is
contemplated after the completion of construction and installations
of traffic control devices, or in approximately four month's time;
and
WHEREAS, RCW 47.48.010 authorizes the governing body of a'
city to declare a lower maximum speed limit during periods of
improvement and construction on city streets; and
i
WHEREAS, this portion of the West Valley Highway
satisfies the definition of a 'city street' as set forth in RCW
47.04.010(6) , as a portion of a highway partly located within the
limits of the city of Kent; and
WHEREAS, notice of the effective date of the speed
reduction on this portion of the West Valley Highway has been
published in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation, to
comport with the notice provisions of RCW 47.48.020; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Kent City Code Chapter 10.08.036 relating to
speed limits on the West Valley Highway is amended as follows:
West Valley Highway
1 (68th Avenue South)
from point 583.7 feet north
of the intersection of
Morton Street (S. 238th)
to the intersection of
S. 212th St. 35 mph at all times
West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South)
from the intersection
of S. 212th St.
to a point 370 feet north
of S. 190 St. ((56) ) 35 mph at all times
Section 2. The improvement and construction by the City
on a portion of the West Valley Highway between South 212th street
and 190th Street have caused conditions warranting an emergency
reduction in the set speed limit from 50 to 35 miles per hour, in
order to protect and safeguard the public health and safety. This
speed limit reduction shall be in effect for a period of
approximately four months from the day a notice is posted
informing the public of the speed limit reduction on the affected
2 -
i
portion of the Highway, or until completion of construction,
whichever occurs first.
Section 3. The City Traffic Engineer (CTE) is hereby
authorized to immediately post a notice of the reduction of the
speed limit in a conspicuous place at each end of the affected
portion of the West Valley Highway, as contemplated by RCW
47.48.020, and at other locations, as appropriate. The CTE is
also authorized to communicate this action to the appropriate
office of the WSDOT District One Office, both for coordinative
purposes and supporting action by that agency.
Section 4. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
i
Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance are declared'
to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any portion of
this ordinance shall not affect the remainder, or the validity of
its application to other persons and circumstances.
Section 6. Effective Date. This emergency ordinance
I
shall take effect and be in force after such time of its final i
passage as provided by law and the CTE has completed the posting
as described in Section 3 herein.
I
I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
( ATTEST:
I
� MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
- 3 -
( Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK REZONEe-Re-"--#-
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance 493✓ approving
RZ-90-4 , rezoning a portion of 43 acres from GWC to M-2 for
Trammell Crow Co. This was approved by the Council on July 17 ,
with the condition as recommended by the Hearing Examiner.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
/J
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearinq Examine Council Staff
(Committee, Staff, ExYELINPACT:
Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSO NO >/ YES
FISCALLPERSONNEL NOTE. ecommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRE $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL A ON:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
7�
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, rezoning certain property located
generally south of So. 212th Street east of
84th Avenue South, north of So. 218th St. and
abutting the west side of SR 167, consisting of
approximately 8.7 acres within the City limits
of Kent, from the current zoning of GWC,
Gateway Commercial, to M2, Limited Industrial.
(RZ-90-4)
WHEREAS, on June 6, 1990 the Hearing Examiner held a
Public Hearing to consider the rezone of the property described in
the attached Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference and
proposed development of Kent East Corporate Park, Application
No. RZ-90-4; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Trammell Crow Company, requested
that the property be rezoned from GWC, Gateway Commercial, to M2,
Limited Industrial; and
WHEREAS, June 10, 1990, the Hearing Examiner recommended
approval of the rezone in the Hearing Examiner Findings,
! Conclusions and Recommendation for this rezone (RZ-90-4) ; and
WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was duly held on this matter
! on July 17, 1990 at which time the Kent City Council considered
the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
and additional public and Staff Report:; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner has concluded that the
( proposed rezone from GWC to M2 is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and the proposed rezone and development of the
site is compatible with development in vicinity of the site, and
the proposed rezone will not adversely effect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of Kent upon application
pursuant to mitigating measures to be imposed during the
development and environmental review process; and
f
!
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the Hearing Examiner's
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the Easthill
Corporate Park Rezone No. RZ-90-4; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
of the Hearing Examiner as set forth in the Findings for Easthill
Corporate Park No. RZ-90-4 for the City of Kent which is on file
with the Kent City Clerk are hereby adopted by reference as if
stated verbatim with the condition as contained in Section 2 below.
Section 2. The zoning for this site, located generally
south of So. 212th St. , east of 84th Ave. So. north of So. 218th
St. and abutting the west side of SR 1.67, and consisting of
approximately 8.7 acres and as more fully described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is
hereby changed from the current zoning of GWC, Gateway Commercial,
to M2, Limited Industrial, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant, Trammell Crow Company, shall demonstrate
a clear agency relationship to the owners of the property affected
by this rezone pursuant to Kent City Zoning Code 15.09.050(A.1.C.)
2. Applicant, Trammel Crow Company, shall satisfy those
conditions and mitigation measures as contained in a final
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (ENV-90-27) issued on
March 29, 1990, which are as follows:
A. Execute a no protest LID covenant for the future.
widening and improvement of So. 218th St. to industrial access
road standards (36 feet from curb to curb, curb and gutter,
i
sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage facilities, underground;
utilities and related appurtenances) .
- 2 -
i
I
i
B. Deed the necessary property to the City to
provide a half street right-of-way with the 50 feet for the entire'(
property frontage of 84th Ave. So. (this shall provide adequate
right-of-way for the extension of the northbound
acceleration/deceleration/right turn lane at 84th Ave. So. and
So. 218th St.
C. Deed the northerly 13.5 feet of all property
paralleling and abutting So. 212th St. to provide for the widening
of the street to City standards as noted in Condition 1 above.
D. Deed the necessary property to provide a
( right-of-way radius of 55 feet at the intersection of S. 218th St.
(land 84th Ave. So.
E. Deed the property necessary to provide a 50 food
; right-of-way radius for a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly
( terminus of So. 218th St. (adjacent to SR 167) .
F. The owner/developer shall provide an as-built byl
ilWashington License Land Surveyor locating the King County Drainage
District No. 1 Drainage Channel (Springbrook Creek) as it crosses
the subject property. Grant necessary easement to the City for
conveyance and maintenance of the creek. The width of the
easement shall extend landward from the top of the channel bank
15-feet perpendicular and parallel to the top of the channel bank
i' on each side of the creek.
i
G. Abandon and cap, in accordance with Washington
IiState Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements, the existing wateri
well serving the property including releasing the water rights
thereto back to DOE.
H. Such other conditions as may be necessary as then
(', extend of traffic impacts become more clearly known.
I
- 3
i
I�
Section 3. Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
Section 4 Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final
passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
I
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BILL H. WILLIAMSON, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
II
PASSED the day of 1990•
APPROVED the day of 1990.
i
PUBLISHED the day of 1990-
I
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance'
No._ , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8710-300
4 -
/ ,- Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR DRUG ACTIVITIES
2 . �&IIPARY-STA P: As ap roved b the Public Safet
Committee ot�June 1990 doption of Resolution
inc dl inu g a map of school boundaries and bus routes. he map
will allow implementation of enhanced penalties for unlawful
drug activities in those areas.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Pub is Safety Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
i
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL/ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
i
DISCUSSION: ]
I
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, approving a map as
the official record of the location and
boundaries of schools and school bus route
stops, as well as areas within 1,000 feet of
school bus route stops and the perimeter of
school grounds in order to implement enhanced
penalties for unlawful drug activities in those
areas.
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council acknowledges that the
Washington State Legislature has authorized increased penalties
for manufacturing, selling, delivering or possessing with the
intent to manufacture, deliver or sell controlled substances in a
school or on a school bus or within 1,000 feet of school bus stops
or the perimeter of school grounds under RCW 69.50.435; and
WHEREAS, in order to implement such increased penalties,
it is necessary for the City to adopt a resolution approving a map
as the official record of the location and boundaries of schools
and school bus route stops, as well as the areas with 1,000 feet
of the perimeter of all schools and school bus stop routes in the
City; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Attached Exhibit A is hereby approved as the
official map of the location and boundaries of schools and school
bus route stops as defined in RCW 69.50.435, as well as the areas
within 1,000 feet of such school bus route stops and the perimeter
of school grounds.
Section 2. A copy of this resolution and the map
attached as Exhibit A shall be filed with the City Clerk and
maintained as an official record of the City of Kent as required
by RCW 69.50.435(e) .
Section 3. A copy of this resolution and map attached as
Exhibit A shall be forwarded to the King County Council, who is
encouraged to take all steps necessary to direct that all
violations of RCW 69.50.435 be prosecuted to the fullest extent by
the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1990.
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 1990.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8440-300
2 -
1'
I
1 Kent City Council Meeting
'r Date August 7 , 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SALARY SURVEY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Personnel Department is providing
salary survey results, identification of fiscal impact and
recommendations for the implementation of the salary survey
conducted by Bill Ewing and Associates.
3 . EXHIBITS: Department memo, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Survey letter
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee and Informal Personnel
Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $91, 178 _
SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 7, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Don E. Olson, Jr. , Personnel Director
SUBJECT: Salary Survey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kent conducted a salary survey in conjunction with Bill
Ewing and Associates to review compensation levels with other local
municipalities within a 40 mile radius. The compensation element
of this study was conducted through a "market pricing" methodology.
The first step in the salary process was the selection of benchmark
classifications (Exhibit C) which met the following criteria:
1. The Classification was a good representative of an
occupational group, family or profession;
2 . The Classification could be expected to be found in other
organizations with about the same duties and
responsibilities;
3 . The selected classifications as a whole must represent the
entire array of classifications from highest to lowest
within the City of Kent.
Bill Ewing and Associates requested a copy of the most current
class specification for the classifications surveyed. Where
possible, the consultant was careful to compare the participants
classifications with those currently utilized by the City to assure
proper matching of classification content.
The consultant also requested information from each participant on
the minimum and maximum for the salary range relating to the
benchmark classification. In all cases, our analysis focused on
the midpoint of the salary range to which the benchmark
classification was allocated. This practice is consistent with
survey standards for public sector organizations. Since the salary
practices of organizations surveyed tended to vary considerably, we
elected to utilize the "MEDIAN" as the measure of central tendency.
The final results of the survey showed the City of Kent is
competitive in most areas of our compensation program with the
exception in the following areas:
Engineering Division 10 Professional Positions
Code Enforcement Division 8 Professional Positions
Legal Department 3 Assistant Attorney Positions
Planning Department 8 Professional Positions
Parks Department 9 Professional Positions
The fiscal impact of implementing the salary survey with benefits
for budget year 1991 is $91, 178 . With respect to the
implementation of a program such as this, we believe it is
important to consider the impact of salary range changes both on
the City's financial resources and the well-being of employees.
In order to ease the burden on both, we suggest the following
alternatives:
1. Implementation of the salary survey September 1, 1990,
fiscal impact $29, 224 .
2 . Implementation of the salary survey budget year 1991,
fiscal impact $91, 178 .
3 . Implementation of the salary survey over a two year span
on a percentage basis.
CITY OF KENT
SELECTED BENCHMARK CLASSIFICATIONS
EXHIBIT C
Accountant Systems Analyst
Accounting Services Assistant II Transportation Engineer
Accounting Technician Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic II
Administrative Assistant II Water/Environmental Quality Engineer
Administrative Secretary I Word Processing Specialist I
Adult Day Care Coordinator
Assistant Building Official
Assistant City Attorney II
Assistant Fire Chief
Budget Analyst
City Engineer
Computer Operator
Custodian I
Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager
Engineer I
Engineering Supervisor
Engineering Technician II
Financial Services Manager
Fire Apparatus Mechanic
Irrigation and Plumbing Technician
Lead Building Maintenance Worker
Legal Secretary II
Maintenance Superintendent - Utilities
Maintenance Supervisor
Maintenance Worker 11
Microcomputer Technician
Office Technician II
Park Security
Permit Specialist I
Personnel Analyst
Planner
Planning Manager
Police Captain
Police Records Manager
Printing Technician
Programmer/Analyst I
Public Education Specialist
Public Information Officer
Purchasing and Warehouse Technician
Recreation Program Supervisor
Recreation Superintendent
Survey Party Chief
C-1
June 6, 1990
Business
Address
Address
Attn: Personnel Director
To Whom It May Concern:
Ewing and Company is conducting a salary survey in conjunction
with the City of Kent, Personnel Department, for all levels and
units of our employees. Our survey includes comparable city
governments within about a 40-mile radius of Kent. In order for
the survey to be of maximum benefit to the City, we would
appreciate your participation in this process.
Enclosed you will. find:
1. A description of the classifications we are surveying -it
is vital that you respond only with information on
comparable classifications to assure the accuracy of the
survey data. The descriptions and information on
reporting relationships are included to aid in
determining comparability.
2 . The Survey Form - please complete this form as fully and
accurately as you can. Be certain to include the
position to which each of your classifications reports.
When returning this information to us, please be certain to
enclose:
1. A complete set of your most current salary schedules for
all levels of employees and bargaining units. Please be
sure to identify which are your normal steps and where
any longevity or seniority steps begin.
2 . Class specification for each comparable classification.
We utilize these to verify that the proper comparison has
been determined.
June 6, 1990
City of Kent
Salary Survey
3 . Please make ever, attempt to send us Your material by
June 22 , 1989 . This time line is extremely important to
the timely completion of this project and the meeting of
critical deadlines.
Thank you very much for your cooperation. We too have
received requests such as this and can relate to the potential
pressures this may put on you, so we want to thank you in advance
for completing this paperwork. Please contact Becky Fowler at 859-
3356 if you have any questions. We will be pleased to send you a
copy of the survey once completed, if requested.
Sincerely,
Don E. Olson, Jr.
Personnel Director
i
i
Kent City Council Meeting
i Date August 7, 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 17 FINAL PLAT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the final plat
map for the Hemlock Acres No. 17 final plat No. SU-88-3 . The
property is approximately 4 . 15 acres in size and is located on
the north side of 240th St. , approximately 500 feet west of
116th Ave. SE.
'r--h e re,, vn1 e,ce n o C&vA WL `o rn e-
aNd ►'evxte V o -tED -for t-t�
Ci Pf0�/Q �evV1 (0CK I�-cres �O l-7 `
at �jo.
Su —Xff-3 • 1Y'1 -4 n �i
Pnj j-41e rno -h' on Cap-r 'ed .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo and map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff approval
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
carr OF Wtttd
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 1, 1990
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HEMLOCK ACRES NO. 17 FINAL PLAT NO. SU-88-3
On February 7, 1990 the City Council approved Hemlock Acres No. 17
Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-88-3 , a 17-lot single family
residential subdivision. The site is located at the north side of
SE 240th Street approximately 300 feet west of 116th Avenue SE. A
number of conditions were part of the Council ' s approval. The
applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below:
A. Prior to recordation of plat:
1. The final plat linen shall bear a notation stating that
all residential structures proposed to be built on the
subject lots must conform to the solar access setback
regulations of the Kent Zoning Code.
B. Prior to the issuance of a development permit on any lot the
following must be constructed:
1. Deed to the City the southerly 7 . 5 feet of the subject
property as public right of way for the widening of SE
240th Street.
2 . Grant to the City an additional eight foot easement
paralleling the new south property line for utility and
slope purposes.
3 . Obtain City approval of detailed engineering drawings for
the following improvements and either construct and/or
bond for same:
a. Fully develop 114th Place SE as shown on the
preliminary plat with a minimum pavement width of
28 feet (as measured from the curb face) , curb and
gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, street signs,
storm drainage facilities, underground utilities,
and related appurtenances. The improved radius to
face of curb of the proposed cul-de-sac shall be
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
August 1, 1990
Page 2
RE: Hemlock Acres No. 17 Final Plat JSU-88-3
45 feet, and the improved radius of the curb return
at the junction with SE 240th Street shall be 35
feet.
b. Provide on-site detention in accordance with City
Drainage Code. Provide storm drainage facilities
adequately sized to convey peak storm flows for a
25-year six-hour design storm.
C. Extend City water to provide adequate domestic and
fire flow for all lots. A minimum six-inch main
size is required.
d. Extend gravity sanitary sewers to service all lots.
Provide easements to service adjacent properties if
determined necessary by the City.
MP:JPH:mp
N 89'44'30" W 306.87'
9-6.5-0' f -12-05.00'2CN
ry ry` 8-
5.3
7'
LOT 8 8,753 sq. ft. LOT 1010,573 sq. ft.
c 11,511 sq. ft.
Eo-
ui mi h5 k
Z
LT 7 o7.667 sq. ft. LOT 11 o O mo'8.097 qft,026 j N 1' pIn ? o s . .n
o O
z O 'p2"' " E 071' n 113.74
LOT 12Q
'� 8,904 sq, ft. Lnrorn^=
7,696 sq. ft. N O
W U m m O
m N 89'S9'S9" W o 25 25 N 89'59'59" W
o o
A
q N 120.41' 136.71'
m
0
LJ n Z A LOT 5 o LOT 13
ni 8,961 sq. ft. n 9,467 sq. ft. 00_ 1�0
I
�j Q o N N 76'06'09- W V v N 83'30'33' W
Q �.. m w 119C�f .30' n 138.29'
z z' ^ ! n
LOT 4 co m
(n Z Z to N 7,954 sq. ft. U / EASEMENT LOT 14 a
LLJ N W Q 1Q150 sq. ft. o f
N 7572's1 W u S N 73.0'3 o f
U 0 j z - r08.0j' 0' / ls$g7• W
Q n o
} Z' o to n LOT 15
W~ ~ D 0 1 7,636 s LOT 3 ft. n 11,723 sq. ft. A
' Q Q; 0 q No a o
W U =
O Q m N 89'59'59" W S 89'45'00" E N 89'48'02" W
w z 97.00' 1
s7.23' z 75.00'
W Y a Z o
CD 0
_ I LOT 2 0 0 0 LOT 16 I
7,760 s ft. 0 Lil o w 8,249 sq. ft. -,l I o
q' o °;
W o N 89'59'59" W -J M N 89'59'59' W
(n cVn j 97.00' N 97.20'
co LOT 1 m z 0 m m
0 ol
8.126' sq. ft. `t' p LOT 17 f" o
t o n o 0 8,193 sq. ft. �" t o
5' unuTY
o o I
ESAfT c. 25 25 15' UTILITY
�ESWT
71.91' 72.26' I.
b 244.17 T-- o --
N
SOUTH LINE SE 1 4, / SE �, SEC. 20
760.33' N 89'48'02' W 516.32' 2
SE 240TH ST
.C.17 S.E.CORNER SEC.
17 MONUMENT IN
CASE 2/10/89
LEGEND
-� SET CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE
I
July 19, 1990
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
The Kent City Council will be considering the Hemlock
Ares No. 17 Final Plat #SU-88-3 at the regularly
scheduled public meeting on Tuesday, August 7 , 1990 at
7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council Chambers.
On February 7, 1989, the Council approved the preliminary
plat with conditions as recommended by the Hearing
Examiner. �-e��
Marie Jensen, CMC
City Clerk
The Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation and the
minutes of the meeting are available in Kent Planning
Department for perusal.
The following parties of record were mailed this notice
on o 0 94U
DIPANGRA IO ANTHONY
23607 HWY 99 #1C
EDMONDS WA 98020
SOUND SURVEYING INC
22727 HWY 99 #110
EDMONDS WA 98020
LEBER JEANNE M/DIANE
11518 SE 240TH
KENT WA 98031
PLOEGMAN PETER
23637 116TH AVENUE SE
KENT WA 980331
SCARSELLA EMIL
11330 SE 240TH
KENT WA 98032
DIPANGRAZIO TONY
16729 NORTH RD
BOTHELL WA 98012
STOREY SALLEY
13610 SE 288TH
KENT WA 98031
r �\7
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7. 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL REZONE -96-3a
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval as of a
request by John Anderson and Associates, PS, Incorporated to
rezone a 2 .9 acre site from M2 , limited industrial, to M1C,
industrial park commercial suffix. The property is located on
the southeast corner of Vest Willis St. and 74th Ave. So.
Related to Public Hearing Item 2B.
3 . EXHIBITS: Request for reconsideration letter, dated June 13 ,
1990; the Hearing Examiner's letter dated June 27, 1990; Harris'
letter dated June 14 , 1990; findings and recommendations;
Hearing Examiner's minutes and staff report; Exhibit 2 (1 Healey)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. May 13 1990
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Approval with five (5) conditions.
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
To aecept/reject/modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to
approve/disapprove/modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
by approval of Willis restaurant and motel rezone No. RZ-90-3
with five (5) conditions and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:_
ACTION•
r , � t Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
Cop RECEIVED
LAW OFFICE5 Of
T'er¢uson J!li,i 1. •_ �,.
K OOLL CENTER BELLEVUF
500 - IOE"' AVENUE N.E., #2100 Kent. CM,/ Atiorney
BELLEVUE, wASHINOTON 96004 ^- 1 ,,...
NAOINE M. ZACKRISSON, AICP TELEX: 32-0382 FAX:(206) 454'S719
(216)453 1711
June 13 , 1990
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
Hearing Examiner
City of Kent
220 - Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Request for Reconsideration
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel RZ-90-3
Dear Mr. Hunter:
On behalf of the applicants in the above-referenced rezone, I
an submitting this request for reconsideration pursuant to the
Hearing Examiner ordinances and procedures for - the purpose of
modification of a condition. The applicants concur with the
recommendation and conditions of the Examiner' s report issued May
31, 1990 , with two exceptions concerning Conditions 4 and 5. The
request is to add provisions to Conditions 4 and 5 which grant to
the City some discretion in the approval of final design and
implementation of the project.
The bases for reconsideration are a) specific errors of fact,
law, or judgment, or b) new evidence which was not available at the
time of hearing.
A change in position by the Planning Department reasonably
constitutes new evidence and therefore :supports a request for
reconsideration.
1 . Condition 4 requires:
A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height shall be provided along the eastern
perimeter of the site to help establish a
visual and aural buffer between users of the
site and users of the adjacent Interurban
SEATTLE BELLEVUE ANCHORAGE
0e50146
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
June 12 , 1990
Page 2
trail. This condition is intended to provide
a' buffer between those using the site and the
users of the Interurban Trail, and to provide
visual buffers around the perimeter of the
site. (Conclusion #51 p. 4 , Hearing Examiner
report 5/31/90)
The Planning Department has indicated that they have reviewed
this condition and have determined that greater design flexibility
would provide opportunity for design solutions which may serve to
both protect the trail and improve on-site development. Therefore,
staff has suggested that the condition be modified to include
language granting the discretion to consider alternative plans
within the intent of the condition as written. In addition, the
site does not abut the Interurban Trail directly. There is a
distance of 37 ' between the eastern perimeter of the site and the
nearest point of the trail. A drainage Swale is located between
the site perimeter and the trail .
Given the generalized nature of the site plan that is part of
the consideration of an M1-C district, the need to modify the plan
in response to the conditions of the rezone, and the usual and
customary alterations which occur during the preparation of final
construction plans , it is reasonable to grant the Planning
Department some degree of flexibility in the approval of
alternative design solutions.
Therefore, we request that Condition No. 4 be amended to read:
A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth
along with a berm of at least three feet in
height, or a design alternative acceptable to
the Planning Department shall be provided
along the eastern perimeter of the site to
help establish a visual and aural buffer
between users of the site and users of the
adjacent Interurban Trail .
2 . Condition 5 provides that :
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in
its existing state and shall not be disturbed.
The applicant has proposed revisions to the site plan affecting the
drainage ditch. This revision would allow two small areas of fill
on the north side of the drainage ditch, with a compensating
065AO146
Mr. Theodore Paul Hunter
June 12 , 1990
Page 3
increase in the amount of water area provided in the southeast
corner of the site. (See attached site plan) . A minor
modification such as this provides for the retention of the parking
on the north side of the drainage ditch while still providing the
10-foot buffer.
This revised site plan preserves the majority of the
vegetation including all the mature trees on both banks . If the
vegetation and trees are preserved, the other functions can be
restored. The design includes replanting emergent vegetation for
biofiltration as well as shrubs for bank stabilization and habitat
in regraded and disturbed areas .
One of the principal concerns expressed by Planning Department
Staff at the hearing was the fact that the ditch in addition to its
intended function as part of the Valley drainage system, also now
provides habitat for local wildlife. Any modification of the
drainage ditch must be reviewed and approved by both Public Works
and the Planning Department who can therefore ensure that habitat
functions will be considered.
Both Public Works and the Planning Department have re-
evaluated the project and proposed modification and concur with the
request to modify the language of Condition 5 . This requested
change is consistent with the mitigation conditions attached to the
Determination of Nonsignificance issued January 23 , 1990 .
We request that Condition No. 5 be amended to read:
The drainage channel, and the associated
vegetation and wetland areas, shall be left in
its existing state and shall not be disturbed,
unless modifications are approved and
supervised by the Planning_ Department and
Public Works .
Very truly yours ,
FERGUSON & BURDELL
By: Nadine M. Zackrisson
NMZ : rlm
CITY OF
dF7QrIlC1[A
June 14 , 1990
Mr. Ted Hunter
Kent Hearing Examiner
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
RE: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL #RZ-90-3
Dear Mr. Hunter:
I have reviewed the request for reconsideration of the above-
referenced case. In a conversation with Nadine Zackrisson, I
agreed that the requested change to condition no. 5 is workable and
is thus supported by me.
Sincerely,
/�73h
Jame P. Harris
ning Director
JPH: ca
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859.3300/FAX#859-3334
MY Wwktnk
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF KENT
FILE NO: WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL #RZ-90-3
APPLICANT: John Anderson and Associates PS, Inc.
REQUEST: A request to rezone a 2 . 9 acre site from M2, Limited
Industrial, to Ml-C, Industrial Park-Commercial
Suffix.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the southeast
corner of West Willis Street and 74th Avenue S.
APPLICATION FILED: 3/21/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED: 2/1/90
MEETING DATE: 5/16/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 5/30/90
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Mary Duty, Planning Department
Gary Gill , Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Ronald R. Healey, representing applicant
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
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. The applicant desires to rezone 2 . 9 acres from M2 , Limited
Industrial, to MI-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix. The
1
Findings and Recommendation
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
#RZ-90-3
subject property is located at the southeast corner of West
Willis Street and 74th Avenue South. The applicant intends to
construct a 6, 300 square foot restaurant and 132 unit motel on
the site.
2 . The subject property is designated as "Industrial, with a C-
suffix" on the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map. The C-suffix
indicates a potential for certain commercial uses. The Valley
Floor Plan Map designates the subject property as "Industrial
Business Park" , with a C-suffix overlay. This designation was
approved as a Plan amendment by the Planning Commission in
November of 1989 in order to facilitate development of the
project associated with this request for a rezone.
3 . The subject property is currently undeveloped. Surrounding
property developments include a proposed office building to the
west in an M2 zone, the Foster Industrial Plat (Kent Center)
to the south, Willis Steet to the north and a railroad right-
of-way to the east. The office building and industrial park are
recent developments that have and will substantially change the
area surrounding the proposed rezone site as well as the site
itself through increased human activity.
4 . A drainage channel exists on the site. This drainage channel
has taken on the appearance of a natural wetland and, in fact,
was identified as such by the applicant' s consultant.
5 . Without landscaping, any devlopment on the subject property
would be clearly visible from the Interurban Trail, SR 167 ,
Willis Street and 74th Avenue South.
6. The development associated with the proposed rezone will add an
estimated 1 , 661 daily and 110 peak hour trips to the area. The
intersections in the area (at Willis Street and at S. Central
Ave. ) are at level F and will remain at level F even with the
traffic increases. Conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts
associated with traffic were applied at the time the State
Environmental Policy Act review and issuance of a Mitigated
Declaration of Nonsignificance.
7 . No one submitted evidence in opposition to the proposed rezone.
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Section 15. 09 of the Kent Zoning Code requires the Hearing Examiner to
use the following standards and criteria to evaluate a request for a
rezone. The Hearing Examiner can recommend approval of a rezone
2
Findings and Recommendation
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
#RZ-90-3
request only if he determines that the request meets the following
standards and criteria:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would
be compatible with development in the vicinity.
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated.
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment
of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone.
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
In addition, Section 15. 09. 050 requires the Hearing Examiner to
consider two additional criteria when evaluating a request for an M1-C
rezone:
f. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major
arterial intersections identified on the Comprehensive Plan Map
as being appropriate locations for commercial land type uses.
g. Rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature but shall
be based on generalized development plans and uses.
Conclusions
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Valley Floor
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates the site as "Indusrial
Park, with C-suffix" . The M2 zoning designation is consistent
with that Comprehensive Plan designation.
2 . The subsequent development of the site associated with the
proposed rezone would be compatible with other buildings in the
vicinity if certain conditions are applied to approval of the
rezone. The vicinity is becoming a commecial hub with a need
for services such as deli marts, bakeries, auto repair, and
office supply stores. The restaurant and hotel will fit into
the commercial activities developing on surrounding properties
if buffer zones are provided and pedestrian circulation systems
are developed.
3 . The traffic impacts associated with the project that may be
constructed if rezone approval is accomplished can be mitigated
through conditions already placed on the issuance of the
Declaration of Nonsignificance. Those mitigation measures
3
Findings and Recommendation
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
#RZ-90-3
include traffic studies to determine impacts, driveway access
restrictions, traffic signal participation agreements, cement
sidewalks, and implementation of traffic improvements identified
in the traffic study.
4 . Circumstances have changed since the last zoning of the subject
property. A 1986 study by the City on the West Valley
Industrial sites found that major intersections along the West
Valley Highway should be marked as possible locations for
commercial and service uses. The area was only recently
designated as IBP, C-suffix on the Valley Floor Plan Map.
Commercial development exists or is proposed around the subject
property to the west, south and north.
5. If appropriate conditions are applied, the proposed rezone will
not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of Kent. Conditions beyond those applied during
SEPA review are necessary to protect existing drainage areas,
provide a buffer between those using the site and the users of
the Interurban Trail, and to provide visual buffers around the
perimeter of the site.
6. The proposed rezone is close to the intersection of West Valley
Highway and Willis Street which is identified as a location for
appropriate commercial land use in the Vally Floor Plan.
7 . The proposed rezone is associated with a proposal for
development of the property into a motel and restaurant.
Development plans have been prepared and are part of the
application for the rezone. The rezone is not speculative in
nature in that development plans have been made known during
the rezone process.
DECISION
It is recommended that the application for a rezone of the 2 .9 acre
site from M2 , Limited Industrial, to M1-C, Industrial Park-Commercial
Suffix, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. For those peak hour trips generated from development of the
property under this rezone which are in excess of those peak
hour trips which would have been generated from development of
the property under its present zoning, the Developers financial
contribution to the 272nd/277th corridor project as a means of
providing partial mitigation of the traffic impact of the
development shall be calculated at 100 percent of the estimated
trip cost.
4
Findings and Recommendation
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
#RZ-90-3
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be constructed
to provide access to 74th Street, Willis Street, and the
development- to the south.
3 . Landscaping along the western and northern perimeters shall be
at least 20 feet in depth and at least 15 feet in depth along
the southern perimeter.
4 . A landscape strip of at least 10 feet in depth along with a berm
of at least three feet in height shall be provided along the
eastern perimeter of the site to help establish a visual and
aural buffer between users of the site and users of the adjacent
Interurban Trail .
5. The drainage channel, and the associated vegetation and wetland
areas, shall be left in its existing state and shall not be
disturbed.
Dated this 31st day of May, 1990
P�
THE DORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a 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.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal
to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision.
The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information
cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments
should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council.
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also
be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final
decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is
filed.
5
City of Kent - Planning Department
SRM ST Q
w >
cc
cc
J
N = O
W Z
m
Z
= SMITH 5T SMITH ST
ZT
HG7RR[SON ST
ST O MEEKER T
> GOWE ST
Z
aaa
w
0
ST
a
> CROW Ln
tw
_ ¢ a
w
> = w
m
Q
N
S 259Tt
APPLICATION NAME: Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
NUMBER: RZ-90-3 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from M-2, Limited Industrial to M-1C, Industrial Park Commercial Suffix
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
—` I • • rf gin t� •
min
0 FBI
I main.OEM
[ �i 0't• TWA 1 za_
t � w
.� via
i \ 11112111
` •• •
City of Kent - Planning Department
OT
'1111 iTM1► ii
T _) r 111 .�,�JLI.-I I �lr
,l �JI f
�1 I
Y, 1
APPLICATION NAME: Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
NUMBER: RZ-90-3 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from M-2, Limited Industrial to M-1C, Industrial Park Commercial Suffix
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the
convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the
official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to,
or relied-upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision.
These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the
event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies
of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings,
or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are
available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact
Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you
are interested in obtaining an official transcript.
aTYCFWtZd
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
May 16, 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, May 16, 1990 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council
Chambers.
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.
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL
Rezone
#RZ-90-3
Mary Duty, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Ms. Duty showed view foils depicting 1) location of the site, 2)
zoning of the site and zoning of the surrounding area, and 3) site
plan. Ms. Duty gave a brief history of the surrounding area.
Ms. Duty discussed the circulation element of the Comprehensive
Plan. Ms. Duty pointed out on the map the location of the
interurban trail in relation to the project site. Ms. Duty
mentioned the applicant is proposing parking along the interurban
trail. However, staff is recommending a ten foot landscaped area
and berm between the site and the trail . A video of the site was
shown.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
Ms. Duty continued discussion of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Duty
discussed the criteria that are reviewed when considering a rezone
request. Ms. Duty stated the City staff is recommending approval
with conditions. Ms. Duty stated Condition 5 delineated the
preservation of the wetlands on the site.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to testify.
Ron Healey, John Anderson & Associates, submitted to the record
(Exhibit 2) copies of the maps and narrative material. Mr. Healey
stated sheet #2 clarified the location of the interurban trail.
Mr. Healey objected to the condition for more restrictive
landscaping and a berm for the area next to the interurban trail
and between the subject property and the single-family residences.
Mr. Healey commented the single-family residences are approximately
200 feet from the Puget Power right of way. Further, the railroad
tracks are raised so the subject site is not visible from the
residences. Mr. Healey felt that people using the trail would not
object to the parking lot being located near the trail.
Mr. Healey commented sheet #5 showed the location of the drainage
ditch. Mr. Healey stated permission was asked to move a portion of
the ditch to the south. Mr. Healey commented that in the
preliminary plans submitted to the City the ditch was proposed to
be enclosed and tightlined across the property. At that time, City
staff felt there would not be a problem since the ditch was
tightlined coming to the property as well as tightlined on leaving
the property. However, as a condition of SEPA the ditch was to be
retained but could be moved with approval from the Public Works
Department.
Mr. Healey commented the ditch was not a natural drainage way but
a manmade ditch. Mr. Healey reviewed the rest of the submitted
material.
Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal comments.
Ms. Duty commented the railroad lines are to the east of the trail
and the subject property can be seen from the trail. The request
for landscaping is mainly to protect the trail from the impact of
this development.
Mr. Hunter asked if the City staff would recommend approval without
the requested conditions.
Ms. Duty stated approval would not be recommended.
Gary Gill, Public Works Department, talked about the drainage
ditch. Mr. Gill stated the drainage course has been there for some
time and is now an established wetland. Mr. Gill stated that when
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
the drainage work is constructed for the residential area, care
will be taken that the drainage ditch will not be impacted.
Kathy McClung, Planning Department, commented the modulation
requested is just to make sure the applicant will provide as much
modulation as possible since there was a difference between the
preliminary site plan and the site plan submitted with the
application.
Mr. Healey stated the original plan was made prior to meeting with
the City staff. The site plan submitted with the application is
similar to the original plan; however, the modulation is actually
greater.
There was no further testimony.
The public hearing was closed at 8 : 10 pm.
PARK PLACE RETIREMENT
Conditional Use Permit
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
#CE-90-6/#SMA-90-4
Kevin O'Neill, Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Mr. O'Neill showed some view foils depicting: 1) the location of
the project, 2) zoning of the property and surrounding zoning and
3) site plan submitted by the applicant.
Mr. O'Neill reviewed the criteria that must be considered when
assessing a conditional use permit application. A video of the
site was shown.
Mr. O'Neill discussed the shoreline management application.
Mr. O'Neill showed the fire lanes proposed by the Fire Department
and referenced condition #6 of the staff report. Mr. O'Neill
commented on the parking requirements for the project as well as
the public parking required by the City' s shoreline master plan.
Mr. O'Neill stated a five-hole linear golf course is proposed along
the Green River. The City is recommending approval with
conditions.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Ed Linardic, Architect, discussed the project. Mr. Linardic
mentioned some of the amenities that are being proposed.
Mr. Linardic showed some colored renderings of the site and the
location of the proposed golf course. Mr. Linardic agreed with the
City's recommendation of approval with conditions.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
May 16, 1990
John Stipeck, owner of the property, gave a brief history of the
project. Mr. Stipeck discussed the golf course; it' s about 700
linear feet. Mr. sti eck stated the project will be heavily
landscaped. Mr. Stipeck concurred with the City' s recommendation
of approval with conditions.
Mr. Hunter asked if there were any other comments.
Richard Olson supported the project.
Mr. Hunter asked for rebuttal comments.
Kathy McClung,
Planning Department, asked if the golf course can be
located out of the 50 foothad concerns about the use ot. Ms. McClung commented
fertilizers
the Department of Ecology
on the golf course and the effect on the shoreline area.
Mr. Stipeck stated the golf course is very small, more like a
putting green. Mr. Stipeck commented just a small portion of the
golf course is in the shoreline area and that could be moved.
Mr. stipeck stated the soil is very fertile and there shouldn't be
a need for a lot of fertilizers.
Ms. McClung stated that if the golf course was out of the easement,
the Planning Department would have no objections.
There was no public testimony.
The hearing was closed at 9 : 00 Pm-
4
KENT PLANNING AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF MAY 16, 1990
FILE NO: WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT & MOTEL, #RZ-90-3
APPLICANT: John Anderson and Associates PS, Inc.
REQUEST: A request to rezone a 2 .9 acre site located at
the southeast corner of West Willis Street and
74th Avenue South, from M2 , Limited Industrial,
to Mi-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Mary Duty, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I . GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is to successfully rezone a 2 .9 acre site from
M2 to Ml-C suffix. This proposal included a request to
amend the Valley Floor Land Use Plan Map and change the IP,
Industrial Park, designation to IBP, Industrial Business
Park and establish a C-suffix (commercial) node. The
Planning Commission approved this amendment on November 27 ,
1989 .
B. Location
The subject property is located on the southeast corr}er of
West Willis Street and 74th Avenue South.
C. Size of Property
The subject property is approximately 2 . 9 acres in size.
The developer intends to construct a 6, 300 square foot
restaurant and a 132 unit motel along with associated
parking and landscaping.
D. Zoning
The site is currently zoned M2 , Limited Industrial. The
property to the west, across 74th Avenue S. , is also zoned
M2 but an office building has recently been approved for
1
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
the site. Surrounding property to the south is 'the Foster
Industrial Plat (Kent Center) . A conditional use
application was approved in 1987 (#CE-87-2) to allow up to
70 percent of the floor area of Kent Center Buildings A,
B and c to be used for certain office, retail and service
uses. This property had previously been granted a
conditional use permit under Kent Center #CE-86-12 to allow
50 percent retail/service uses. The site abuts Willis
street to the north and a railroad right of way to the
east. A residential district is located further east of
the right of way.
II . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies
within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and
of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where
applicable.
III . PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. 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 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.
2
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
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. The
proposed application is within the area covered by the
Valley Floor Plan. Adopted in 1979, the Valley Floor Plan
provides policy statements that relate to development
within the valley floor area.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as
"Industrial" with a C-suffix designation indicating a
potential for certain commercial uses.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
GOAL 2 : Assure safe, convenient pedestrian movement within
and through Kent.
Objective 2 : Provide a network for safe, convenient
pedestrian movement throughout the
City.
Policy 1 : Vehicular and pedestrian circulation
should be separated in all portions of
the City where feasible.
Policy 2 : Sidewalks and adequate lighting should
be installed along all public roads.
Policy 3 : Provide pedestrian trafficway within
retail trade areas.
Policy 5: Provide pedestrian trafficways to and
from public transportation routes and
encourage public transportation to
intersect with established pedestrian
routes.
Planning Department Comment
The hotel and restaurant buildings proposed in this rezone
will likely produce a number of pedestrians moving from one
building in the development to another. A large number of
pedestrians will also be moving from the parking areas to
3
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
the various buildings. Additional pedestrian movement to
the development will originate from nearby developments and
Metro bus stops. Pedestrian safety should be considered
prior to development of the site. A planned on-site
pedestrian circulation system with connections to the
public sidewalks and Metro bus stops would address this
issue.
The proposed development includes a motel and restaurant
facility. These types of uses will generate a high volume
of vehicle traffic during the business day. To alleviate
some of the potential congestion associated with traffic,
the use of mass transit should be considered. Location of
a Metro bus stop within the development would provide easy
access to mass transit and possibly lessen the impacts on
the transportation system.
The site abuts the Interurban Trail to the east. The site
plan submitted does not reflect this. The proposal shows
parking along this property line without landscaping. If
this application is approved, a minimum 10 foot landscape
strip should be provided along this boundary and should be
bermed to provide a buffer to adjacent users of the
Interurban trail and adjacent residential uses. Provisions
should be made to allow public access to the Interurban
trail from this site.
NATURAL RESOURCES
OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL
RESOURCES.
GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems and protect
their aesthetic values.
Objective 1: Preserve and protect suitable habitat
for local species.
Objective 2 : Protect and enhance existing nesting,
breeding, spawning and feeding areas.
Policy: Where developed lands contain wildlife
landscaping for food and shelter,
encourage noninterference with wildlife
use of such landscaping.
4
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Comment
A well developed drainage channel/wetland is located along
the southern portion of the site. During environmental
review, it was noted that this shall remain as a natural
open drainage course unless an alternative equivalent,
meeting the approval of the Public Works Department, can
be provided. The applicant wishes to relocate the drainage
ditch further south of the site by adding additional land
to this property through a lot line adjustment. The Public
Works Director has tentatively agreed to this plan as far
as it will adequately take care of the drainage problem.
However, because of the significant and well-established
vegetation along the channel, creating an equivalent
alternative does not appear viable to City planning staff.
The applicant has provided a wetland assessment from a
consultant that describes this area as a Palustrine Open
Water wetland. Moving the drainage channel to the south as
indicated on the site plan, would require eliminating all
of the significant vegetation which currently provides
food, cover and habitat to local wildlife. As a condition
of approval of this request, the drainage channel, and
associated vegetation and wetland areas should remain in
its natural, undisturbed state. The applicant may be able
to utilize the channel/wetland for required biofiltration
and detention of storm water. The quality of the storm
water prior to leaving the site should be suitable for
discharge directly into the Green River.
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION.
GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial development.
Policy 1: Encourage planned retail-commercial
business development.
Objective 4 : Provide for the commercial services
needed to serve the industrial area.
5
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Comment
This proposal is the third rezone application received
city-wide since the C-suffix zoning went into effect in
March 1987 . The application location, at the southeast
corner of Willis Street 74th Avenue South, is consistent
with the intent of the C-suffix designation which is to
concentrate commercial and service uses at a major
intersection location, creating commercial nodes.
The commercial and service uses proposed in the application
include a motel and restaurant. These uses are permitted
in the C-suffix zone and compatible with light industrial
uses permitted in the Ml, Industrial Park, zoning district.
The rezone is proposed as one development to be constructed
in phases. Upon completion, the proposal will consist of
a concentrated development with a hotel and restaurant
serving the Valley Floor area.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as
"Industrial Business Park" with a C-Suffix overlay.
OPEN SPACE
OVERALL GOAL: INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF VALLEY LANDS FOR
A VARIETY OF OPEN SPACE USES WITHIN THE CITY OF KENT SPHERE
OF INTEREST.
GOAL 3 : Preservation of the open, rural qualities of the
valley to complement new development.
Objective 1: Landscaping with materials compatible
with the rural characteristics of the
valley.
Policy 1: Designate open space districts or
buffer areas between abutting land use
districts.
Objective 3 : Establishment of common-use open space.
Policy 1: Require industrially developed areas
to include open space features that can
6
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
accommodate some of the recreational
demand of employees.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed development will front on two streets:
Willis Street and 74th Avenue South. Because the site will
be so visible from the public streets, SR 167 and adjacent
residential uses, substantial landscaping should be
provided along all property lines. The landscaping will
provide a buffer, as well as provide an aesthetically
pleasing presentation of the development to the public
street.
As the valley east of the Green River develops, large areas
of what used to be open agricultural areas are replaced by
urban development. Due to the uses proposed for the rezone
area, a number of people are expected to visit or work at
the development. Open spaces within the development and
recreational needs of the users should be considered.
Providing public open space areas which would accommodate
some recreational demand of both users and employees would
address this concern. An area along the southern property
line has been retained per a SEPA condition to maintain an
existing drainage channel . This area will be utilized for
passive recreational uses.
It should be noted that a 10 foot setback of all impervious
surfaces is required from the top of bank of the drainage
channel and associated wet areas .
IV. HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject site is part of the original townsite of the
City of Kent which was established in 1889 .
B. Area History
It was not until recently that the property south of the
subject site developed as an industrial park. There are
plans to construct an office building west of the site
across 74th Avenue South.
7
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
V. LAND USE
The subject site is currently undeveloped.
VI . ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment on October 20, 1989 with
no conditions. A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was-
issued for the rezone request on February 1, 1990 with the
following conditions:
1. Due to the location of the proposal in an area where
the drainage system discharges directly into the Green
River, the owner/developer must provide 7-day storage,
on-site detention on the subject site. This equates
to 8 1/2 inches of water over the entire site.
2 . Provide oil/water separation and biofiltration of
storm water prior to discharge into the City system.
3 . The open drainage channel and wetland which crosses
the southern portion of the property shall remain as
a natural open drainage course unless an alternative
equivalent, meeting the approval of the Public Works
Department, can be provided.
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
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 .
8
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree
to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic
impacts resulting from the proposed addition.
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement to financially participate
and pay a fair share of the costs associated with
the construction of the South 272nd/277th Street
corridor project. The minimum benefit to the
aboye development is estimated at $150, 588 based
on 110 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving
the site and the capacity of the South
272nd/277th 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
272nd/277th Street corridor, which will provide
additional capacity for traffic volumes within the
area of the above mentioned development.
5. All driveway accesses to be restricted to 74th Avenue
S . No access shall be allowed on W. Willis Street as
shown on site plan.
6 . The developer shall be required to execute a traffic
signal participation agreement for the future
construction of a traffic signal at the intersection
of West Willis Street (SR 516) and 74th Avenue S.
7 . Construct cement concrete sidewalks for the entire
frontage of 74th Avenue S . and W. Willis Street where
they do not already exist. A pending latecomers
agreement may require payment of fees to the Foster
Company for improvements made to 74th Ave S. and W.
Willis Street which directly benefit the subject
property.
8 . A pedestrian circulation system (sidewalks) shall be
incorporated into the development connecting the
entrances of the motel and restaurant to sidewalks
along 74th Avenue S . and West Willis Street and
parking areas within the site.
9
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
WRZ-90-3
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Hydrology
The property is flat and subject to ponding and
seasonal flooding. The developer is required by a
SEPA condition to provide on-site storage of storm
water prior to discharge to the Green River.
2 . Vegetation
The site is covered with local grasses and trees.
Significant trees will be integrated into the formal
landscaping plan developed for the site.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to 74th Avenue which
is classified as a collector and has a public right-
of-way width of 60 feet while the actual paving is 36
feet. The average daily traffic count for 74th Avenue
is 1, 500.
2 . Water System
Existing 10-inch and 6-inch water main lines are
available to serve the subject property. The 10-inch
main is located adjacent to the proposal in
74th Avenue S. and the 6-inch water main is located
to the north of the proposal .
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main
available to serve the subject property. An 8-inch
and 72-inch sanitary sewer main are located adjacent
to the proposal in 74th Avenue South.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system is necessary to accommodate the
proposed development. At the time of development, the
developer will need to provide a collection and
conveyance system for storm water.
10
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
5. LID' s
The subject property is not covered by any existing
LID' s. The site is not subject to any proposed LID's
at this time.
VII. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use,
street system, flood control problems and comments from other
departments and finds that:
A. The Comprehensive Plan map designates the subject property
as Industrial Park. The Valley Floor Plan map designates
the property as Industrial Business Park.
B. The property is currently zoned M2 , Industrial Park.
C. The property is presently undeveloped.
D. Land uses in the area are primarily industrial to the south
and north, residential to the east and undeveloped to the
west.
E. The site has access via 74th Avenue S . and S . Willis
Street.
F. A storm water control system will be required at the time
of development.
G. The following standards and criteria shall be used by the
Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for
rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the
City Council determines that the request is consistent with
these standards and criteria.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
11
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Given the type of uses existing in the vicinity of the
proposed rezone and the high number of employees which some
of these operations have, the Planning Department feels
that the rezone proposal is compatible with land uses in
the area.
The Planning Department has some concerns about the bulk,
scale and design of the proposed project in relation to the
rest of the area. Offices and industrial buildings on the
west side of the railroad do not exceed one story in
height. On the other side of the railroad tracks are
single and multifamily uses that do not exceed two stories
in height. This project may be imposing on the
neighborhood, considering the four story building height
and size of the building. The Planning Department would
like to encourage the developer to incorporate some
features like tall landscaping, and building modulation to
ensure that this project is compatible with the rest of the
area.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Finding
The site has access to two public streets: Willis Street
and 74th Avenue S . It was determined by the City through
review of the environmental checklist that impacts would
be created on the street system.
Upon reviewing the checklist for this proposal, it was
determined that the project will cause additional
congestion at the intersections of S . Willis Street and
74th Avenue S. and S. 259th and S. Central Avenue. The
current average daily traffic on 74th Avenue S . is 2 , 800
trips with 20, 100 on Willis Street and 22 , 700 on
Central Avenue. The proposed development will add an
estimated 1, 661 daily and 110 PM peak hour trips to the
area. The current level of service at each of these
intersections is "F" . The projected level of service will
remain "F" due to the increased traffic from the
development and projected growth. Conditions to mitigate
these traffic impacts were applied to the environmental
checklist Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) .
13
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Finding
The West Valley Industrial Study, completed in the fall of
1986, analyzed development trends within the valley. The
report concluded that Kent' s industrial area was changing
from one of basically warehouse type development to more
diverse mixed-use development. As a result of the study,
the C-suffix zone was added to the Zoning Code and major
intersections along West Valley Highway were marked as
potential locations for the commercial/service use zone.
As discussed earlier, this area was recently added as a
potential C-suffix location. The C-suffix zone can only be
obtained through the rezone process.
The changes in the valley industrial area and rapid
development of technical businesses with national and
international clientele have increased the demand for the
service type uses the rezone development proposes.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Finding
The proposed rezone will be developed to meet all City
standards for development including building, parking,
setback, and landscaping requirements. As such, the
development will not have adverse affects on the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens. As discussed
previously, this development will impact the traffic
generated in this area and traffic mitigation measures have
been made conditions of the development.
Due to the nature of the proposed uses (being commercial
and service oriented) , a large number of users are
anticipated on the site. Expansive parking lots are
proposed as part of the development. The site plan,
although generalized, shows little interior landscaping
being provided with the parking lot area. The Kent Zoning
Code requires that parking lots of 20, 000 square feet or
more provide at least ten percent of the lot area in
landscaping.
14
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Because the site will be visible from all the public
streets serving the site including SR 167, as well as
residential areas, substantial landscaping should be
provided along all street fronts. The Zoning Code requires
a minimum of 20 feet of landscaping along the front and
15 feet along the side yards. The landscaping will provide
a buffer between the street and the development while also
providing an aesthetically pleasing presentation of the
development to the public streets. The rear (eastern)
property line of the site abuts a residential district.
As such, a minimum of 10 feet of Type II landscaping shall _
be required along this property line. Because parking will
be located along this boundary and parked cars will be
facing the adjoining residential uses and Interurban trail,
the required landscaping strip shall be bermed.
H. In addition to the previous criteria, the Hearing Examiner
and City Council must evaluate a rezone request for M1-C
zoning on the basis of the following criteria:
1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or
contiguous to major arterial intersections identified
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as being appropriate
locations for commercial type land uses.
2 . Rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature
but shall be based on generalized development plans
and uses.
The staff has responded to these statements and made the
following findings:
1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or
contiguous to major arterial intersections identified
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as being appropriate
locations for commercial type land uses.
Planning Department Finding
The intersection of West Valley Highway and Willis Street
is identified on the Valley Floor Plan Map as a location
appropriate for commercial type land uses.
2 . Rezoning to M1-C shall not be speculative in nature
but shall be based on generalized development plans
and uses.
15
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Finding
The rezone application includes a generalized site plan
proposing a mixture of commercial uses including a motel
and restaurant.
VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and relevant code
criteria, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
conditions:
1. For those peak hour trips generated from development of
the property under this rezone which are in excess of those
peak hour trips which would have been generated from
development of the property under its present zoning, the
Developers financial contribution to the 272nd/277th
corridor project as a means of providing partial mitigation
of the traffic impact of the development shall be
calculated at 100 percent of the estimated trip cost.
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
constructed to provide access to 74th Street, Willis
Street, and the development to the south.
3 . Perimeter landscaping shall be a minimum of 20 feet along
the western, northern and southern borders of the site.
4 . A minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be required
along the eastern property line and shall be bermed (min.
of 36 inches in height) to help buffer adjacent residential
land uses as well as users of the adjacent Interurban
Trail.
5 . The drainage channel, and associated vegetation and
wetlands, shall be left in its natural, undisturbed state.
A 10 foot setback of all impervious surfaces is required
by the City of Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on
all future site plan submittals.
6. The applicant shall go through an administrative design
review process with the Planning Department in conjunction
with the review of the building permit. The goal of the
design review will be to ensure that building material are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the
16
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
bulk and scale of the proposed buildings are mitigated as
much as possible. Should the applicant feel aggrieved by
any of the requirements of said administrative design
review process, he/she may appeal such requirement(s) to
the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Hearing Examiner
shall be final unless applicant appeals to the City
council .
Minor code requirements that have not been addressed within
this report will be dealt with during the development
review process.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 7 , 1990
17
City of Kent - Planning Department
SRM ST Q
z w
w >
> ¢ ¢
z
N a: J >
= O
U
W � Z .-.
= SMITH ST SMITH ST
� HARRISON ST
ST ❑ e❑ � MEEKER ET
> GONE ST ❑
¢ ❑ ❑❑❑
z
w
0
Cc
z E1011
❑❑ ST ❑
> CBOH tw
>CcLn cc
ofI ww-559Tt
APPLICATION NAME: Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
NUMBER: RZ-90-3 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from M-2, Limited Industrial to M-1C, Industrial Park Commercial Suffix
LEGEND
3 Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
moil EEC ni+
'I '• LJi ���-
WIN
r
no �O _• gEgai iW
��es.=x»�f�li�
r
1 ` - ME
1 - •)� �fA.i1G ��
T
City of Kent - Planning Department
1 1
LY
I TI I I III
i i ►_ L.!J I
1 �
N,
APPLICATION NAME: Willis Street Restaurant and Motel
NUMBER: RZ-90-3 DATE: May 16, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone from M-2, Limited Industrial to M-1C, Industrial Park Commercial Suffix
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL, RZ-90-3
EXHIBIT 2 ( RON HEALEY )
WILLIS STREET RESTAURANT AND MOTEL 9RZ-90-3
Response to Staff Report for Hearing of May 16 , 1990
We have studied the staff report and commend the City for their hard work. There
are several issues that vie feel we need to address . My responses follow the order
of the staff report .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
WRZ-90-3
the various buildings. Additional pedestrian movement to
the development will originate from nearby developments and
Metro bus stops. Pedestrian safety should be considered
prior to development of the site. A planned on-site
pedestrian circulation system with connections to the
public sidewalks and Metro bus stops would address this
issue.
The proposed development includes a motel and restaurant
facility. These types of uses will generate a high volume
of vehicle traffic during the business day. To alleviate
some of the potential congestion associated with traffic,
the use of mass transit should be considered. Location of
a Metro bus stop within the development would provide easy
access to mass transit and possibly lessen the impacts on
the transportation system.
The site abuts the Interurban Trail to the east. The site
plan submitted does not reflect this. The proposal shows
parking along this property line without landscaping. If
this application is approved, a minimum 10 foot landscape
strip should be provided along this boundary and should be
bermed to provide a buffer to adjacent users of the
Interurban trail and adjacent residential uses. Provisions
should be made to allow public access to the Interurban
trail from this site.
NATURAL RESOURCES
OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL
RESOURCES .
GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems and protect
their aesthetic values.
Objective 1 : Preserve and protect suitable habitat
for local species.
Obiective 2 : Protect and enhance existing nesting,
breeding, spawning and feeding areas.
Policy: Where developed lands contain wildlife
landscaping for food and shelter,
encourage noninterference with wildlife
use of such landscaping.
We have provided an on-site and street frontage pedestrian circulation system
(see Drawing #2) . The buildings are connected by a sidewalk and to the new
street frontage sidewalks . The street frontage sidewalks will connect to the
existing sidewalks within the development .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
the various buildings. Additional pedestrian movement to
the development will originate from nearby developments and
Metro bus stops. Pedestrian safety should be considered
prior to development of the site. A planned on-site
pedestrian circulation system with connections to the
public sidewalks and Metro bus stops would address this
issue.
The proposed development includes a motel and restaurant
facility. These types of uses will generate a high volume
of vehicle traffic during the business day. To alleviate
some of the potential congestion associated with traffic,
the use of mass transit should be considered. Location of
a Metro bus stop within the development would provide easy
access to mass transit and possibly lessen the impacts on
the transportation system.
The site abuts the Interurban Trail to the east. The site
plan submitted does not 'reflect this." ,The 'proposal shows
parking along this property line without landscaping. If
this application is approved, a minimum 10 foot landscape
strip should be provided along this boundary and should be
bermed to provide a buffer to adjacent users of the
Interurban trail and adjacent residential uses. Provisions
should be made to allow public access to the Interurban
trail from this site.
NATURAL RESOURCES
OVERALL GOAL: PROTECT AND ENHANCE EXISTING NATURAL
RESOURCES .
GOAL 1: Ensure the preservation of ecosystems and protect
their aesthetic values.
pb ective l : Preserve and protect suitable habitat
for local species .
Obiective 2 : Protect and enhance existing nesting,
breeding, spawning and feeding areas.
Policy: Where developed lands contain wildlife
landscaping for food and shelter,
encourage noninterference with wildlife
use of such landscaping.
The site does abut a 100 ' Puget Power R.O.W. which contains the interurban trail
within this 100' R.O.W. The trail is 35 ' to 40 ' from our property boundary and
is separated by a drainage swale which is between 2 and 5 feet deep and approximately
10' wide. Access from our site directly to the trail would be impossible without
construction on privately owned property. We feel access to the trail at the north
end of our property via the old paved Willis Street roadway is safer and more
appropriate (see Drawing n2) .
There is also mention of requiring a 10' landscape strip containing a berm along
the east property line. We can find no reason for the request nor has the staff
planner been able to give us one. The east property line is the rear yard which
according to Section 15.07.06 0 requires no landscaping. There was some discussion
that vie needed it because our property abuts a residential zone. It does not .
The 100' wide Puget Power R.O.W. is zoned M-2 and abuts our property. Even if
we did abut a residential zone the property would be exempt from any special
requirements per Section 15.04. 170 F-4 since it is separated by a railroad
main line. If the railroad main line did not exist and our property abutted
residential zoning , we still would not be required to provide 10' of landscaping.
All that would be required is a greater (50 ' ) setback which except for one corner
of the restaurant we exceed now. (See Section 15.04 170 F-4) . Based on the zoning
code requirement , I would say the City prefers parking along boundaries with
residential zones since they have increased the setback requirement to 50 ' • This
50' setback area would not be left undeveloped, outdoor storage is discouraged,
so that leaves this area to be used for parking . If it 's only use is parking vie
are using the area appropriately and providing landscaping in accordance with
Section 15.07.060 0.
There was some mention of needing to shield the car headlights from the single
family residences to the east . This is unnecessary. The single family residences
are over 250 feet away. There is a 100' Puget Power R.O.W. , 110' railroad R.O.W. ,
a 16 ' alley , and their own back yards. Furthermore , the railroad bed is raised
above the height of our lot and the single family lots by a height varying from
4 to 14 feet .
There was mention of needing to shield the car headlights from the users of the
Interurban Trail . Again this makes no sense. The trail is a path 6' to 10 '
wide located in a 100 ' R.O.W. That equates to 90' of natural landscaping along the
trail)30 to 40 feet of which is located between the path and our property. We
have examined the trial and could find no place in the City where 10' of
landscaping and a 3 ' berm had been provided. The existing developments directly
along the trail were usually separated only by blank building walls , chain link
fences or roads. The trail as it passes our property is very pleasant and
would not benefit by more landscaping . As for headlights on the path, if they
make it through the vegetation , they will not be that strong , and who would be
on the path after dark anyway. If people are using the path after dark they
will probably like the light and security our, facilities will provide since
our building will be occupied at night .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
WRZ-90-3
Planning Department Comment
A well developed drainage channel/wetland is located along
the southern portion of the site. During environmental
review, it was noted that this shall remain as a natural
open drainage course unless an alternative equivalent,
meeting the approval of the Public Works Department, can
be provided. The applicant wishes to relocate the drainage
ditch further south of the site by adding additional land
to this property through a lot line adjustment. The Public
Works Director has tentatively agreed to this plan as far
as it will adequately take care of the drainage problem.
However, because of the significant and well-established
vegetation along the channel, creating an equivalent
alternative does not appear viable to city planning staff.
The applicant has provided a wetland assessment from a
consultant that describes this area as a Palustrine Open
Water wetland. Moving the drainage channel to the south as
indicated on the site plan, would require eliminating all
of the significant vegetation which currently provides
food, cover and habitat to local wildlife. As a condition
of approval of this request, the drainage channel, and
associated vegetation and wetland areas should remain in
its natural , undisturbed state. The applicant may be able
to utilize the channel/wetland for required biofiltration
and detention of storm water. The quality of the storm
water prior to leaving the site should be suitable for
discharge directly into the Green River.
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH WITH
ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION .
GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments are in
suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical impacts of
strip commercial development.
Policy 1 : Encourage planned retail-commercial
business development.
Objective 4 : Provide for the commercial services
needed to serve the industrial area.
5
If you review the environmental checklist and the preliminary plans submitted
with it you will see at that time we were planning to enclose the ditch and tight
line it accross our property. We were advised by city staff that this would
not be a problem since it was tight lined coming to our property and leaving it .
As a condition of the SEPA review we were told to retain the open ditch but
that it could be moved with approval of Public Works . We have been in discussion
with Public Works on relocating the ditch and it has never been a problem for
them. In fact , as late as last Wednesday , both Public Works and Planning agreed
we could relocate the ditch. Since then Planning has changed their minds .
Several issues become important here. This is not a natural drainage course , but
a man made ditch. If it could be built once, it can be rebuilt , City Zoning
Code , Section 15.08.224 C allows and sets guidelines for relocation of a Major
or Minor Creek. If a major creek can be relocated , why can ' t a man made drainage
ditch?
Another very important consideration is the City of Kent 's future plans for this
ditch. . The process has begun and should be complete within 5 years of diverting
most of the water that travels through this ditch into a new storm drainage system.
The effect of this diversion will be far greater than any effects we would have in
relocating it .
I have a letter from Sue Burgemeister of B- 12 Associates. She has been involved
from the beginning as the wetland specialist .
I 'm not sure why the ctiy staff is flip flopping or if they just disagree with
one another. I do feel there is nothing in this drainage ditch that cannot be
replaced except the water flow which the City is removing from the ditch. I 'm
not saying the City is wrong in diverting the water flow. It is my understanding
that this system does not work well in heavy rains . Are we saving this ditch
only to slowly kill it in a few years . Would it be better to redesign the
ditch now and plant it with vegetation that can survive the loss of water flow.
B-twelve Associates _
Land Consulting
May 16 , 1990
Mr. Jim Foster
Foster Development
P.O. Box 2810
Bellevue , WA 98009
RE: Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
Our Job W'90-109
Dear Jim,
This letter is in response to your questions regarding the
status of the drain course and the potentials fonr relocation
of it to accommodate the buildings and parking on
As you know, B-twelve was asked to determine if wetlands are
present on this site . In our letter to you dated April 2 ,
1990 we indicated that under the US Army Corps of Engineers
criteria., wetlands are not present on this site. In
discussing this finding with City staff, we also agreed that
the Swale on the site is not classified as a stream and no
fisheries use is known by the City. Therefore, the staff
agreed with us that this facility is a drain course.
This distinction is significant when considering the issues
that should be addressed when evaluating the functions that
must be replicated if a facility is to be relocated. It is
our understanding that this scale is a constructed drain
course developed several years ago as part of the
construction of 74th Ave. S. . its primary function is the
conveyance of storm water from a culvert under the railroad
tracks which then flows to the west across your property to
a culvert under 74th Street.
Prior to developing a design for the relocation of a storm
water facility, all the various functions should be
identified and then prioritized. This approach enables the
selection of alternatives and compromises in the event that
one function is of significantly higher value than another.
527 South Washington Ave. • Kent, WA 98032 9 206185M515
Willis Motel: 1590-109
B-twelve: May 16 , 1990
Page 2
In responding to your question, we have had some difficulty
with determining where gent feels the function of wildlife
habitat lies in this prioritization scheme. In the
alternatives discussed within this letter, we have assumed
that habitat replacement, while not the first order of
concern, would certainly be a significant function. It
should be noted that along the existing drain course,
habitat is currently limited to some open water area for a
few water fowl, and some buffer vegetation that provides
nesting and foraging area for song birds and rodents.
Both the environmental and engineering communities are
increasingly aware of the importance of open channel
conveyance for the recapture of water quality in urbanizing
areas . open channels that are broad, of low gradient and
shallow side slopes provide excellent opportunities for the
"natural" system to accept sediments, slow flood waters,
decrease flood velocities , and enable nutrient uptake by the
vegetation. To accomplish these functions , we are routinely
developing vegetated channel conveyance systems where slopes
and velocities permit .
You are, of course, aware that there is a great deal of
controversy regarding "creation of natural systems" .
However, the drain course on your site is an existing
constructed storm drainage system, not a wetland or
fisheries stream. Soils do not need to be replicated and
the hydrology is currently being manipulated. Use of
vegetation for water quality function is regularly required
and typically performs well within months of installation.
We understand that the City of gent Public Works Department
has indicated that they will modify the storm drainage in
the vicinity of this project. Apparently, the majority of
the water now crossing this site from the east will be
realigned to flow to the south prior to entering your
property. This realignment will probably result in a very
significant change to the drain course.
If most of the off-site flow is diverted, the decrease in
water will eliminate the ponding, thereby eliminating the
open water habitat presently being used by the ducks. In
addition, the existing vegetation (cattails, willows, etc. )
is dependent upon high water levels throughout much of the
Willis Motel: x90-109
B-twelve: May 16 , 1990
Page 3
year. Since the soils adjacent to the swale are very well '
drained, we would expect a very rapid transition of species
from preclominantely water dependent to those species that
can tolerate occasional flooding. Thus, it is our
expectation that if this storm drainage revision occurs, the
value of the area for waterfowl will be radically reduced,
if not totally eliminated.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this
hitect
project. We are anxious to work with you, your
and engineer to develop a coordinated approach to the water
quality and habitat issues of this project.
Sincerely,
�'La4j--
Susan L. Burgemeister
principal
cc: Ron Healy/Job Anderson & Associates
Bob Scholes/ESM, Inc.
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
WRZ-90-3
accommodate some of the recreational
demand of employees.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed development will front on two streets:
Willis Street and 74th Avenue South. Because the site will
be so visible from the public streets, SR 167 and adjacent
residential uses, substantial landscaping should be
provided along all property lines. The landscaping will
provide a buffer, as well as provide an aesthetically
pleasing presentation of the development to the public
street.
As the valley east of the Green River develops, large areas
of what used to be open agricultural areas are replaced by
urban development. Due to the uses proposed for the rezone
area, a number of people are expected to visit or work at
the development. Open spaces within the development and
recreational needs of the users 'should be considered.
Providing public open space areas which would accommodate
some recreational demand of both users and employees would
address this concern. An area along the southern property
line has been retained per a SEPA condition to maintain an
existing drainage channel . This area will be utilized for
passive recreational uses.
It should be noted that a 10 foot setback of all impervious
surfaces is required from the top of bank of the drainage
channel and associated wet areas.
IV. HISTORY
A. Site History
The subject site is part of the original townsite of the
City of Kent which was established in 1889 .
B. Area History
It was not until recently that the property south of the
subject site developed as an industrial park. There are
plans to construct an office building west of the site
across 74th Avenue South.
7
The site will be visible from the public streets and SR 167. This is a great
argument for rezoning the property. Can you imagine a large warehouse or manufacturi,.y
facility on this corner. It is allowed under the existing zoning . Rezoning also
increases the required front and sideyard landscaping by 5 ' .
The 3 single family residences to the east are over 250' feet away as previously
stated and are separated by the Puget Power R.O. W. and a railroad R.O.W.
We have shown landscaping in excess of Section 15.07.060 0 of the zoning code.
Twenty feet at the street frontages and 85 ' wide drain ditch and associated
. planting along the south property line.
In addition to recreation and open space mentioned by staff we are providing a
swimming pool , spa room and exercise room at the motel . As mentioned there is the
interurban trail to the east and there is a park directly to the south along
the Green River which was provided by the owner . For an industrially zoned area ,
there is not a shortage of recreational and open space.
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
V. IAN_.__D USE
is currently undeveloped.
The subject site
VI . ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment nificance was issued for the
amendment on October 20, 1989 with
A Final Declaration of Nonsig nificance was
Comprehensive Plan Map 1990 with the
no conditions. A Final Declaration onFebruary iig
issued for the rezone request
following conditions:
where
1 . Due to the location of the proposal in i to n area the Green
the drainage system discharges directly River, the owner/developer must provide 7-day Storage,on-site detention on the subject site- This equates
to 8 1/2 inches of water over the entire site.
water separation and biofiltrati nof
2 . Provide oil/ to discharge into the City system.
storm water prior
es
3 , The open drainage channel and wetland shallcremainsas
the southern portion of the property
a natural open drainage cour valnofs the nPublic nWorks
equivalent, meeting the app
ro
Department, can be provided.
traffic study to
q . The developer shall conduct on the City of Kent
identify all traffic impacts up
road network and traffic signal system. The study
shall identify all intersections at level-of-service
„E„ or 'IF" due to increased traffic volumes from the
development. These intersections are at a threshold
level for traffic mitigation.
then identify what improvements are
The study shall
igate the development impacts thereon.
necessary to mit
Upon agreement by the City with the findings of the
study and the mitigation measures outlined in said
the
study, implementation and/or cons the tic not nal
mitigation measures shall be ective
requirement of the issuance of the resp
development permits -
8
( 1 ) We have been In discussion with Public Works concerning on-site detention.
It has been discussed and agreed that the owner will pay a fee of apprx. $12 ,000
in lieu of on-site storage and will be allowed to discharge directly into
the existing Foster Industrial Park pond. This pond at the time of it 's
construction was designed to handle the retention needs of this parcel of land.
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
V. LAND USE
The subject site is currently undeveloped.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment on October 20, 1989 with
no conditions . A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was _
issued for the rezone request on February 1, 1990 with the
following conditions:
1 . Due to the location of the proposal in an area where
the drainage system discharges directly into the Green
River, the owner/developer must provide 7-day storage,
on-site detention on the subject site. This equates
to 8 1/2 inches of water over the entire site.
2 . Provide oil/water, separation and biofiltration of
storm water prior to discharge into the City system.
3 . The open drainage channel and wetland which crosses
the southern portion of the property shall remain as
a natural open drainage course unless an alternative
equivalent, meeting the approval of the Public Works
Department, can be provided.
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
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.
8
(2) It has also been agreed that in lieu of an on-site biolfiltration swale the
owner may use coalessing plates .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Given the type of uses existing in the vicinity of the
proposed rezone and the high number of employees which some
of these operations have, the Planning Department feels
that the rezone proposal is compatible with land uses in
the area.
The Planning Department has some concerns ,about the bulk,
scale and design of the proposed project in relation to the
rest of the area. Offices and industrial buildings on the
west side of the railroad do not exceed one story in
height. On the other side of the railroad tracks are
single and multifamily uses that do not exceed two stories
in height. This project may be imposing on the
neighborhood, considering the four story building height
and size of the building. The Planning Department would
like to encourage the developer to incorporate some
features like tall landscaping, and building modulation to
ensure that this project is compatible with the rest of the
area.
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Finding
The site has access to two public streets: Willis Street
and 74th Avenue S . It was determined by the city through
review of the environmental checklist that impacts would
be created on the street system.
Upon reviewing the checklist for this proposal, it was
determined that the project will cause additional
congestion at the intersections of S . Willis Street and
74th Avenue S . and S . 259th and S . Central Avenue. The
current average daily traffic on 74th Avenue S . is 2 , 800
trips with 20 , 100 on Willis Street and 22 , 700 on
Central Avenue. The proposed development will add an
estimated 1, 661 daily and 110 PM peak hour trips to the
area . The current level of service at each of these
intersections is "F" . The projected level of service will
remain "F" due to the increased traffic from the
development and projected growth. Conditions to mitigate
these traffic impacts were applied to the environmental
checklist Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) .
13
The Planning Department concerns about the bulk , scale and design are unwarranted .
They make reference to the fact that the buildings to the south are one-story,
This is true, but they fail to mention the height which is much greater than a
typical residential story . They fail to mention the bulk or size (one building
has 132 ,000 square feet under one roof) . They fail to mention that most of the
area to the south and west is undeveloped and under the existing zoning could have
buildings up to 60' high and lot coverage of 65� . Our motel is proposed at 43 '
high, total building coverage including restaurant is only 16%. Our development
could easily be dwarfed by future development under the existing zoning regulations .
The motel has an "L" shape to decrease the mass . It has large projected areas on
all four of it ' s major sides as well as minor projected areas such that no blank
wall greater than 20 ' exists , and the largest wall without a major break is only
741 . The whole building is small for a 2 .9 acre site , less than 42 ,000 square feet ,
and it 's entire width is only 29 of the rear property line, while it 's depth
is only 46% of the lot depth. As stated lot coverage is only 16% compared to
6'5% allowed under existing zoning and 60 allowed after the rezone. Total
impervious surface is just barely greater than 60� .
There are multi -family zoned areas to the east . Our property abuts a M-2 zone
which abuts a MRM zone, Per Section 15.04.050-E-2-h there is an allowable height
of 40' in the MRM zone which is very compatible with our height of 43 ' . To the
east of this MRM zone is an area zoned MRD, per Section 15.05.030-E-5 there is
an allowable height of 35 ' in the MRM zone , still very compatible with the height
of the motel .
Architecturally the motel is a pleasant blend with the stucco and metal roof
buildings to the south and residential styling of future development to the east .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#)RZ-90-3
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Finding
The West Valley Industrial Study, completed in the fall of
1986 , analyzed development trends within the valley. The
report concluded that Kent' s industrial area was changing
from one of basically warehouse type development to more
diverse mixed-use development. As a result of the study,
the C-suffix zone was added to the Zoning Code and major
intersections along West Valley Highway were marked as
potential locations for the commercial/service use zone .
As discussed earlier, this area was recently added as a
potential C-suffix location. The C-suffix zone can only be
obtained through the rezone process.
The changes in the valley industrial area and rapid
development of technical businesses with national and
international clientele have increased the demand for the
service type uses the rezone development proposes.
5 . The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and genera]. welfare of the citizens of
the City of Kent.
Planning Department Finding
The proposed rezone will be developed to meet all City
standards for development including building, parking,
setback, and landscaping requirements. As such, the
development will not have adverse affects on the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens. As discussed
previously, this development will impact the traffic
generated in this area and traffic mitigation measures have
been made conditions of the development.
Due to the nature of the proposed uses (being commercial
and service oriented) , a large number of users are
anticipated on the site. Expansive parking lots are
proposed as part of the .development. The . ,site ','plan,
although generalized, shows little interior landscaping
being provided with the parking lot area. The Kent Zoning
Code requires that parking lots of 20, 000 square feet or
more provide at least ten percent of the lot area in
landscaping.
14
We would lake exception to the term ''expansive parking lot''. While there is parking
for 163 cars , this is a 2.9 acre site. That equates to only 56 cars per acre. You
will also see that we have spread the parking areas around the building so that
the parking areas are never more than 2 cars deep.
We have discussed the landscaping with Carol Proud of the city staff , and was
told we have enough landscaping since we could count most all landscaping except
that required at property boundaries .
staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Because the site will be visible from all the public
streets serving the site including SR 167 , as well as
residential areas, substantial landscaping should be
provided along all street fronts. The Zoning Code requires
a minimum of 20 feet of landscaping along the front and
15 feet along the side yards. The landscaping will provide
a buffer between the street an development
esentat while
of also
providing an aesthetically pleasing P
the
development to the public streets. The rear (eastern)
property line of the site . abuts a . r s dential landscaping shall
As such, a minimum of 10 feet of Type line. ;`Because'parking will
be required along this property arked' cars will be
be located along this , boundary 'and p
facing the adjoining residential uses and be bermed Interurban trail ,
the required landscaping P
shallH. In addition to the previous criteria, the Hearing Examiner
and City Council must evaluate a rezone request for Ml-C
zoning on the basis of the following criteria:
1. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or
contiguous to major arterial intersections being aidentified
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as land uses.
ppropriate
locations for commercial type
ature
2 . Rezoning to M based
shall not be culative in developmentnplans
but shall be based on generalized
and uses.
The staff has responded to these statements and made the
following findings:
1 . The proposed rezone is in close proximity or
contiguous to major arterial intersections identified
on the comprehensive Plan Map as being appropiate
locations for commercial type land uses.
Planning Department Finding
The intersection of West Valley Highway and Willis Street
identifiedis the Valley Floor Plan map a a
cation
appropriatef n for commercial type land uses.
ature
2 . Rezoning to M based
shall generalized development plans
not be
speculative
n
but shall be based on
and uses.
15
The rear (eastern) property line does not abut a residential district . And as
previously stated , we can find no reason for landscaping or a berm even if it did.
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Finding
The rezone application includes a generalized site plan
proposing a mixture of commercial uses including a motel
and restaurant.
VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and relevant code
criteria, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
conditions:
1 . For those peak hour trips generated from development of
the property under this rezone which are in excess of those
peak hour trips which would have been generated from
development of the property under its present zoning, the
Developers financial contribution to the 272nd/277th
corridor project as a means of providing partial mitigation
of the traffic impact of the development shall be
calculated at 100 percent of the estimated trip cost.
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
constructed to provide access to 74th Street, Willis
Street, and the development to the south.
3 . Perimeter landscaping shall be a minimum of 20 feet along
the western, northern and southern borders of the site.
4 . A minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be required
along the eastern property line and shall be bermed (min.
of 36 inches in height) to help buffer adjacent residential
land uses as well as users of the adjacent Interurban
Trail .
5 . The drainage channel , and associated vegetation and
wetlands, shall be left in its natural , undisturbed state.
A 10 foot setback of all impervious surfaces is required
by the City of Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on
all future site plan submittals.
6 . The applicant shall go through an administrative design
review process with the Planning Department in conjunction
with the review of the building permit. The goal of the
design review will be to ensure that building material are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the
16
Item 3
1 believe this to be a typo and should read "minimum of 20 feet along the western and
northern borders of the site and 15 feet along the southern borders", as stated on
page 15 of the staff report .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Findin
app
lication includes a generalized site plan
The rezone
ommercial uses including a mote
proposing a mixture of c
and restaurant.
VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION of this request and relevant cde
Upon review the Citye merits staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
criteria,
conditions:
1 , For those peak hour trips generated from development of
the property under this rezone which are in excessthose
generated from
peak hour trips which would have be resent zoning, the
development of the property under its p 277th
Developers financial contribution ar2mitigation
corridor project as a means of providingg partial
of the traffic impact of the development costshal
be
calculated at loo percent of the estimated trip
2 An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
to provide access to 74th Street, Willis
constructed
Street, and the development to the south.
3 . Perimeter landscaping the site.
shall be a minimum of 20 feet along
the western, northern and southern borders of
4 . A minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be required
along the eastern property line and shall be bermed (min.
of 36 inches in height) to help buffer adjacent residential
land uses as well as users of the adjacent Interurban
Trail. .
5 . The drainage channel , and associated vegetation and
wetlands , shall be left in its natural, undisturbed state.
A 10 foot setback of all impervious surfaces is required
by the City of Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on
all future site plan submittals .
6 . The applicant shall go through an administrative design
review process with the Planning permit.
The conjunction
pm
building the
with the review of the
o ensure that building material
designible reiew will be th surrounding he ghborhood and that the
16
`J
Item 4
As stated there is no basis in the zoning code for this request nor in practice
with other developments along the Interurban Trail .
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Finding
The rezone application includes a generalized site plan
proposing a mixture of commercial uses including a motel
and restaurant .
VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and relevant code
criteria, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
conditions :
1 . For those peak hour trips generated from development of
the property under this rezone which are in excess of those
peak hour trips which would have been generated from
development of the property under its present zoning, the
Developers financial contribution to the 272nd/277th
corridor project as a means of providing partial mitigation
of the traffic impact of the development shall be
calculated at 100 percent of the estimated trip cost.
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
constructed to provide access to 74th Street, Willis
Street, and the development to the south.
3 . Perimeter landscaping shall be a minimum of 20 feet along
the western, northern and southern borders of the site.
4 . A minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be required
along the eastern property line and shall be bermed (min.
of 36 inches in height) to help buffer adjacent residential
land uses as well as users of the adjacent Interurban
Trail .
5 . The drainage channel, and associated vegetation and
wetlands, shall be left in its natural, undisturbed state.
A 10 foot setback of all impervious surfaces is required
by the City of Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on
all future site plan submittals.
6 . The applicant shall go through an administrative design
review process with the Planning Department in conjunction
with the review of the building permit. The goal of the
design review will be to ensure that building material are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the
16
As stated we see no reason to place this restriction on development of the site.
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
Planning Department Finding
The rezone application includes a generalized site plan
proposing a mixture of commercial uses including a motel
and restaurant.
vIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and relevant code
criteria, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following
conditions:
1 . For those peak hour trips generated from development of
the property under this rezone which are in excess of those
peak hour trips which would have been generated from
development of the property under its present zoning, the
Developers financial contribution to the 272nd/277th
corridor project as a means of providing partial mitigation
of the traffic impact of the development shall be
calculated at l0o percent of the estimated trip cost.
2 . An integrated pedestrian circulation system shall be
constructed to provide access to 74th Street, Willis
Street, and the development to the south.
3 . Perimeter landscaping shall be a minimum of 20 feet along
the western, northern and southern borders of the site.
4 . A minimum 10 foot wide landscape strip shall be required
along the eastern property line and shall be bermed (min.
of 36 inches in height) to help buffer adjacent residential
land uses as well as users of the adjacent Interurban
Trail .
5 . The drainage channel, and associated vegetation and
wetlands, shall be left in its natural, undisturbed state.
A 10 foot setback of all impervious surfaces is required
by the City of Kent Zoning Code and should be reflected on
all future site plan submittals.
6 . The applicant shall go through an administrative design
review process with the Planning Department in conjunction
with the review of the building permit. The goal of the
design review will be to ensure that building material are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that` the
16
Staff Report
Willis Street Restaurant & Motel
#RZ-90-3
bulk and scale of the proposed buildings are mitigated as
much as possible. Should the applicant feel aggrieved by
any of the requirements of said administrative design
review process , he/she may appeal such requirements) to
the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Hearing Examiner
shall be final unless applicant appeals to the City
Council .
Minor code requirements that have not been addressed within
this report will be dealt with during the development
review process .
KE14T PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 7 , 1990
17
Item 6
We feel this is an unnecessary burden to place on the owner and is inconsistent
with the zoning code. According to Section 15.09.045 Administrative Design Review
is to provide additional site planning flexibility in fulfilling the intent of
multi-family transition area requirements and stall not include design elements
that are not directly related to site planning Jnd layout. Examples of excluded
items are building colors and textures , siding materials and the like.
First , we are not in a multi -family transition zone. Second , the very items they
wish to have control over are the very items excluded from review. Third , those
items they wish to have control over are much better handled by a licensed architect
that is trained and experienced to do so.
As stated the building is not bulky and out of scale. It is very small covering
less than 9% of the site, short . . .only 3 feet higher than the adjoining residential
zoning ,and 17' below the allowed height and modulated far beyond anything that would
be expected in an industrial zone. The light k�,ill play off the building surfaces
to create a pleasing changing facade.
I do not feel the planner understands the project and am disappointed she has not
asked to meet with me to discuss it , if that is the case. We have proposed a
development with more landscaping than is required , more open space, more
recreational opportunities , less impervious surface, less lot coverage, greater
building setbacks , less volume , less height , more building modulation and
more interest than is required. We are proposinq an appropriate use for this site
which will be compatible with the surrounding area , and will be a nice addition
to the City of Kent .
AA i
RONALD R. HEAL
LIN
x.. Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 1990
Category Other Business
ReCvr,) W P-VAdahor�5
1. SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING T )T /1TlV / (1
1
2. SUM14ARY STATEMENT: The final recommendations of the Senior
Housing Advisory Committee are being forwarded for Council
action. The Phase 1 recommendations relate to ownership,
management and development of the 92 units of Senior Housing
authorized by voters in February 1990. The Planning Committee
reviewed these recommendations at their July 17 meeting and
approved them with the amendment noted in the attached memo from
the Planning Department. These actions are necessary to enable
the City to move forward with development of the Kent Senior
Housing program.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Planning Department's Senior
Housing Advisory Committee final recommendations and July 17 ,
1990 Planning Committee Minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Senior Housing Advisory Committee, City
Council Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1,+ :q 1
Councilmember ,ti �. 'l, moves, Councilmember seconds
Approve/deny or modify and approve as modified the final
recommendations of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee an
action agenda contained within the report on page 20.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
—
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 1, 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON SENIOR HOUSING: PHASE ONE
The Mayor's Advisory Committee on Senior Housing and Planning
Department are pleased to forward for your action the Committee' s
final report for Phase One. The Committee worked hard over the
past four months exploring the policy issues regarding the
ownership, management and development of the Kent Senior Housing
Bond program.
Contained in the attached report are recommended actions which will
enable the City to move forward with the senior housing
development.
The Senior Housing Advisory Committee and Planning Department ask
that you act affirmatively on this report by approving the
Committee recommendations and four-item Action Agenda contained on
page 20 of the report.
The Council Planning Committee reviewed this report at its July
17th meeting. The Planning Committee recommends approval of the
report and its Action Agenda with the following revised language
for Action Item One.
Action Item One: Ownership and Management
The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is directed to negotiate with the
King County Housing Authority a Housing Cooperation Agreement
consistant with the final recommendations of the Senior
Housing Advisory Committee for the purposes of owning and
managing the Kent Senior Housing, with the final cooperation
agreement to be aproved by City Council Ordinance.
JS:JPH:ch
Enclosure
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
SENIOR HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PHASE ONE
Kent Planning Department
July, 1990
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE
SENIOR HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PHASE ONE
Kent Planning Department
July 1990
MAYOR
Dan Kelleher
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Ed Chow
Senior Housing Advisory Committee
Steve Delmore - Chair
Sharon Atkin
Marvin Eckfeldt
Tracy Faust
Alice Gregory
Ed Heineman
Mike Hovland
Dee Moschel
Leona Orr
Dan Watson
Judy Woods
Jim Hansen
Fred Satterstrom
Project Staff
James P. Harris Planning Director
Lin Ball Senior Planner
Janet Shull Lead Project Planner
Carolyn Lake Assistant City Attorney
Tony McCarthy Finance Director
Housing Consultant
Tom Phillips
SENIOR HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
PHASE ONE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION 2
CHAPTER TWO - BACKGROUND 3
A. Ownership and Management 3
B. Development 5
C. Support Services 7
D. Senior Housing Field Trip 9
E. Public Meetings 10
F. Survey Results 11
CHAPTER THREE - RECOMMENDATIONS 12
A. Ownership and Management 12
B. Development 14
C. Support Services 16
D. Advisory Committee Role in Phase Two 19
CHAPTER FOUR - ACTION AGENDA 20
APPENDICES i
Survey i
Public Meeting Input iv
Detailed Development Process vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Senior Housing Advisory Committee was appointed by Mayor
Kelleher soon after passage of the Senior Housing Bond issue in
February of 1990. The Committee met from March through June of
1990 to evaluate options available to the City with regard to
ownership, management and development of the senior housing.
The Senior Housing Program is a three-phase project. Phase One is
Policy Development, Phase Two is Site and Project Selection and
Phase Three is Construction. The Committee' s work in this Phase
One period of the senior housing program has resulted in a set of
policy recommendations contained herein which require action by the
Mayor and City Council.
The background information contained in Chapter Two is included in
the report to provide the reader with an overview of the issues and
options considered by the Committee over a four month period which
led up to final recommendations.
The specific Committee recommendations are detailed in Chapter
Three. These recommendations are further developed into an Action
Agenda (detailed in Chapter Four) which are the specific actions
being proposed to the Mayor and City Council. The following are
those specific actions:
1. The City of Kent should enter into an Housing Cooperation
Agreement with the King County Housing Authority for the
purposes of owning and managing the Kent Senior Housing.
2 . The City of Kent should develop the senior housing
utilizing a design/build/turnkey method which requires a
single RFP for the purposes of selecting the senior
housing site(s) , building (s) and design-development
team(s) .
3 . The City of Kent should retain professional services for
the purposes of overseeing the construction of the senior
housing.
4. The City of Kent should ensure that the Kent Senior
Housing consist of independent living units with the
capacity to provide support services for some of the
units.
1
CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
The Senior Housing Advisory Committee had significant decisions to
make in formulating recommendations regarding ownership,
management, development, and to some degree, the character of the
Kent Senior Housing. These recommendations are particularly
significant because Kent' s senior housing is a real project, a
place which Kent citizens will eventually call home.
Specific Tasks completed by the Senior Housing Advisory Committee
include:
A. Evaluated the options available to the City for ownership
of the senior housing.
B. Evaluated the options available to the City , for
developing the senior housing.
C. Evaluated the necessity for support services in
conjunction with senior housing.
D. Evaluated the methods employed in other jurisdictions who
have developed, or are in the process of developing,
senior housing.
E. Visited Senior Housing facilities to learn about the
physical as well as programmatic requirements.
F. Conducted two public meetings to gather citizen input on
senior housing in Kent.
G. Conducted a survey to solicit citizen input.
The Committee was chaired by Steve Delmore. Staff from the
Planning, Legal, and Finance Departments provided support for the
Committee. A housing consultant, Tom Phillips, was retained to
provide technical assistance to the committee.
The Committee invited a number of professionals as guest speakers
to address specific issues. Joni Ostegaard, of Foster Pepper
Schefleman (FPS) provided the advice of bond council . Hugh
Spitzer, also of FPS spoke on the creation of housing authorities
and the structuring of housing cooperation agreements. Mike
Marshall, former director of the Seattle Housing Authority' s Senior
Housing Bond program, addressed the development process.
The work completed by the Committee is considered to be the bulk of
Phase One of a three phase Senior Housing Development Program.
Phase One is the Policy Development phase, Phase Two is the Site
and Project Selection phase and Phase Three is the Construction
Phase.
Council action on the Action Agenda contained in this report will
complete Phase One and pave the way to moving on to Phase Two of
the program.
2
CHAPTER TWO - BACKGROUND
Ownership and Management
The Senior Housing bonds cannot be sold until the City has
established who will own and manage the housing once it is built.
Further, by State Law, the City cannot own and manage housing. The
Committee was advised by bond council in an early meeting, that the
City has two primary Ownership/Management Options to consider.
1) The City can establish the Kent Housing Authority (KHA) by
ordinance and sign a Housing Cooperation Agreement with the
newly established KHA to own and manage the Senior Housing.
(Ninety-two units is considered too few for a housing
authority to manage econically. For this reason, the KHA
would probably contract with a separate entity to manage
the housing. )
2) The City can enter into a Housing Cooperation Agreement with
the existing King County Housing Authority to own and manage
the Senior Housing.
Tom Phillips prepared a summary of the pros and cons related to
each of these options for the committee which were discussed at the
March 27th meeting. These pros and cons are as follows:
King County Housing Authority
PRO:
- Excellent track record as an owner and manager of assisted
housing.
- Can act quickly to sign a Housing Cooperation Agreement because
it is an established organization.
- The terms of the Housing Cooperation Agreement can be used to
implement City policies.
CON:
- Housing would not be perceived as controlled by the City of Kent.
- The City would have limited ability to change managers.
- The long term goals of the Housing Authority may differ from the
City of Kent.
Kent Housing Authority
PRO:
- Senior Housing would be perceived as a City of Kent project.
- Long term use of the housing could be more closely tied to the
City' s goals.
- The terms of the Housing Cooperation Agreement can be used to
implement City policies.
3
- The Kent Housing Authority could undertake other Kent based
housing initiatives.
CON:
- Time and money would be lost in organizing the newly created
housing authority. Possibly six months and $335, 000.
- The Kent Housing Authority would be an "unknown" group without an
established track record.
- There would be costs to the City involved in running a policy
board. Estimated cost is $5, 000 to $8 , 000/year.
_ Ninety-two units would not be enough for the Kent Housing
Authority to manage economically. The KHA would have to contract
out this function.
Aside from these two primary options, there are a number of sub-
issues to consider which were discussed by the Committee. The
following are the sub-issues that were discussed as being pertinent
to the Housing Cooperation Agreement that the City would enter into
with either entity.
A. Kent Residents should have priority status for available
units.
B. The City of Kent should approve the admissions and
management policies for the senior housing.
C. The City of Kent should make primary decisions regarding
the siting, design and development of the senior housing
in partnership with the entity who will eventually own
and operate it.
D. Ownership of the project should be transferred from the
City to a housing authority after construction is
completed.
E. An oversight committee should be established to assure
Kent' s interest in the management of the housing.
F. The City' s interest in the future of the housing units
must be secured through inclusion of a clause which deals
with the eventual sale or change in use of the housing
units by the housing authority. The City must approve
the sale and/or change in use from that of senior
housing. The agreement must address the fair
distribution of the proceeds of any eventual sale.
G. The City would be held harmless for the operation of the
senior housing.
4
Development
The second major policy decision to be made by the City is how the
senior housing will be developed and by whom. The City must first
decide who will own and manage the project, because it is very
important to include the future owners and managers in the
development process.
Four different options for developing the housing were discussed by
the Committee and are listed below with the advantages and
disadvantages of each.
It should be emphasized that all of the options would
require that the project meet quality standards established by
an oversight committee and all Kent building code provisions.
Final site selection, as with all other major decisions would be
made by the City Council .
The Turnkey Process
Under this option private developers find the sites, design the
buildings, finance the development, build the structures and "turn
the key over" to the building' s owner when it is finished. This is
the method Seattle used to build most of its 1160 senior housing
bond units.
PRO:
- This is probably the least expensive way to get the housing
built because the City would utilize experienced developers
engaged in a competitive process.
- This is probably the quickest way to get the housing built
because developers have more experience with the development
process.
- This is the standard way most government procurement processes
operate.
- This method would potentially give the City the most possible
site and project choices.
CON:
- It would be difficult for the City to undertake broader
community development objectives.
- This method may work best where a large number of units are
being built.
- It would be costly to make changes in the plans submitted by
the developer.
(Michael Marshall former director of the Seattle Housing Authority
Senior Housing Bond program spoke in favor of the turnkey process
for large scale housing construction such as Seattle undertook.
5
However, he suggested that the City of Kent employ a design-build
method, (discussed below) , as it requires a less detailed, and less
time-consuming RFP process and allows for more flexibility in the
final design and contract negotiations. )
Design-Build Process
The Design-Build Process is similar to the Turnkey process in that
the Developer would have the greatest degree of responsibility
during project development. The key difference between the two is
that in the Design-Build process, the City would be selecting a
team and it the Turnkey process, the City would be selecting a
protect.
Typically, in the Turnkey process a developer will be asked to
submit a fairly detailed site plan and building design which allows
little room for modification once the project is selected. In -the
Design-Build process, the development team will submit information
on their experience with similar projects which will serve as the
basis for selection. In a Design-Build process, the project design
will be negotiated after team selection.
PRO:
- Allows for more flexibility in the project design as it is a
negotiated process. The City would not be locked into a specific
proposal.
- If the negotiations go smoothly with the developer, process
could move quickly.
- If good faith negotiations the final price may be lower or the
City may get more for their dollars.
CON:
- Public agencies prefer sealed bids.
- The best development team may not have the best site.
City Finds Site and Turnkeys the Rest
The City finds the most suitable sites, selects a developer through
a competitive process, and then the project is built on a "turnkey"
basis as described above.
PRO:
- May offer better coordination with other community development
decisions and community services.
- The City could condemn property to obtain suitable sites using
this method.
CON:
- The process would be more time consuming and cumbersome for the
City.
- Land prices tend to increase when a municipality gets involved
in land acquisition.
6
City Finds Site and Directly Manacres or Subcontracts the Rest
This method may be thought of as the typical bid process where the
City would first acquire a site or sites, then undergo a bid
process for a design team, and a separate bid process for a project
developer.
PRO:
- Gives the City the most control over the entire project.
CON:
- This may be the most expensive option in time and dollars.
- Since the City is not an experienced senior housing builder,
costly mistakes could be made.
-Since the design team and developer are selected separately, and
would not work together throughout the process, project cost may be
more difficult to control .
Support Services
The Committee studied this issue at great length as it impacts the
other issues the Committee was charged with considering. Support
services are essentially services that would be made available on-
site that assist seniors who might have minor limitations in daily
living activities. Examples of such services include: meals,
health screening, chore services, and personal care services.
In the course of the Committee's work the special needs of seniors
were discussed in relation to the housing the City is developing.
Just as the needs of families with children (playgrounds and day
care facilities) , or the needs of the handicapped (accessibility) ,
are considered in public housing programs, so must the specific
needs of senior citizens be addressed.
The Assisted Housing Committee, whose work resulted in the senior
housing bond program, recommended in it ' s final report (August,
1989) that in implementing a senior housing program a minimum of
one third of the units provide congregate care services. The
Senior Housing Committee took this recommendation under advisement.
With the help of the housing consultant the committee reviewed the
components of congregate care as the State defines it and related
it to the various needs that seniors may have to enable them to
continue to live independently. The Committee came to the
conclusion that the degree of care provided with full congregate
care was more than what was considered in the Assisted Housing
Committee recommendation and further was more than most seniors who
would live in the Kent housing would need or want.
In visiting other senior housing sites and reviewing material
7
provided by the consultant, the Committee came to recognize that
some level of support services will be necessary as seniors
continue living in the housing and become more frail with age.
The Committee initially studied three support service options: 1)
No support services/independent living, 2) Independent living with
support services and 3) Full congregate care facility as defined by
State.
After much discussion by the Committee these options became: 1)
Independent living with support services implemented initially, 2)
Independent living with potential for future support services built
in, and 3) Independent living with no provision for support
services on site. The Committee looked at the pros and cons of
these alternatives:
1) Independent living with support services implemented
initially.
PRO:
- Avoids the awkward policy decision of when in the future to
provide services if option 2 is implemented.
- Ensures the services will be available upon move-in for
those in need and will be there for those who need them later.
- Avoids future problems which may arise with an aging
population if option 3 is implemented.
- May make the housing a feasible option for a greater number
of seniors.
- These service amenities may be a selling point for seniors
and their families.
- Allows for aging in place, preventing residents from being
forced to move because of failing health.
CON:
- Would increase rents because of extra staffing required.
- Some very vocal citizens have spoken out against this
alternative - will require extra education effort by City
staff and Committee members.
- Some potential residents may feel they do not want or need
extra services initially.
2) Independent living with potential for future support services
built in.
PRO:
- Ensures that services may be made available when needed by
a given percentage of residents.
- Does not force the idea of services on those who do not
support them but does not preclude them either.
- May be a selling point for seniors and their families -
8
services may be available when needed in future.
CON:
- Would be awkward to implement. Would need to be able to
determine when critical number require/desire services.
- Once implemented, would .need to adjust rents and begin
charging meal service fees of those who have not been paying
these fees from onset. May be resistance to change.
- Building a fully equipped kitchen and office space which
would not be used initially may seem wasteful to public.
3) Independent living with no provision for support services on
site.
PRO:
- Some very vocal citizens have supported this option.
- Monthly rents would be less as there would be less staff
required.
- Could theoretically build additional units with money saved
from commercial kitchen and common areas.
CON:
- Precludes provision of services as population ages unless
City could retrofit building to provide service facilities.
- As population ages individuals ' quality of life may
deteriorate if unable to perform activities of daily living
without extreme difficulty.
- Some residents may be forced to move to another facility or
a nursing home long before nursing home care is required.
- Limited common areas may affect quality of life issues.
The Committee feels the City should take a position on the issue of
support services in the Policy Development Phase. By taking a
position now, the City will guide future decisions that are made
regarding Housing Cooperation Agreements and development guidelines
which will need to be implemented in the next phase of the senior
housing program.
senior Housing Field Trip
Committee members went on a field trip to visit both a public and
a private senior housing facility. They visited Broadway Plaza in
Everett which is operated by the Everett Housing Authority and was
financed by a bond program. They also visited Brighton Court in
Lynnwood which is a privately owned and operated senior community.
The Committee found this experience very helpful in putting into
perspective what may be accomplished by Kent' s own senior housing
program and learning about the special design and programmatic
requirements of senior housing.
9
The bulk of useful information was provided by the director of the
Everett housing program. Lessons learned from the Everett facility
included the importance of providing adequate common spaces and
storage space and the increasing need for services as seniors age
in place. The staffing needs increased over the years in Broadway
Plaza as residents aged and required additional assistance with
daily living activities.
The Director also pointed out the benefits their meal service
provided to the residents. Besides ensuring one nutritious meal a
day, the required attendance at the dinner meal served as a way to
check in with all residents to ensure their health and involvement
in the resident community.
In comparison, the private housing in Lynnwood was more luxurious.
It had more common space, more organized programs and activities
and much higher monthly rent. However, the size of a one bedroom
unit was about the same as those at Broadway Plaza.
Public Meetings
The Senior Housing Advisory Committee held public meetings on May
21st and June 5th, 1990 to gather citizen input and comment on what
they felt was important in Senior Housing. The discussion centered
around four topic areas; location of the housing, locational
characteristics, characteristics of the housing itself and other
concerns.
The areas which received the most discussion were housing location
and characteristics of the housing itself. There were strong
advocates for both Downtown and East Hill locations as well as
advocates of the merits of being located near shopping and other
services as opposed to a quiet, traffic-free setting.
When discussing the housing itself, people spoke of the necessity
to keep rents to the minimum and keep the housing simple. On the
other hand, people also felt it would be nice to have amenities
such as swimming or walking areas on site, washer and dryer hookups
in every unit and. meeting and recreation rooms.
The complete list of comments and ideas generated at the public
meetings is fairly lengthy and is therefore included in the
appendix.
10
Survey Results
The Committee conducted a survey in May of 1990 to address many of
the same issues that were addressed in the Public Hearing Format.
The 83 responses are summarized in the Appendix.
Many similar comments were gathered by the survey. Again, the
majority of respondents who had a site preference had mentioned
either Downtown or East Hill. Over 80% of the respondents had
indicated that at least one of a list of potential on-site services
indicated on the questionnaire should be included.
When asked to indicate preferred unit size, the ranking was One-
Bedroom, A mixture of unit types, and Two-Bedroom in that order.
Most respondents indicated that a rent range of $200-250 a month
would be affordable to most seniors, but some respondents cautioned
that rent, should be according to income or lower than any of the
choices indicated on the questionnaire.
11
CHAPTER THREE - RECOMMENDATIONS
Ownership and Management
After reviewing the two ownership and management options and their
respective pros and cons, the Senior Housing Advisory Committee
recommends that the City:
Enter into a Housing Cooperation Agreement with the Ring County
Housing Authority to own and manage the senior housing effective
upon completion of construction. In drafting this agreement the
City needs to anticipate issues of importance in the management of
the housing and include them in the agreement. The following are
some of the issues the Committee recommends be considered in the
agreement:
1. That at all times the Housing Authority use and administer the
housing for the purpose of providing affordable housing for
low income seniors. (Seniors would be defined as 62+ years of
age with incomes less than 80% of the county median income. )
2 . Priority for living in the senior housing will be given to
Kent residents.
3 . Priority will be given to seniors with incomes less than 50%
of the county median income.
4 . That the Housing Authority will set rents for the units at
rates sufficient, but no higher than sufficient, to produce
revenues which will be adequate to meet operating expenses,
establish reasonable reserves for replacement, and establish
a contingency reserve.
5. Include a reversionary clause which states that if a Kent
Housing Authority (KHA) is created some time in the future,
the senior housing owned and operated by the County Housing
Authority, would be conveyed to the KHA. The conveying of the
housing should be carried out in a way that avoids unnecessary
costs to the King County Housing Authority.
6. The King County Housing Authority will not be subject to real
estate taxes. This is in effect an additional subsidy
provided by the City that will help to keep the rents low in
the senior housing.
7 . The senior housing must be kept in good physical condition,
including good physical appearance of the building and
grounds.
8 . The Housing Authority will maintain separate accounts or a
system of accounts for revenues and operating expenses of the
12
senior housing. Such records shall be audited by the state
and subject to review by the City.
Rationale Behind the Recommendation
The Committee believes that this ownership/management option will
best serve the interests of Kent seniors and the citizens who
passed the bond, for the following reasons:
a) Contracting with the King County Housing Authority
will enable the City to move forward in a timely
manner with development of the housing as the King
County Housing Authority is an established entity
ready and able to enter into a Housing Cooperation
Agreement.
bj Contracting with the King County Housing Authority will
save the City time and money that would be lost in
establishing, organizing and staffing a Kent Housing
Authority. During the time it would take to set up a
KHA, the cost of land, labor and materials will be
increasing.
c) By contracting with the King County Housing
Authority for its services the City of Kent will
have an experienced, professional staff available
to manage the housing and assist in its
development.
d) By including a reversionary clause in the contract,
the City retains the option for the housing to be
owned and operated by a Kent Housing Authority at
such time in the future when enacting a Kent
Housing Authority may become feasible.
As the first large-scale assisted housing project undertaken by the
City, the successful operation of the senior housing is critical to
the City' s future role in working toward realizing additional
housing projects. The experienced management team afforded by the
King County Housing Authority should give some assurance that the
project will be properly managed and maintained.
Citizens attending public meetings have been very interested in the
City' s timeline for construction of the housing. Basically, people
just want to see the housing get built as soon as possible.
Establishing a Kent Housing Authority could cost the City as much
as six months time and $250, 000-$300, 000 in project development
costs.
The successful development of the senior housing will also be
13
important to the City' s future in providing assisted housing. The
King County Housing Authority has experience with housing
development, and can assist the City in seeing the housing is built
in a timely manner and to the City's standards.
City officials, staff and citizens of Kent have expressed interest
in seeing additional assisted housing projects undertaken. As the
City of Kent becomes increasingly active in meeting the diverse
housing needs of Kent residents, the feasibility of a Kent Housing
Authority will need to be reconsidered.
By including a reversionary clause in the Housing Cooperation
Agreement, the City makes clear its intent to retain an interest in
the senior housing project as it moves forward with additional
assisted housing projects. As the City creates future housing
units, a critical mass may be reached where it becomes prudent for
the Kent Housing Authority to be enacted to own and manage the
collective housing projects including the senior housing.
Development
Selecting the method to use for developing the senior housing is
the most technical issue the City is considering. The Committee
relied somewhat on the expertise of the staff and Housing
Consultant in formulating this recommendation.
The Committee reviewed four development methods which have been
outlined in Chapter Two. These methods are: 1) Turnkey, 2)
Design/Build, 3) City finds a site and turnkeys the rest, and 4)
City finds a site and manages the rest.
After reviewing the possible development methods and taking into
consideration the staff and consultant analysis of these methods
the committee recommends the City employ a hybrid of the
Design/Build and Turnkey methods. The Committee further recommends
that the city oversee the development process. This is permitted
by State Law and will give the City the most control over the
development of the housing.
The Design/Build/Turnkey process the Committee is recommending
would work as follows:
The City issues a request for proposals/sites from private
developers. Developers submit schematic designs for the senior
housing on sites they have selected. These proposals include a
maximum cost per unit. The City then selects the proposal (s) with
the site(s) that best meet its senior housing goals. The
developer(s) selected then do final working drawings and
specifications for the building(s) . Final working drawings are
14
carefully reviewed by City staff. Once approved, the developer
builds the building using funds provided from the Senior Housing
Bond proceeds. Once the building is completed to the satisfaction
of the City, a final payment is made to the developer and the keys
to the building are turned over to the City. (A more complete
description of this method is provided in the appendix. )
In relation to the above recommendation, the Committee is
recommending that the City should hire a project manager to oversee
the construction of the senior housing. This person would be
responsible for ensuring that the senior housing is built on
schedule and to the City' s expectations. This position would
likely be at least a half-time responsibility.
Rationale Behind the Recommendation
The Design/Build/Turnkey method places most of the responsibility
for developing the project on private developers, but gives the
City the ability to make the most important development decisions.
By combining the Design/Build and Turnkey processes, the
flexibility of the Design/Build process can be teamed with the cost
and time control of the Turnkey process.
Several key issues considered in this recommendation:
1. This is probably the quickest and most efficient way to get
the senior housing built. The City must select a method of
development that gets the housing built as quickly as possible
as we are in the middle of a robust housing market in Kent and
the region with the price of land and materials steadily
increasing.
2 . This method is fair. It is a public bidding process which
gives all interested parties an opportunity to be selected.
3 . This method gives the City choices . It allows the private
sector to be creative in providing ways to meet the City' s
senior housing goals.
4 . This method, because it is the quickest and is a competitive
process, should result in the most units built for the amount
of money available.
5 . The City does not have a readily available site for the
housing. There is no site (s) that the City currently controls
that has been identified as ideal for senior housing.
6. This is a competitive way to secure the land and potentially
the least costly. Developers are experienced in purchasing
property. The City avoids the cumbersome public real estate
purchasing process.
15
7 . This method allows for a public process to review the sites
and obtain neighborhood input.
8 . Using this method gives the City some leeway in modifying the
building design to fit the city' s program for the senior
housing.
Hiring a project manager to work with Administration to oversee the
senior housing construction would ensure that the project could
receive one person' s full attention. Currently, the City utilizes
existing staff in Administration to oversee the City's construction
projects. While things have been going well, it does place a
burden on the City' s Administration Department and limits the
amount of attention the City can give to any one construction
project. The expenses for the project manager would be paid from
the proceeds of the bond.
Support Services
In Phase One the Committee was charged specifically with arriving
at policy direction for City Council action. These Phase One
actions regarding ownership, management and development are
necessary to enable the City to sell the bonds.
The issue of support services was not specifically mentioned in the
initial committee charge, yet it has an important relation to the
issues of ownership, management and development.
In discussing support services the Committee has had the
opportunity to review detailed information regarding the cost and
need for services. However, there are many variables which will
remain undeterminable until the City is further into the senior
housing program. At this time, the Committee felt it was important
to include support services in the framework of a policy
recommendation.
The committee recommends that independent living with support
services for some of the units be provided in the Kent senior
housing. The committee also recommends that this program be further
developed in Phase Two of the program.
The Committee forwards the following set of concerns which must be
addressed in Phase Two, in implementing a support services program:
1. Rents must remain affordable to eligible Kent seniors.
2 . The provision of services must be economically feasible prior
to implementing services and hiring additional staff. This
may require establishing minimum numbers for those in need of
services. (This may require additional market analysis in
Phase Two. )
16
3 . The necessary facilities must be built into the building
initially. This would include a commercial kitchen, common
dining facilities, office space for social service providers
and common activity space.
4 . The City should contract for services with existing service
providers in exchange for rent-free office space whenever
possible to hold down the cost of services to residents.
Rationale Behind the Recommendation
The Committee feels this support services program allows for
flexibility in service provision for an as yet undefined population
of seniors. The Committee has heard a great deal of concern
surrounding this issue with arguments pro and con. Most arguments
have pitted the cost of services/affordability against the
realities of an aging population.
The following are some of the key issues leading to the Committee
decision:
- The Assisted Housing Committee forwarded its recommendation that
at least one third of the senior housing units be designated as
congregate care.
- The Committee visited Broadway Plaza in Everett and learned from
the staff that as seniors age in place the need for additional
staff and services increases or quality of life suffers.
- Mardi Gras Apartments in Kent, was pointed to as an example of
an existing senior housing facility where the need for services has
arisen but no service provision was initially planned. To provide
services now, the facility must be adapted and this will be
expensive.
- A public opinion survey conducted by the Committee indicated
that 80% of the respondents felt that at least one of the following
additional services was important to include in the housing: meal
service, chore service, personal care and health care. (See
Appendix)
- Research by Kent' s housing consultant based on a HUD marketing
model for similar senior housing indicated that initially,
approximately 42 seniors in Kent would be interested and eligible
for the services we are considering. This interest could be
expected to increase as the residents aged.
The City needs to be sensitive to the cost of services and
financial ability of Kent seniors to live in the housing once it is
built. At the same time, if the City were to build senior housing
without provision for the types of services we have determined to
17
be important to an aging population, the City may be precluding
some income-qualifying seniors from being able to live in the
housing. Further, seniors who have all their physical abilities
upon move-in may require additional services in the future, and be
forced to move if these services are not available.
The City must not preclude the option of providing services in
addition to housing now or in the future.
If senior housing is comprised of independent living with support
services it may be characterized as follows:
1. One main meal a day would be prepared and served on site to
all residents for a monthly fee.
2 . Coordination with existing community services would be
encouraged in exchange for providing rent-free space for such
services within the senior housing. Examples of such services
include:
A. Chore Services*
B. Personal Care Services*
C. Visiting Resident (Valley Medical Center)
D. Para Transit
E. Other Services/Activities
*need to be income eligible.
3 . The building itself would be characterized by slightly smaller
independent living units, a commercial kitchen, common dining
area and other community rooms such as laundry, social rooms
and personal services rooms.
4 . Staffing would be comprised of:
Building Manager
Clerk
Social Worker (part time)
3 Resident Staff (part time)
18
Advisory Committee Role in Phase Two
The Committee has given consideration to its potential role in the
processes which will follow Council action on these initial
recommendations. There is an important role for an advisory
committee to play in assisting staff in developing criteria for
selection of a site/development team which will commence soon after
Council action.
The following is the anticipated scope of work in Phase Two:
1. Develop site and building design criteria.
2 . Develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) document and
project/development team selection criteria.
3 . Release RFP and evaluate responses.
4 . Present selected proposals to the Council Planning Committee
and Full Council for approval .
Once the project team(s) and proposal (s) are selected and approved
by Council, the advisory committee ' s role in Phase Two would
terminate.
Although the Committee members have made no formal recommendation
regarding their role in Phase Two, they do feel there is a role for
an advisory committee. The Mayor has also indicated that he would
like to see the Committee continue serving in Phase Two.
19
CHAPTER FOUR: ACTION AGENDA
The purpose of the Action Agenda is to outline the recommended
actions the Mayor and city Council must take prior to the City' s
engaging in Phase Two of the senior housing program.
Action Item One• Ownership and Management
The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is directed to enter into an Housing
Cooperation Agreement with the Ring County Housing Authority for
the purposes of owning and managing the Rent Senior Housing.
The Housing Cooperation Agreement must contain the provisions
outlined in Chapter Four of this report, and any additional
provisions which are deemed necessary by the City' s Legal
Department.
Action Item Two: Development
The City of Rent is to develop the senior housing utilizing a
design/build/turnkey method which requires a single RFP for the
purposes of selecting the senior housing site (s) , building(s) and
design-development team(s) .
This Action Item would be conducted as outlined in Chapter Three
and the Appendix of this report.
Action Item Three: Construction Process
The City of Rent Administration is to retain professional services
for the purposes of overseeing the construction of the senior
housing.
This Action Item would pertain to Phase Three of the senior housing
program.
Action Item Four• Support Services
The City of Rent will ensure that the Rent Senior Housing consist
of independent living units with the capacity to provide support
services for some of the units.
This Action Item must be further developed in Phase Two of the
senior Housing program by the Advisory Committee and staff and must
address the concerns outlined in Chapter Three of this report.
20
APPENDIX ONE: SENIOR HOUSING SURVEY RESULTS
The following are the results of a survey conducted 1 b There Mayor' s
Advisory Committee on Senior Housing in May
of ere 83
respondents.
1. In what neighborhood would you like to see the senior housing
built?
Response Number
Downtown 20
No Response/Unsure 16
East Hill/Benson Center 13
Kent-General 9
Kent Valley 8
Lower East Hill 3
West Hill 2
Midway, Panther Lake, 1
Scenic Hill and Meeker
The following are comments written in relating to question #1:
Near senior center, near #150 bus
Wline,
est on the
St Green
104th River,
b north
Central Ave, south Central Ave,
Johnny' s, West Meeker or Willis, near Mardi Gras Apartments.
2 . What services/amenities should be within walking distance of
the senior housing?
Shopping/Stores 40
Grocery Store 35
Medical Facility 17
Transportation/Bus Line 16
Drug Store 13
Senior Center 12
Post Office 8
Bank 7
Churches 6
Eating Places 6
The following were mentioned twice each: library, hair Salon,
dentist, everything.
The following were mentioned once each: City Hall, car
repair, walking area, Fire Department, Fred Meyer, recreation
facility, park.
i
3. What services should be provided on-site with the housing?
(Of the four services mentioned on the questionnaire, (meal,
health care, chore service, personal care) , 66 of the
respondents mentioned at least one of them. )
Health Care 46
Meals 45
Chore Service 43
Personal Care 27
Transportation Service 6
Laundry-Washer/Dryer 5
Social Hall 4
Secure Building 3
Grounds/Yard Maintenance 3
The following were mentioned twice each: Kitchen, recreation,
parking.
The following were mentioned once each: Information desk,
swimming pool, manager, make services optional, ombudsman,
tv/vcr, library, radio.
4. What size should the units be?
One bedroom 32
Mixture 28
Two bedroom 18
Studio 2
Of those who indicated a mixture of units, studio, one and two
bedroom units were mentioned with the following frequency:
One bedroom 18
Two bedroom 15
Studio 5
5. What average rent do you feel Kent seniors would be able to
afford?
$200-250/month 38
$251-300/month 15
$301-350/month 8
According to income 6
None of the above 6
$351+/month 1
ii
6. Are you eligible to live in the Kent senior housing? (62 or
older; annual income of $23,250 or less for one person)
Yes 56
No 10
Don't Know 7
Are you interested in living in the housing?
Yes 37
Maybe 22
No 21
If you are interested. . . would you consider moving within:
() 1 year () 2-5 years () 5 or more years
1 year 22
2-5 years 21
5+ years 15
7 . Do you know someone, other than yourself, who would like to
live in the senior housing?
Yes 45
No 26
No answer 12
S . Are you a senior citizen?
Yes 79
No 4
9 . Are you a Kent resident?
Yes 58
No 25
iii
APPENDIX TWO: PUBLIC MEETING INPUT
The following are the comments and suggestions which came out of
the two public meetings the Committee held:
Location•
1. Should not be too far out.
2 . Should be on #150 bus line/need good bus service.
3 . Should be adjacent to services.
4 . Good site at 104th south of Johnny ' s where apartments are
currently being developed.
5. Should have walking access to services.
6. Good site on 256th across from the Cake Box.
7 . Downtown Kent, convenient to services and transportation.
8 . Russell Road area.
9 . Close to parks and churches.
10 . Site across the street from Senior Center - on Smith between
Jason and Clark, 623 E Smith - Currently for sale.
il. City-owned property should be investigated.
12 . Not on a hilly site - flat.
13 . Find a site(s) that could accommodate more than 92 units -
plan for future expansion.
14 . Look at the zoning and density possible on proposed site(s) .
15 . Leverage other City goals. . .Example. . .keep housing off East
Hill. . .enhance goals for downtown redevelopment.
16. Approach development community for input on site availability.
17 . Downtown area is not pretty - not a good area for seniors .
18 . Rural area is prettier - preferable for seniors.
19 . Downtown is preferable - where the action is.
20. Multiple sites are preferable.
21. Locate on East Hill because of shopping and services.
Location Characteristics:
1. Close to grocery and drug stores - car may not be an option.
2 . Close to public transportation (Metro) .
3 . Get services to the housing through leveraging.
4 . Site should accommodate handicap accessibility.
5 . Site should be on local access only road - not a main
thoroughfare.
6 . Close to grocery not important because van service could be
made available.
7 . Should not have to rely on van service for the 92+ seniors to
do daily shopping.
8 . Should locate where best piece of available land is not
necessarily the most services.
9 . Location should allow for greatest independence of residents.
10. Near new public library.
11. Near City parks and recreation, golf course and Mill Creek
iv
Park for example.
12 . Near Post Office and doctor.
13 . Location should be quiet and restful .
14 . Location should be away from train, heavy truck and auto
traffic.
15. Suggestion that the City focus in on what the facility is
before selecting the site.
Housing Itself/Amenities:
1. Doctors and nurses should be available.
2 . Meal service should be provided.
3 . Exercise room.
4 . Gathering room.
5. Cleaning services.
6. Minimal services - too many services seniors will get lazy.
7 . Van service.
8 . Eating and cooking facilities.
9. Adequate parking.
10. Units that are slightly more than a studio.
11. One and a half bedrooms that will accommodate 2 people.
12 . Units that accommodate 2 persons.
13 . Visit Mardi Gras as an example of housing that works for
seniors.
14 . Studios are good - some people like them.
15 . Mix should be 2/3 one bedroom and 1/3 two bedroom.
16. No studios.
17 . Send out specific detailed questionnaires to candidates who
would live in the housing to get input on these issues.
18 . Survey local providers of housing to find out what works.
19 . Emergency call buttons in every unit.
20. Large storage area within building.
21. Secured entrances.
22 . Units designed for the handicapped.
23 . Opportunities to mix with people and exercise on site.
24 . Mixture of congregate care and independent living.
25. Options so that one would not have to cook.
26. Elevator if more than one story.
27 . Dormitory style units (private) .
28 . Showers are safer but seniors need the option to take baths as
part of therapeutic treatments.
29 . Whirlpool tub available to all .
30 . Seats in showers.
31 . Laundry room.
32 . Cable TV.
33 . Social Hall .
34 . Telephones :in units.
35. Library room.
36. Limited meal service ok, but not full medical service.
37 . Preferred emphasis on long term living facility.
38 . Utilize existing community services - approach Chore and
v
Catholic Community Services about available services.
39 . Congregate care is a big need - something in between
independent living and a nursing home.
40. No meal service because seniors can cook more cheaply for
themselves.
41. Services should not be at the expense of housing
affordability.
42 . Provide hookups for washer and dryers in each unit. If not
used for this purpose may be used for storage.
Other Suggestions/Concerns:
1. Coordinate with Police Department for services.
2 . Safety of neighborhood: do not locate near homes where ex-
criminals live.
3 . Ensure housing is affordable.
4 . Community gardening facility and other outdoor activities.
5. Group activities director position.
6. Consider potential future development which might surround the
housing site.
7 . Give the public input on specific things.
8 . Land for small golf course or walking paths on site.
9 . Sauna/swimming pool.
10 . Lighted walkways.
11. Develop admissions policy which gives priority to those with
the lowest incomes.
12 . Rents should be based on 1/3rd of a person' s income.
13 . Don't make it a high-rise - no vertical slums.
14 . Soundproof rooms.
15. No matter who owns the building once it is built, City needs
to ensure that Kent seniors are given priority.
16 . Housing needs to be maintained as senior housing, no chance
for owners to convert to another use.
17 . Don't specify too many details in housing when it goes out to
bid - may cause cost (and rents) to increase.
18 . Have a senior housing design expert involved in specifying
details such as type of doorknobs, etc.
19 . If two bedrooms are included need to specify the number of
occupants that must live in the unit (ex minimum of two) .
20. Apartments should be rented unfurnished.
21. May want to furnish some units for residents who may have been
homeless previously.
vi
APPENDIX THREE: DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The following is a detailed version of the development process
presented in Chapter Four.
1) The City prepares a request for proposals (RFP) .
In preparing this document the City will rely heavily on the
recommendations from the Senior Housing Advisory Committee and
the City Council. The RFP provides the only official basis
which the developers have to determine what they should
propose to the City. The RFP will be prepared by the City
with assistance from the Housing Authority.
The RFP will contain:
A. A statement of the general purpose of the Kent Senior
Housing Program.
B. A statement describing the City ' s proposed program for
the senior housing which would include providing
independent living with support services and other
program goals.
C. A request that the developer submit proposals to the City
with: preliminary plans, and outline of specifications,
a development cost breakdown, evidence of site control,
experience and qualification of the developer/builder and
architect, and the developer builder's financial
statement.
D. A proposed time-line for the project.
E. A description of how the developer will be reimbursed.
F. A description of the basis of selecting the winning
proposals.
G. A statement describing other requirements the developer
will have to comply with such as wage rate
2 . The City issues the RFP.
As part of issuing the RFP the City will probably hold an
informational meeting with prospective developers to answer
questions.
3 . Proposals are reviewed.
The City with the assistance of the advisory committee will
review the proposals. Key factors such as cost, location,
design, and experience of the development team will be
vii
considered. Hopefully, strong proposals will be submitted
giving the City many alternatives to choose from. The City
can, if the proposals do not meet the expected standards,
reject all of the proposals and repeat the process or opt to
proceed with an alternate process.
4 . A developer is selected.
Since selecting a developer also involves selecting a site,
there will be a public process before the final decision on
selecting a developer and site. The City can choose more than
one site and can go back to the developer to negotiate any
desired changes to their proposal .
5 . A contract is signed with the developer.
The City will then negotiate a contract with the developer(s)
selected. The terms of the contract will be subject to the
city' s approval of the final working drawings and
specifications. This negotiation process should be the last
place to make significant changes in the housing design.
6. Final working drawings and specifications are prepared by the
developer. This should occur at the same time the developer
is taking the housing through Kent ' s permitting process.
7 . Final Approval is given.
The City after reviewing the final drawings and specifications
gives its final approval for construction.
8 . Construction begins.
The City assigns an individual to oversee the construction of
the housing. Building the housing is the developer' s
responsibility. Any work changes would have to be negotiated
between the developer and the City, but every attempt would be
made to avoid changes. The City will make payments to the
developer based on the progress of the construction.
9 . Construction is completed, final inspection and approval is
given and project is accepted.
The City conducts a final inspection of the housing and once
the final "punch list" changes are made, the project' s keys
are turned over to the City. The City then turns the keys
over to the. Housing Authority.
viii
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
July 17, 1990 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Christi Houser Lauri Anderson
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Jim Harris
Margaret Porter
Other City Staff Janet Shull
Carolyn Lake
Planning Commission Representative City Administrator
None Ed Chow
WETLANDS INVENTORY (L ANDERSON)
Senior Planner Lauri Anderson explained in detail the City of Kent Phase I
Wetland Inventory Report. Lauri Anderson announced that last spring the City
was awarded a grant from the Department of Ecology with a total project
funding of $12 , 000 including a 50 per cent match of $6000 contributed from
the City of Kent. Shapiro & Associates, Inc. (SHAPIRO) was hired to conduct
the field investigation during the month of May. The inventory was completed
by trained botanists, wetland ecologists, and soil scientists from SHAPIRO.
In June, the final reports and maps were sent to the Department of Ecology
for approval. During the week of July 9 , 1990, the approval was received.
Copies of the Wetlands Inventory will become available to the public on
July 18, 1990.
A grant has been awarded from the Department of Ecology for the second half
of this inventory for next spring 1991, which will include a wetland
management program. The timing is ideal in that the Growth Management Act
and possible Citizens ' Initiative mandate regulation of critical areas such
as wetlands.
The City' s obligation to compensate landowners as a result of any wetlands
regulations was discussed. One question was brought up as to whether
wetlands on a piece of property would enable the property totally to be
developed. It was stated this is a touchy issue. If development were
prohibited on a piece of property, the City might be responsible for
purchasing the property. James Harris explained that the Planning Department
will be more consistent in handling wetlands issues based on the present
data. The Corps of Engineers can zero in on the specific wetlands. Attorney
Carolyn Lake stated that the greater that any municipality or any government
agency can show that the preservation of certain lands is necessary for
health, safety or welfare issues, the less likely it is that regulations
would be subject to a takings claim.
With regards to the Wetland Inventory Report on page 7, Carolyn Lake
commented on the phrase, "the inventory is considered conservative, probably
taking in more area as wetlands than would occur from using the Unified
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 17, 1990
Federal Methodology on each site to delineate the boundaries" . Carolyn said
that based upon that statement, care should be taken that any future wetlands
regulations not be tied to the inventory report. The purpose of this
inventory was that it would flag the area in general and that the specific
boundaries would then be staked out. Lauri Anderson explained there is a
clear disclaimer on the map.
No action was needed from the committee. The presentation from Lauri
Anderson was for information only.
SENIOR HOUSING - Janet Shull
Planner Janet Shull presented the Final Recommendations of the Senior Housing
Advisory Committee Phase One. The committee was appointed by Mayor Kelleher.
They began meeting in March, 1990 and finished up in June, 1990 .
The committee members also visited existing senior housing facilities and
talked with their management staff.
The Senior Housing Advisory Committee held two public meetings on May 21st
and June 5, 1990. In the Appendix of the report is the tabulation of all the
comments that were received from the two public meetings, as well as results
from a survey with mostly senior citizens responding.
The committee' s recommendations on page 1 of the report are as follows:
1) The City of Kent should enter into a Housing Cooperation Agreement
with the King County Housing Authority for the purposes of owning and
managing the Kent Senior Housing.
2) The City of Kent should develop the senior housing utilizing a
design/build/turnkey method which requires a single RFP for the purposes
of selecting the senior housing site (s) , buildings (s) and design-
development team(s) .
3) The City of Kent should retain professional services for the purposes of
overseeing the construction of the senior housing.
4) The City of Kent should ensure that the Kent Senior Housing consist of
independent living units with the capacity to provide support services
for some of the units.
The committee was asked to forward to the Council the Action Items 1-4 on
page 1 of the report (attached hereto) .
The two main issues that were discussed were ownership and management (this
pertains to Action Item One on page 20 of the report) . It was pointed out
that the City cannot own and manage its own housing.
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 17 , 1990
Action Item One of the report was amended as follows:
Amended Action Item One: Ownership and Management
The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is directed to negotiate with the King County
Housing Authority a Housing Cooperation Agreement consistent with the final
recommendations of the Senior Housing Advisory Committee for the purposes of
owning and managing the Kent Senior Housing with the final Housing
Cooperation Agreement to be approved by City Council Ordinance.
As follows a motion was moved and seconded:
For the acceptance of the Senior Housing Committee Phase I Report, and
approval of the Action Agenda (contained on page 20) with the Amendment
to Action Item Number One (as stated above) .
The motion was approved and shall be forwarded to the full council on
August 7, 1990 along with the committee ' s recommendation for acceptance of
the report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 : 05 PM.
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7. 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 2RAPe3E1e GLASS WORKS
6 1d EAST HILL f-)eE STPMO
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council is requested to review and
approve the jury's selection of dichroic cast glass artwork by
Paul Marioni and Ann Troutner. These will be placed at the
south entrance, on the east facing exterior window and on the
north interior lobby window at the Headquarters Fire Station.
The artists were selected by the jury in an open competition for
the project. Mr. Marioni and Ms. Troutner have completed
commissions for the Washington State and Seattle Arts
Commissions and many private individuals and companies.
LI'v f. s De,pfi,
Sho �e� cl�a �, ���s o f -t ►-� f- C��1�✓v�k c��
5 c] " s a r-, 1 e 4-
Jh t-e, +-VvIt 4--hIs ,1s
wv�c�l�d he �, 1 zt Fund- /ViANn�
M D UC-b +h.0 t -�-h e (4 rttA)0 t b� M{. Mot C i o n I
U,yJ Ms. Tr-o ufAe r b e C p PC 6', e-J LJ
S (f,(.o Y)c! e cc. -Tl'i e V)q O 1 1, C rr
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
FIf
M4fe ��
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 . 1990
Category Bids
1 1. SUBJECT: SIGNAL MODIFICATION-84TH AND S. 208TH
Dr,
(�elj
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening wasAJuly 17, 1990. Two bids
were received, both of which exceeded the Eppgineering Estimate
and available funding.5 .a. recommendiaAAKese bids be
rejected, the specifications revised and the bids re-advertised.
WNf TU
SoMOV��• 1,A0A, SL' GOylC12c C � " e-
rno H" Cara"e .
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staf
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FIS PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE UIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF S:
7. CITY COUNC ACTION:
Councilme er J '�ni moves, Councilmember �( ° d" '1 seconds
the bids received for the Signal Modification 84th and S. 208th
Street roject be rejected, the specifications revised and the
project re-advertised for bids.
DISCUSSIO
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
A
Kent City Council Meeting
Date August 7 , lids
lr Category Bids
1. -SUBJECT: SIGNAL MODIFICATION-SR 516 and SR 167
WAs held On
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening August 2,
1990.
CCS rr'Ceived Ni ()a eC4r,'c, roc
6' ��- h
(n e Gt w u.l G Vd, b( , 4 T� • a
ci►�► s
L� o f-e r m �' n of -f f lnt f-11 b i c� s Val, `d ✓
re CV vn ✓v1 e r7d s ' (�a� �` t b e a
(S t f I rL St% 11/l 0 ✓L. Gc n s c- c�D
3 . EXHIBITS- None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO /\ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
the recommendation of the Public Works Director as to award of
the Signal Modification SR 516 and SR 167 project be accepted.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 11 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom 0�
RE: Signal Modification 84th & S. 208th
Bids for the Signal Modification at 84th & S . 208th were opened on
July 17, 1990. Two bids were received both of which exceeded the
Engineering Estimate and available funding.
Motion: Authorization to reject bids received 7/17/90 for the
Signal Modification at 84th & S . 208th and to revise specs and
readvertise for bids.
BID SUMMARY
TOTEM ELECTRIC OF TACOMA $58, 108 . 00
SIGNAL ELECTRIC, INC. $57 , 946 . 00
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE $44 , 146 . 00
1-6
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 7, 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom }���rJ
RE: Signal Modification SR 516 & SR 167
Bid opening for the Signal Modification at SR 516 & SR 166 is
scheduled for August 2 , 1990. The Director of Public Works will
review the bids received and make a recommendation as to award.
Motion: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds the
recommendation of the Public Works Director as to award of the
Signal Modification SR 516 and SR 167 project be accepted.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
r
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
It
i
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 31, 1990
TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher
City Council
FROM: City Attorney's Office
SUBJECr: NIKE MANOR
This is sent as follow-up to the request made at the last Council meeting to look
into concern of citizen Floyd Bacon regarding Nike Manor.
Mr. Bacon's concerns were two-fold:
1. Concerns about truck jDarkina:
Ed White of Engineering investigated this complaint. He spoke with Mr.
Bacon. He also made a couple of site visits. He determined that the
parking complained of is being done by 1, 2, or at most three specific
trucks, the owners of which probably live in the neighborhood.
Ed notes that the gravel shoulder in that area is 15 feet wide. The
trucks which occasionally park there are 8 feet in width, and do not
represent a visibility or safety obstruction problem.
Under the criteria used throughout the City, this situation does not
appear to warrant the legislative action of an ordinance prohibiting truck
parking-
Ed has discussed this with Mr. Bacon, and advised him that the truck
parking situation appears to be isolated incidents. Ed suggested that Mr.
Bacon record the license number of the truck and advise Ed. The owner can
then be contacted, and alternative truck parking locations can be
suggested. If the parking increases, then perhaps the need for the
ordinance can be re-evaluated.
2. Nike Manor Barricade:
Apparently, there exists a barricade within the Nike Manor property which
is placed on 35th Street. The barricade prevents traffic from going down
35th Avenue, in an attempt to avoid the traffic signal at Military and
248th.
Mr. Bacon expressed concern at the last Council meeting that this
barricade might be taken down, and the result would be increased traffic
in the residential neighborhood.
It should be noted that the barricade is within the federal property site,
and is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Kent Public Works
Department.
However, this office contacted Don Watson of the King County Housing
Authority. Dan represents the King County Housing Authority as one of the
agencies who has submitted the joint application for operating a homeless
project. Dan advised that, although he is not aware of the exact
barricade of which I spoke, he wanted to emphatically stress that he and
the other agencies have absolutely no plans to charge the traffic patterns
within the project. Their interest is in preserving the residential
character of the neighborhood.
Accordingly, citizens should be reassured that there are no plans to
remove the barricade or alter the traffic patterns that currently exist.
CITY OF
Dan Kelleher, Mayor
Don E. Wickstrom, P.E., Director of Public Works
The City o/Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years
i
PUBLIC WORKS C01414ITTEE
JULY 17 , 1990
PRESENT: Jim White Paul Scott
Leona Orr - Tim Heydon
Don Wickstrom Tony McCarthy
Ed Chow Cliff Craig
Gary Gill May Miller
Bill Williamson Lyle Price
Authorization to Surplus Equipment
Wickstrom reviewed Equipment Rental ' s request to surplus two
tractors. Jim White expressed concern about the fact that these
two tractors are comparatively new and stated he didn 't feel the
number of hours was excessive. After discussion, White asked that
Tim Heydon cheek with the manufacturer to determine what their
recommendation would be on replacement. and bring this back to
Committee at their next meeting.
G. E. Appliance Cleanup - Waiver of Insurance Requirement
Williamson explained to the Committee he was seeking authorization
to waive the insurance requirement for the G. E. Appliance cleanup
operation. Williamson stated the cleanup operation is relatively
small and he felt the City would be adequately protected with a
hold harmless agreement. The Committee unanimously recommended
approval .
Public Works 1991 Budget
The remainder of the meeting was spent in review of the proposed
1991 Public Works budget.
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895!ENGINEERING (206)859-3383-OPERATIONS(206)859-3395 i FAX N 859-3334
a �
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JUL 1 1990
JULY 3 , 1990
CITY 0t t:,,?
CITY CLERK
PRESENT: Jim White Ed Chow
Leona Orr Tony McCarthy
Steve Dowell Scott Williams
Don Wickstrom Jack Roberts
Gary Gill Mr. & Mrs. Rust
Bill Williamson Tim Heydon
OVERLOOK ANNEXATION
Jack Roberts explained to the Committee that he currently owns
approximately 13 acres in the vicinity of the proposed annexation,
half of which is in Kent, half in King County. At this time there
are no definitive plans for development but would prefer not to
deal with two municipalities. Thus, that is the primary reason
for requesting annexation. They plan to do feasibility studies on
development this winter. Their current project, Overlook
Apartments, is not affected by this proposed annexation.
Wickstrom added he has calculated an annexation takes approximately
60 hours of staff time. Gill added that a good portion of this
time depends upon whether the City prepares the staff report and
notice of intent or requires the developer to do same. After
discussion, the Committee approved the reduced annexation subject
to the petitioner preparing the Boundary Review Board staff report
and notice of intent for review by our staff before submittal . It
was noted that this will fit into an already heavy workload for
Public Works staff.
PROJECT AND STAFFING REPORT
Wickstrom presented a report to the Committee for their review and
information prior to their review of the 1991 Public Works Budget.
Wickstrom explained he has developed a potential funding package
for Public Works capital improvement projects. The funding means
a commitment to these projects of all the additional gas tax money
generated from the gas tax increase, commitment of the revenue
generated by the County ' s vehicle registration fee (if passed) ,
instituting the LID' s for the projects and instituting a street
utility which could generate a net of approximately $800 , 000 per
year. Wickstrom explained there are five grants and four
jurisdictions involved in the 192nd/196th Corridor. The
Transportation Improvement Board would like to have all the grant
applications simultaneously. Thus, the jurisdictions have to agree
on terminus points, develop their applications and submit at the
same time. After funding is approved, we would have one year to
certify that our matching funds are available. Additionally, TIB
has over obligated their funds by 3 : 1 ; thus, there could be a
negative cash flow by 1992 . If construction grants for our
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JULY 3 , 1990
PAGE 2
projects are not approved by that time, we may not receive funding.
Wickstrom clarified that a street utility would not affect the
proposed TBD but a voter approved bond issue would. The money
generated by a street utility can only be used for street
maintenance and operation and can not divert any funds already
budgeted for maintenance and operation. White asked if a street
utility were formed how much longer would we need to continue to
budget for maintenance. Wickstrom referred to one of the tables
in the Committee ' s packet which assumed everything in place in
1990, he estimated having to budget for maintenance through 1995 .
Wickstrom explained that the street utility revenue, however, could
be a disappearing revenue. If the regional government (Metro)
institutes an employer tax, the City would only receive the
difference between Metro ' s charge and the City revenue. If the
street utility is not formed, there would be no revenue to credit
toward Metro' s fee. White stated he has been supportive of a
street utility for several years and he would continue to be
supportive of it. White continued that it is one of the many
funding mechanisms we will have to use to address the traffic
situation. Wickstrom explained this funding scenario is the first
decision that has to be made. If the growth initiative passes, it
repeals the legislation that has been passed recently and would
mean the gas tax increase is repealed. But for now, we will get
the gas tax, the County appears receptive to the vehicle
registration fee, the City has sold $2 , 000, 000 in Councilmanic
bonds and another $3 , 000, 000 is scheduled and there is $800, 000 in
cash. White asked about the personnel issue. Wickstrom stated
that first a decision needs to be made on the utility. If that is
affirmative, then the personnel issues will have to be addressed.
Wickstrom added we will review this again in budget meetings.
Wickstrom indicated these are the only two alternatives - either
a street utility or a voter approved GO issue which would be
detrimental to the TBD. Dowell asked on whom a street utility is
imposed. Wickstrom responded it is imposed on businesses in terms
of number of employees and on residents in terms of single family
residences or equivalent.
Addressing the personnel issues, Wickstrom stated he had provided
information in the packet showing our workload. Approximately 11
full time equivalents (FTE) are required to handle those projects
already under contract. White inquired if we were looking for
consultants to assist. Wickstrom replied that we were but we would
still need staff to manage the consultants. In addition, we would
need an attorney to address the complex legal issues of the
corridor projects. For example, 272nd/277th Corridor is totally
outside the City; the west leg of the 196th Corridor is primarily
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
JULY 3 , 1990
PAGE 3
outside the City; the middle portion of the 196th Corridor is in
the City but it goes through a Superfund site. Williamson added
that will require a great deal of legal time just addressing the
closure issues. White asked Administration to provide an analysis
of the Public Works Director' s proposal and to have it back to them
within a couple of weeks.
CITY LIMITS SIGNS
Tim Heydon stated that three objectives had been identified in
studying the issue. One is identifying the city limits for police,
city crews, and citizens; another is notifying drivers that Kent' s
speed limit is 25 MPH unless otherwise posted and the third is
welcoming them to the City. It didn't seem possible to meet these
objectives with one sign. Heydon proposed placing a regular City
limit sign with the "25 MPH unless otherwise posted" message at the
actual boundary of the City , then a sign indicating the actual
speed of the street if different than 25 MPH, and then place the
"Welcome to Kent" sign a little further in. Heydon displayed a
sample plan for the Committee. On those residential streets that
are also a City boundary, rather than a greeting sign, the City
limit sign would be more appropriate. Conversely, when entering
the City from the freeway, while not going across the city
boundary, there should be a "Welcome to Kent" sign. Heydon
displayed a map indicating the proposed locations of the greeting
signs.
Mrs. Rust asked about the Kent sign on West Valley Highway and
228th. Wickstrom explained that sign was a SEPA requirement as
part of the mitigation for the project as required by the City' s
Image Committee which is no longer an existing Committee.
Heydon continued that the actual design and locations will be
brought back before the Committee at their meeting in Kent.