HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/18/1990 ....... ......
N-
777
x 777
City of Kent
MeetminCRY Council
Agenda 5�
a;
.-y
eti
xx
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Leona Orr Steve Dowell
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Jim White
X:
....
September 18, 1990
......
X:, .
Office of the city Clerk
;I
... Mix, :�:xXx x
. .. .....
rep
at
CITY COUNCIL MEETING PC) IK
September 18, 1990
Summary Agenda C
�'
City of Kent urPci1thambers
A 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. PU LIC COMMUNICATIONS
Proclamation Constitution Week
Proclamation - National Arts Week
Proclamation - Walk for Health Week
8,--_. King County Library System
2 . P LIC HEARINGS �'j� +0
Economic Development Corporation - Resolution rc. s�
1991 Community Development Block Grant Program
G _ Growth Management Advisory Ballot - Resolutionla,,-
3 . CO SENT CALENDAR 9 FL}
Minutes
Bills
Senior Housing Technical Assistance
FAUS Funding Proposed Allocation Method Change
228th Street Acquisition
LID 331 - 240th Street Improvements
4. ER BUSINESS
Harvey Preliminary Subdivision SU-90-3
Appeal - Minshull/Wagner Rezone
- Prosecutor Services Staff
5. ><S Signal Modifications - 84th Ave. So. & S. 208th St.
6. COONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7.>66E ORTS
8.i DJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Proclamation - Constitution Week
B. Proclamation - National Arts Week
C. Proclamation - Walk for Health Week
D. Bill Ptacek, Director
King County Library System
Kent City Council Meeting
Date ��*+tember 18. 1990
Category Public Hearina
1. : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - RESOLUTION
2. SUMMARY STAB-- The Baer Family Partnership has applied
for industrial development bond
financing
tthrough
he amountthe
City of
Kent Economic Development Corp on ion, construction and
$3,000,000 to be used for the acqui
equipping of manufacturing facilities for the processing of meat
lc located
7gStreet in Kent. Proper
egal notice has been given for this hearing.
The Baer Family Partnership application for industrial revenue
bonds was approved by the EDC at a special meeting held at ,
5:30 p.m. this date.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: EDC Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
vTcCnT /PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL
L
5. ED Not Recommended
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
-' moves, Councilmember seconds
Councilmember
lution
J,A approving the issuance of
to adopt City of Kent Reso
industrial revenue bonds in the amount of $3, 000, 000 and
approving Resolution 1990-50 of the EDC authorizing the sale of
the bonds to provide funds for the project.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent approving the issuance by the City of
Kent Economic Development Corporation of its
Industrial Revenue Bonds, 1990 (Baer Family
Partnership Project) in the principal amount
of $3 , 000, 000 pursuant to Chap. 39 .84 RCW; and
approving the resolution of said public
corporation authorizing said bonds and other
documentation in connection with the issuance
of said bonds.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Washington has
provided for the creation of public corporations by municipalities,
including cities, pursuant to Chapter 300, Laws of Washington, 1981
(Regular Session) codified as Chapter 39 . 84 RCW, as amended (the
"Act") , for the purpose of facilitating economic development and
employment opportunities in the State of Washington; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the City Council of the City of
Kent has, by Ordinance No. 2419, created and approved the charter
of a public corporation, designated as the "City of Kent Economic
Development Corporation" (the "Development Corporation") to carry
out the purposes of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Development Corporation has received an applica-
tion from the Baer Family Partnership (the "Partnership") for the
financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping of
manufacturing facilities for the processing of meat products (the
"Project") to be located at 7622 S. 188th Street within the
boundaries of the City of Kent (the "City") ; and
WHEREAS, the Development Corporation has reviewed the appli-
cation of the Company, has determined that the Project qualifies
as an "industrial development facility" within the meaning of the
Act and by Resolution No. 1990- adopted on September 18, 1990,
has authorized the issuance and sale of its Industrial Revenue
Bonds, 1990 (Baer Family Partnership Project) in the aggregate
principal amaount of $3 , 000, 000, the proceeds of which will be
loaned to the Partnership pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of N
September 1, 1990 (the "Loan Agreement") between the Development
Corporation and the Partnership; and
WHEREAS, the Act requires that the governing body of the
creating municipality approve the resolution of the Development
Corporation authorizing the issuance of bonds by the Development
Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the Act also provides that each county, city or town
within whose planning jurisdiction the Project is to be located
must approve the issuance of bonds by the Development Corporation
for such Project; and
WHEREAS, the Development Corporation has requested such
approvals of the City pursuant to the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has been assured that
there will be no financial liability accruing to the City as a
result of such approvals and that its planning jurisdiction
approval shall constitute approval solely for the purpose of
permitting the Development Corporation to proceed with the issuance
of such bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KENT, WASHINGTON, as follows:
Section 1. The City Council does hereby approve the
issuance of the Bonds by the Development Corporation in the
aggregate principal amount of $3 , 000, 000 for the purposes therein
described and referred to in the recitals of this resolution and
2- K\ZSP%20093-00.002%2rvkPPROV.OQP
in the Bond Resolution and the agreements to issue the Bonds
therein expressed and approved, copies of which are on file among
the records of this meeting, in accordance with RCW 39.84 . 100.
Section 2 . The City Council hereby also approves the
issuance of the Bonds pursuant to the requirement of RCW 39. 84 . 060
for planning jurisdiction approval of the Bonds. This approval
shall not in any way be deemed to be a review or final approval of
any development permit for the Project which may be in process, or
may be submitted at a future date.
Section 3 . This resolution shall take effect immediately
from and after its adoption.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,
this 18th day of September, 1990.
CITY OF KENT
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
—3— Y-,VS1120093-00.002�2n4PPROV.OQF
..................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18, 1990
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider
adoption of the 1991 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program as recommended by the City Council's Planning Committee.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, proposed 1991 CDBG program summary,
project descriptions, Planning Committee minutes dated 9/4/90,
Human Services Committee minutes dated 6/28/90
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $219,719
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Community Development Block Grant
Funds
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember " seconds
to approve the 1 91 Community Development Block Grant Program as
presented.
DISCUSSION• V�1
ACTION. C4
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
arr cF l
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 12 , 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: KENT'S 1991 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG)
Attached is a copy of the proposed 1991 Community Development Block
Grant Program as recommended by the City Council' s Planning
Committee. The 1991 CDBG Program Year is a 12-month period from
January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. The total amount for
the proposed program is estimated at $219 , 719 for a twelve month
program year. A maximum of $29, 638 of these funds can be used for
public (human) services, and a maximum of $926 for planning and
administration.
Also attached is a narrative description of all the recommended
projects. The human services portion of the proposed 1991 Program
was reviewed by the Human Services Commission. The Commission' s
recommendation was made to the Council Planning Committee on
" September 4 as part of the staff' s proposed 1991 Program. The
Planning Committee reviewed the proposed Program and recommended
approval as presented.
You will note in the Planning Committee recommendation that there
are contingencies spelled out for how project funding would be
adjusted if the City were to receive a higher or lower amount of
funding than what is estimated by the .County. It is necessary to
do this each year because it is possible that the projected Federal
Entitlement may change when the federal budget is adopted sometime
this fall.
One CDBG program which the City has funded for the last five years
is not included in the proposed 1991 CDBG Program. This is the
Kent/Renton Rental Rehabilitation Program. This program has been
administered by the City of Renton with the City of Kent paying a
small portion ($8, 000-10, 000) of the funding for the staffing
costs, and Renton paying the remainder. The large amount of funding
required for the actual rehabilitation has come from a Federal
Rental Rehabilitation Program entitlement. This project has been
eliminated in 1991 for two reasons: 1) The future of the Federal
Rental Rehabilitation Program funding is currently under debate in
Congress, with the very strong possibility that the funding will
disappear in 1991; and 2) The City of Renton has decided to
eliminate the program in 1991, due to the uncertainty of the
funding and the desire to fund other projects. It is unfortunate
that the federal funding and Renton's commitment to the project are
Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
September 12, 1990
Page 2
disappearing, as we feel this has been a successful program.
Throughout the life of the program, a total of 96 units have been
rehabilitated. Even though the Program is being phased out at this
time, we may want to reinstate it at some time in the future if
funding should again become available. Fortunately, discontinuance
of the Kent/Renton Rental Rehabilitation Program does not remove
the opportunity for property owners within the City of Kent to
receive rehabilitation assistance. Rental units in the City of
Kent will still be eligible for loans through the County's program
which should continue regardless of federal funding.
Recommended Action
We recommend that the City Council adopt the 1991 Community
Development Block Grant Program as recommended by the Planning
Committee including the contingencies for reduced or increased
funding. The adopted Program must be forwarded to King County by
October 5, 1991.
LB:ch
Enclosures
PROPOSED
1991 CITY OF KENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF CDBG FUNDS AVAILABLE: * $219,719
1991 Human Services Ceiling $29 , 638
1991 Planning & Administration $926
Recommended
Project Type Funding Level
1. Planning & Administration Administration $926
2 . City of Kent Housing
Repair Service Program Housing Rehab $134, 055
3 . Kent Community Clinic
Facility Expansion** Construction $5, 000
4 . KVYS Transitional Housing
for Homeless Teenspa(eni"5 Rehab/Relocation $25, 000
5. Children' s Therapy Center
Handicap Accessibility Construction $111100
6 . SKKMSC Transitional Housing
Rehabilitation** Housing Rehab $14 , 000
7 . Kent Community Clinic
Health Services Human Services $12 , 178
8 . YWCA Emergency Housing
Program Human Services $17 , 460
TOTAL $219, 719
Applications not recommended for funding: Kiwanis Tot Lot #1
($391842 requested) ; Tot Lot #4 ($43 , 018 requested) ; and Washington
Women's Employment and Education ($5, 600 requested) .
*If the CDBG entitlement is reduced, it is recommended that a
percentage, proportionate to the amount of funds allocated, be
extracted from each project.
**If the CDBG entitlement is increased (or additional program
income or recaptured funds are received) , it is recommended that
the total be divided, proportionate to the amount received, between
SCKMSC Transitional Housing Program and the Kent Community Clinic
"' Expansion Program.
CITY OF KENT 1991 HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
1. PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION
The amount of funding allocated for Planning & Administration
has been substantially reduced this year. This small
allocation will be used to pay for training, communications,
and supplies for the CDBG program.
2 . CITY OF KENT HOUSING REPAIR SERVICE PROGRAM
Kent CDBG funds have financed a housing repair program for the
last fifteen years. Funds are used to perform both minor and
major repairs on needy owner-occupied housing. Homes located
within the Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) , which is a
targeted low-income area that includes the downtown and
portions of the valley and the lower east hill, receive
priority over other homes in the City. Where appropriate,
homeowners participate in the work through a self-help
arrangement. All .beneficiaries are screened to ensure income
eligibility requirements are met. For the past two years the
Housing Repair Service Program has included a summer painting
program. This program has provided exterior paint to sixteen
homes in the NSA.
3 . KENT COMMUNITY CLINIC FACILITY EXPANSION
The Kent Community Clinic provides health care for low- and
moderate-income families in Kent and the greater, Kent area.
Proposed CDBG Human Services funds will be used for expansion
of the clinic. In 1990 the Clinic received CDBG Capital funds
to expand the existing facility by approximately 625 square
feet. Due to the increase in wages and design costs
additional money is required to complete the facility
expansion. The CDBG capital funds recommended for this
project will ensure that the expansion is completed and
additional patient rooms and office space are available.
4 . KVYS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS TEENS
Kent Valley Youth Services (KVYS) has proposed a transitional
housing project for homeless teen parents. A ten-unit
apartment located on Third Avenue S. in the South of Willis
neighborhood will be the future site for this program. KVYS
has leveraged over $400, 000 for rehabilitation from the
Housing Trust Fund, a state administered program, and the
Housing Opportunity Fund, a county administered program. Both
of these programs require that a funding commitment be
obtained from the local jurisdiction in which the Project is
located. In addition, KVYS has received funding from the
federal McKinney Program to provide counseling & support
-1-
City of Kent 1991 Housing
and Community Development Block Grant Program
services for the teen parents. City of Kent CDBG funding will
be used to pay for relocation costs first, with any additional
funds being used for rehabilitation costs.
5 . CHILDREN' S THERAPY CENTER - Handicap Accessibility
Children' s Therapy Center of Kent provides motor and
communication therapy to young children with disabilities.
The existing gravel parking lot does not allow for wheelchair
accessibility for the clients from the parking lot to the
therapy center. The proposed 1991 CDBG funding will be used
to pave the parking lot to increase handicap accessibility.
6 . SKCMSC EMERGENCY/TRANSITIONAL HOUSING REHABILITATION
South King County Multi-Service Center (SKCMSC) provides
emergency and transitional housing in the City of Kent for
homeless people. The proposed funds will pay a portion of
rehabilitation costs for three homes . The rehabilitation
includes structural repairs and interior improvements.
7 . KENT COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
The Kent Community Clinic provides access to primary health
care services including medical and dental care to low and
moderate income residents of Kent and the Greater- Kent. area.
In program year 1991, proposed CDBG funds will be used to pay
the salaries of professional staff (physician, nurse
practitioner, and medical assistant) . This project has been
funded in previous years by the City' s Block Grant and General
Fund programs. All CDBG funds will be used to provide primary
medical care to low and moderate income residents of the City
of Kent.
8 . YWCA EMERGENCY HOUSING PROGRAM
The Emergency Housing Program provides emergency shelter to
families and children without housing and lacking the
resources to pay for housing. The Shelter service consists of
14-21 days of shelter; information and referral in obtaining
needed services; crisis intervention; assistance in obtaining
jobs, permanent housing and medical care; transportation
assistance; child care referrals and vouchers; and emergency
food, hygiene and household supplies.
The proposed CDBG funds will be used to extend an existing
lease on three apartment units for twelve months to provide
emergency shelter for families in crisis.
-2-
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 4 , 1990 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Christi Houser Lauri Anderson
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Margaret Porter
James P. Harris
Other City Staff Janet Shull
Fred Satterstrom
Carolyn Lake Alice Shobe
Tony McCarthy
Bill Williamson
Planning Commission Representative City Administrator
Linda Martinez Ed Chow
1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball reported on Kent' s 1991 proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program with a total estimated
amount of CDBG funds available of $219, 719 for the program year,
January 1 through December 31, 1991. Enclosed in the Committee's
Agenda packet was a memorandum that gave background material, the
recommended action to be taken, and a report listing the eight(8)
proposed programs. Ms. Ball briefly described each program and
went over the recommended funding levels .
Planner Alice Shobe reported specifically on the Housing Repair
Service Program that has operated since 1974 . She explained where
Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) homes are located. These homes
receive priority over other homes in the city. The program serves
low/moderate income homeowners throughout the city. Ms. Shobe
reported on the three elements of the program:
1. Major repair - The City contracts out repairing of roofs,
furnaces, sewer line hookups, etc.
2 . Minor repair - Three staff members perform minor repairs on
decks, plumbing, window replacements, etc.
3 . Painting program - This is the second year and is a more
visible part of the program. Priority is
given to homes in the NSA area. Nine
homes are planned to be completed in
1991.
1
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
- MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
Ms. Shobe stated there will be more emphasis in 1991 on minor
repairs rather than major repairs due to the long waiting list for
repairs.
Ms. Ball explained the recommended action needed to adopt the 1991
Community Development Block Grant program as proposed and for it to
go to full City Council on September 18 , 1990. The adopted program
must be forwarded to King County by October 1, 1991. Council
member Leona Orr MOVED and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to have this item go to City Council on September 18,
1990 . MOTION carried.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball did not have an update today.
SENIOR HOUSING CONSULTANT (JANET SHULL)
Planner Janet Shull reported on the request for funds to pay for
technical assistance to the Senior Housing Bond program for the
purposes of helping the City develop an RFP to acquire a site,
obtaining a design/development team for the senior housing, and
provide technical assistance for drafting grant applications for
both the Housing Opportunity Fund and Housing Trust Fund grant
programs to further the Kent Senior Housing Bond.
This was proposed to the IBC last week. The IBC is recommending
that a special budget be set up for this type of expenditure. This
budget that would be paid out of the bond proceeds after the
selling the bonds. A memo was passed out explaining this process.
Ms. Shull explained they are asking for the Planning Committee' s
approval to set up a pre-bond issue budget of $40, 000 for
expenditures related to the senior housing bond. This is scheduled
to go to Operations on September 11, 1990 and recommended for
consent calendar of full Council on September 18 , 1990. Council
member Leona Orr moved and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to forward this issue to City Council on September 18 ,
1990 with recommendation of approval. MOTION carried.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BALLOT (LAURI ANDERSON)
Senior Planner Lauri Anderson gave a little background about the
Growth Management Committee which was set up last spring by the
Mayor in response to the Growth Management Act. The committee
started meeting in the latter part of July with five meetings to
date. Before the committee was even established, the City Council
had made a motion to refer the petition from the Responsible Urban
Growth Group (RUGG) to the committee for their review and analysis
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
to bring back to the Council some ideas on how to address the
issues in this petition. As a first order of business, the Growth
Management Committee looked at the petition.
One idea that came of their discussions was for an advisory ballot.
The Responsible Urban Growth Group had mentioned this at the time
they presented the petition to the City Council. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss having the advisory ballot go from City
Council to the King County Records and Election Office by September
21, 1990, to be included on the November 6 general election ballot.
The Committee held a special meeting last week to determine whether
they were interested in a ballot. The decision was in favor except
one dissenting vote from the Seattle Master Builders Association
representative. The association sent a letter stating their
opposition to the advisory ballot.
On the memo included in the agenda packet, the exact wording of the
ballot measure was not included. The Mayor' s Growth Management
Committee met to compose the wording today. Ms. Anderson read and
passed out a memo of the approved wording by the Mayor's Growth
Management Committee for the recommended - advisory ballot as
follows:
"Should Kent immediately adopt interim growth controls--
pending implementation of state-directed growth
management measures--which would require installation of
public facilities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or
during construction of new multifamily, industrial, or
commercial developments; control the rate of development;
and control conditions for multifamily rezones?"
Ms. Anderson explained that to place this measure on the ballot
there will be a charge which is prorated out among all of the
jurisdictions which have measures on the November 6 ballot. At the
time we initially spoke to King County Records and Elections, they
quoted us a figure of approximately one dollar per registered voter
or $13 , 000. Last week the Planning Department was informed this
could be dropped to as low as fifty cents per registered voter.
The amount depends on how many measures end up on the ballot which
is not determined until September 21, 1990. Since there is a
fiscal impact, it is scheduled to go to the IBC on September 5,
1990 .
The committee did not make a recommendation rather, the Committee
members decided to take this action to full City Council on
September 18 as a public hearing rather than Other Business for
discussion.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
Much discussion occurred as to the possibilities if this measure
failed and the consequences.
Rather than this item be placed under Other Business, the Committee
members decided to take this to full City Council on September 18
as a public hearing for discussion on the issue at hand for Council
to pass a resolution to place this question before the voters on
the November 6 general election.
ADDED ITEM - LABOR FORCE
Council member Leona Orr stated that it has been brought to her
attention through Jim White and a business owner of a problem with
the building, and housing the business called the Labor Force.
Senior Planner Carol Proud has been working on a zoning code
violation. The Public Works Committee met in the moring on
September 4 and recommended that the Planning Committee make a
report to find out what Council action can be taken about the
complaints and problems. Bill Williamson was instructed by the
Public Works Committee to meet with Carol Proud and look at what
can be done.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 : 10 p.m.
4
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
June 28 , 1990 -
Commission Members Present Planning Staff Present
Marvin Eckfeldt, Chairman Charlene Anderson
Dee Moschel, Vice Chairwoman Lin Ball
Jean Archer Martha Carlson
Sharon Atkin
Peg Mazen
Peter Mourer
Judy Woods, Council President
Commission Members Absent
Peter Duggan, excused
Alice Gregory, excused
APPROVAL OF MAY 24 , 1990 MINUTES
Vice Chairwoman Moschel MOVED and Commissioner Mazen SECONDED the motion to
approved the May 24 , 1990 minutes as written. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION AND FINAL DECISION ON HUMAN SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING LEVELS
Vice Chairwoman Moschel MOVED and Commissioner Mazen SECONDED the motion tcr
adjourn to work session. Motion carried. The work session began at 2 : 35 PM
and the regular meeting was continued at 3 : 45 PM.
Commissioners Archer and Mazen MOVED and Commissioner Atkin SECONDED the
motion to recommend to the City Council the following funding levels for
human services from General Fund dollars:
Community Health Centers - $30, 222 for regular program and $10,234 for
startup obstetrics program at the Kent center. Funding for the startup
obstetrics program would be one-time funding only.
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center - $21, 700
Pregnancy Aid - $4 , 000
DAWN - $47 , 000
King County Multiservice Center Emergency Housing - $27, 000
King County Multiservice Center Van-Go - $4 , 400
Catholic Community Services Emergency Assistance - $20, 000
Catholic Community Services Counseling Program - $7, 500 for counselina
services based and supervised in South King County office.
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 28 , 1990
Catholic Community Services Alternative Response System - Denied (Priority 3)
Kent Valley Youth Services - $11, 000 for Kent Meridian Drop-in Center and
$40, 000 for various counseling programs for Kent residents.
Washington Women' s Employment and Education - $5, 000 with stipulation that
the agency meet their 1990 goal.
Kent Food Bank - $14 , 000
Children' s Therapy Center - $13 , 320
Valley Cities Mental Health - $13 , 000 startup grant for counselor to serve
Kent residents in Auburn clinic.
Child and Family Resource and Referral - $4 , 500 . This application was
determined to be Priority 2 .
Motion carried.
commissioner Archer MOVED and Commissioner Mazen SECONDED the motion to
approve Block Grant funding of Community Health Centers in the amount of
$12 , 178 and YWCA in the amount of $17, 460 . Motion carried. It was noted
that the Block Grant application for Washington Women' s Employment and
Education was not funded because of the limited amount of funding available
and the number of Kent residents served by the agency.
There was approximately an 18% increase over last year in available funding
through the General Fund. There was an increase in the number of programs
and the number of applications for funding. In their deliberations on
funding, Commissioners considered the funding criteria/priority, number of
Kent residents served and the individual allocation as a proportion of the
overall budget. The Commission phased agencies between Block Grant and
General Fund dollars to accommodate potential future funding and to provide
an optimal mix of Block Grant and General Fund categories.
Senior Planner Lin Ball clarified for Commissioner Mazen that if agencies
have questions on the recommended funding levels, the questions should be
addressed to Planning staff.
Commissioners expressed concern about the dropping number of Kent residents
served by Kent Valley Youth Services. The KVYS Drop-in Center is Priority 1
and counseling services are Priority 2 .
Council President Woods suggested staff indicate the percentage of funds each
agency is recommended to receive.
TIMELINE FOR BUDGET DECISIONS
2
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 28 , 1990
Senior Planner Ball noted the budget meeting with the City Administrator is
July 17th at 8: 30 AM in the Ceramics Room of the Kent Senior Center. The
process for the presentation has not been determined, and because the Human
Services Commission has a 1% allocation, it may not be necessary for
Commissioners to be present at the meeting with the City Administrator. Ms.
Ball will contact the Commissioners in this regard prior to July 17th:
A public hearing on the budget will be held August 21. There is no need for
agencies to be present. For the November 6 public hearing, agency
representatives should be present and recognized. Letters will be submitted
to the agenda packet per last year.
REVIEW CONTRACTED AGENCIES FIRST QUARTER REPORTS
Planner Martha Carlson quickly highlighted the first quarter reports.
Children' s Therapy Center is meeting goals in both programs. Catholic
Community Services Emergency Assistance is only slightly off target in food
vouchers and child care. Until the six-month narrative is available, it is
difficult to assess compliance by the Volunteer Chore Ministry program
because of duplicated client counts. The counseling program is ahead of
target. DAWN statistics are not broken down into types of services; the six-
month narrative will provide better assessment of progress toward target.
KVYS counseling hours are slightly off target (-15 .75 hours) . King Count
Sexual Assault Resource Center is ahead of target by 21 clients, teen and-
adults. Their child services are also ahead of target. Community Health
Centers is over target by 81 patients served; however, the statistics were
not broken down to provide a clear indication of the types of service.
Pregnancy Aid is ahead of target. Multiservice Center is ahead of target in
emergency assistance; this might be related to timing. Statistics on
transitional housing will appear in the six-month narrative. The WWEE
program served one. Question arose on what funding is allowed if this agency
does not meet their target.
The quarterly statistics reflect the increase in need. Senior Planner Ball
noted the total number served is important as is the number of Kent residents
served.
Vice Chairwoman Moschel acknowledged the staff hours spent on analyzing the
quarterly reports. She suggested a work session with the agency person
completing the forms to discuss the needs. Ms. Ball stated that this year
staff reviewed the forms with new agencies.
DISCUSSION ON OMITTING THE JULY OR AUGUST COMMISSION MEETING
The next meeting will be July 26 . There will be no August meeting. The July
meeting agenda will include discussion of a combined General Fund and Block
Grant application, job description of a Commissioner, and the November
social .
3
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
.,,.MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 281 1990
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE
Ms. Ball stated the interim report on the family violence project has been
completed. Staff offered to make copies for Commissioners. The report
outlines facts regarding family violence in King County. It discusses
comprehensive, coordinated delivery of services, leadership, training and
education, how to implement the delivery components, revenue sources, and
options for a system of coordination, i. e. , agency only or agency plus
government.
The Executive Committee of the Roundtable met to recommend a housing levy of
$150 million; this amount would tie in human services and housing. Two
thousand housing units could be established. A procedures group is working
on designing human services into the levy, doing a thorough job of laying out
the system and looking at needs. ' Discussion occurred on the levy and its
competition with the Seattle Center levy.
The Roundtable also is looking at hiring a legislative advisor.
SOUTH KING COUNCIL OF HUMAN SERVICES ANNUAL DINNER
Community Health Centers and Jim Bauman received awards at the annual dinner.
There will be a planning session this summer, July or August. The new
" president is Deanna Dicomes.
SENIOR HOUSING BOND
This item was added to the agenda.
Senior Planner Ball indicated the Senior Housing Advisory Committee has
finished their charge to look at ownership, management and development of
senior housing. It is recommended that ownership and management go to the
King County Housing Authority. The City of Kent will manage the development
process and will then turn it over to the Housing Authority. It is proposed
that the development is a design/build/turnkey method. Council President
clarified for Commissioner Mazen that the Mayor will not be part of the
decision process for this issue in the Housing Authority.
There are a number of conditions for the Housing Authority. One is a
reversionary clause to allow any future Kent Housing Authority to take back
the housing. The next phase of the process will define the issue of support
services along with independent living arrangements.
ADDED ITEMS
Discussion occurred on responsibilities of Commissioners especially related
to the number of hours spent in meetings. Chairman Eckfeldt suggested
developing a job description which would include a time frame of the
4
KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1990 -
commitment. This could be distributed to potential Commission appointees.
Commissioner Archer would like a letter sent to her employer regarding the
number of hours spent; this would be part of the Community Reinvestment Act
requirements. Chairman Eckfeldt will ask Mayor Kelleher to send letters to
all employers of Commission members to acknowledge their commitment. Vice
Chairwoman Moschel suggested writing to the City Administrator and Planning
Director Harris to acknowledge staff support as well.
Commissioner Mourer suggested streamlining the application process and
interviewing agencies .year-round. Vice Chairwoman Moschel would like to do
site visits.
Chairman Eckfeldt indicated the human services open house is scheduled for
November 20th from 5-7 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
o-----,ter--^-- _
Jam s P. Harris, Secretary
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18, 1990
Category Public Hearing
1. SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BALLOT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Mayor's Growth Management Committee
has recommended that the Council pass a resolution to place an
advisory ballot before the voters on November 6. The Planning
Committee dealt with this issue at its last meeting of
September 4 and the consensus was that it be placed before the
full City Council as a public hearing item. The advisory ballot
wording approved by the Growth Management Committee is as
follows: "Should Kent immediately adopt interim growth
controls--pending implementation of state-directed growth
management measures--which would require installation of public
facilities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or during
construction of new multi-family, industrial or commercial
developments; control the rate of development; and control
conditions for multi-family rezones?"
King County Record and Elections Office must receive the
resolution by September 21 for inclusion in the November 6 ballot
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, fiscal note from IBC, resolution, City
Council minutes of June 19, 1990, Petition for Responsible Urban
Growth Management Committee
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Growth Management Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X _
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recomme ed
Nv REcoMMfT+alrTio�l �Q
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $13 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
I
Councilmember ` ry\., moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt/ Resolution No. (� placing the Growth
Management Advisory Ballot on the November 6 election -
. \
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
ncL�� council Agenda
inn to 1t-ti �._� Item No. 2C
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
September 12 , 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE MAYOR'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR
ADVISORY BALLOT ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 1990 GENERAL ELECTION.
In response to the requests made in the Responsible Urban Growth
Group (RUGG) (copy of Petition enclosed) , the Mayor's Growth
Management Committee has recommended that the Council pass a
resolution to place an advisory ballot on growth control measures
before the voters on November 6 . The wording approved by the
Committee is:
"Should Kent immediately adopt interim growth
controls--pending implementation of state-directed growth
management measures--which would require installation of
public facilities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or
during construction of new multifamily, industrial, or
commercial developments; control the rate of development;
and control conditions for multifamily rezones?"
The measure was considered by the Council 's Planning Committee
which recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing on
the advisory ballot at its September 18, meeting. The measure was
also reviewed by the Internal Budget Committee, which, due to the
political nature of the request, made no recommendation (see copy
of fiscal note enclosed) . The ballot is scheduled to be reviewed
by the Operations Committee at its meeting on September 11.
In order to be included on the November 6 ballot, the advisory
measure must be submitted to the King County Records and Elections
Office by September 21 in the form of a resolution passed by the
City Council. King County estimates that the cost to the City of
including the measure on the ballot would run between $6,500 and
$13 , 000.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BALLOT - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/07/90 at 1649.
THE MAYOR'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED THAT AN ADVISORY BALLOT
ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT BE INCLUDED ON THE NOVEMBER 6TH BALLOT. TO MEET THAT
DATE AN ORDINANCE MUST BE PROVIDED TO KING COUNTY BY SEPTEMBER 21. SINCE THE
COST OF THE ELECTION IS ALLOCATED TO GOVERNMENTS HAVING ISSUES ON THE BALLOT,
IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST COULD BE BETWEEN $6, 000 AND
$13 , 000.
BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THIS EXPENDITURE, ADDITIONAL BUDGET
APPROPRIATION FROM UNEXPENDED GENERAL FUND DOLLARS IS REQUIRED. BECAUSE OF
THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THIS REQUEST, THE IBC TAKES NO POSITION, BUT NOTES
THAT THERE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT UNEXPENDED GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO COVER THE
EXPENDITURE UP TO $13 , 000.
A PETITION FOR
RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROWTH
T We, the undersigned, believe that the rapid development of multi-family
housing (apartments and other high-density housing) has seriously
affected the quality of life of everyone living in Kent by overburdening our
street and road system, fire and police protection, utilities, and the
schools our children attend. The city's infrastructure simply cannot keep
pace with the number of high-density housing units being built each year
in our city. Currently, Kent has the highest, multi-family/single-family
ratio-of any city in the region!
We believe the City Council needs to take the following steps (as detailed
on the back of this page) IMMEDIATELY to address our urgent concerns:
1 ) limit the rate of construction of multi-family housing to 500
units/year;
2) strengthen regulations to ensure adequate roads, parks, schools,
and other public facilities .are in place before additional
development is allowed;
3) not allow any single-family land to be rezoned to multi-family
until specific requirements are met;
4) establish a minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 sq. ft.;
5) institute an open space requirement and increase landscaping
requirements for all multi-family projects;
6) disallow attached side-by-side units on single-family. projects;
7) expand the definition of "multi-family transition" areas;
8) modify existing setback and building height requirements to reduce
overall density of multi-family projects.
2
3 t 3 'a � 6L/ S C
4 1101A
7 , d 13 1 .1 - J CG h,
9
10 �/" D y 3/
11 S � • � /GCrd (nl �7/
12 LY36 56 1sz—Z l'e-
13, /L-1 S£
14
15 all , -S!E �O�acsl J�L Wc, 'V�-6
16 Z Ti
17 . c as - l0,S 2 �v S E /6,. _ (.uli q d o i
18 -JC' C7`s' 0.h�
19
20 / SZ S . d�
21 14
22 0 9 S. o? yh 80
23 _/ ,c o '
24 309 0`-
25
SPECIFICS SUPPORTING THE PETITION FOR KENTS
RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROWTH
1 p Re: MR-G (Garden Density MF -- up to 16 units/acre)
A) Increase side yard requirement to 20' or 20% of lot width, whichever is greater, not to exceed
30'.
jt, B) Increase rear yard to 25'; side yard on flanking street of corner lot to 20'.
C) Require a minimum 20' of perimeter landscaping in all multifamily (MF) developments. Breaks
In the landscaping shall be permitted to provide pedestrian and vehicular access. Breaks In the.
landscaping for vehicle access shall not exceed the width of permitted curb cuts and any
required sight triangles. Perimeter landscaping shall be Type I solid screen landscaping, as
provided In Section 15.07.050, except that only evergreen trees and shrubs shall be used.
(Except as provided above, the landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 'shall apply.) -
D) Limit building height to 2 stories, not to exceed 25'.
E) Require that at minimum of 25% of the total area be left as open green space.
2) Re: MR-M (Medium Density MF -- up to 23 units/acre) .
A) Same as above.
B) Same as above.
C) Same as above.
D) Limit building height to 3 stories, not to exceed 35'.
E) Same as above.
3) Re: MR-H (High Density MF up to 40 unitslacre)
A) Same as above.
B) Same as above.
C) Same as above, except 30' minimum.
D) Same as above (MR-M).
E) Same as above.
4) Re; Multifamily Transition Areas
A) Redefine "multifamily transition" areas to be an MF area within 250' of a Single-family (SF)
area, within 250' of a public street right-of-way which also abuts a SF zoning district, and/or
within 100' of any other public street right-of-way.
B) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on an arterial or collector street shall be 30' and
45', respectively.
C) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on a local access street shall be 30' and 35',
respectively.
D) Minimum and'average setbacks for the portion of a properly abutting a SF zoning district shall
be 30' and 45', respectively
E) Limit building height to-2. stories, not to exceed 25'.
F) Increase the 20' MF perimeter landscaping requirement to 30' where a development abuts a SF
district or an arterial, collector, 'and/or local access street. All other landscaping
requirements same as above.
5) Re: Planned Unit Developments.
A) Require all housing units be detached, SF.dwelling units. No longer allow attached side-by-side
units.
B) Establish a minimum lot size of 7200 sq. ft.
6). Issue building permits for no more that 500 MF dwelling units In any calendar year, until such time
as the number of constructed and approved MF dwelling units in Kent Is equal to or less than 50% of
the total dwelling units In the City. When the total number of MF dwelling units In the City is equal
to 50% of the total dwelling units In the City, the City shall not, in any calendar year, Issue
building permits for more that the number of building permits issued in that calendar year for single
family dwelling units. Dwelling units in annexed territories shall not be included as part of the total
number of dwelling units In the City until the Initial zoning for such territories Is completed.
7) Property in SF. Districts shall not be subject to rezoning to a MF District designation until such time
as the number of constructed MF units is equal to or less than 50% of the total housing units In the
City.
8) Establish a 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size In all SF zoning districts. The establishment of any new
SF Zoning District which permits a minimum lot area less that 7200 sq. ft. and the reclassification
of a property to any zone which permits a minimum lot area less that 7200 sq. ft. shall both be
prohibited. Properties zoned SF Residential, RI-5, as of April, 1990, may be developed in
accordance with the minimum lot area and other requirements of the R11-5 zone.
PLEASE MAIL SIGNED PETITIONS TO:
Chris Grant; 26302 Woodland Way S.; Kent, WA 98031
June 19 , 1990 'L
PUBLIC within the city limits, that the guidelines ar set
COMMUNICATIONS by the Federal McKinney Act, that the City ha
devoted several hours of the last Council eting to
receive input, had sent four letters to e and
' Nike Manor that the property would be managed by e King
Housing County Housing Authority. He furth clarified that
although Kent submitted the lette within the time
frame specified, the applicatio of the joint
agencies had already been app ved.
Orr stated that she unders ood that the properties
had to be leased for one ear before they could be
purchased. She not at the City has made a
commitment through th Human Services Commission and
we should not now t e away the opportunity for
th/dthe
agencies to roceed with their work. She
that this as a chance for the citizens to
oward ma ng this a positive experience.
concurr d and noted further that the Council
ade a ommitment also, to make sure that the
orh d was secure. She said she was recently
d hat 200 people were living in their cars in
d the problem of the homeless should be
sed. Dowell noted that the City supports
services with a budget of $240, 000 , but that
n 't think R-1 zoned areas were to be used for
ype of social services. Bacon stated he had
Z. copies of the applications submitted by the
agencies . Mann concurred with Dowell and MOVED to
communicate to our legislators our concerns such as
the lack of local input in the process . Johnson
seconded and suggested we ask for intervention,
noting we should continue to try to purchase the
properties and to have the entire process reviewed.
Mann concurred. It was further decided that Hansen
would write a letter and would call Council members
so they could review and approve the contents. The
motion then carried.
Responsible (ADDED TO THE AGENDA)
Urban Growth Chris Grant of 26302 Woodland Way stated that the
Group Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG) was made up of
local Kent residents who are concerned about land
use, especially the rate of apartment growth. He
noted that the group had planned to present an
initiative to' be voted upon at the next election,
2
June 19 , 1990
PUBLIC but had been advised that land use issues could not
COMMUNICATIONS be decided upon through an initiative under Kent' s
code status in the state. He therefore submitted a
petition signed by over 1600 residents of the Kent
area who share the belief that more control is
needed on zoning and land use issues . He summarized
the eight points and asked that the petition be ,
R.U.G.G. forwarded to the newly formed Growth Management
Committee, with an answer due by July 17 . He also
asked that the petition be considered for an
advisory ballot this fall, allowing for input on
these issues. Members are willing to discuss the
items with staff.
ORR MOVED to refer the petition to the Growth
Management Committee for study as soon as the
' Committee is in place, and Woods seconded. It was
confirmed for White that this would also go through
the Planning Commission after the Growth Management
Committee. At White ' s suggestion, the motion was
changed to refer the petition to$oth.-h ----CDruL t-tae
and the Commission. The Committee will have its
first meeting wi in the next few weeks and will be
r� chaired by Orr. It was agreed that some 'report
would be given 30 days after the first Committee
meeting. Orr confirmed that she had not been a
member of RUGG since immediately prior to her
election in November. It was determined that the
Mayor appoints the committee members and further,
that within the 30 ' days answers were not expected,
just reviews and a list of the procedures to be
followed. The motion then carried unanimously.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
AWC Award. Councilmember White announced that the
Award City has been awarded the 1990 Municipal Achievement
Award Honorable Mention for its downtown revitali-
zation through the public/private Centennial Center.
He presented the award to the Mayor.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B)
Kent-Kherson Flag. Jeannie Humphrey introduced
Ginny Miller, who has designed a Kent-Kherson Flag.
Sister They displayed the flag and presented it to Mayor
Cities Kelleher. Humphrey thanked the Council for their
support and announced that visitors from Kherson
will arrive on June 29 .
(-- 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
city of Kent, Washington, directing the Records
and Election Division of King County to include
in the November 1990 General Election an
Advisory Ballot relating to growth management.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has received a Petition from
Responsible Urban Growth calling for interim growth management
controls to be implemented by the City of Kent to address
development of multi-family housing, quality of life in the Kent
area and overburdening of transportation, public safety and
utility systems; and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Committee has reviewed the
RUGG Petition and submitted its recommendation to the Planning
Committee for purposes of placing an Advisory Ballot Measure
before the electorate for the November 6, 1990 General Election;
and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly published Notice of a
Public Hearing to consider the recommendation of the Growth
Management Committee recommending adoption of an Advisory Ballot
for Growth Management on Tuesday, September 18, 1990; and
WHEREAS, following such Public Hearing the Kent City
Council believes that residents generally should voice their
wishes and concerns for direction to the City Council through a
City-wide ballot measure to determine whether immediate growth
management measures should be implemented pending adoption of
anticipated state-wide growth management directives, and further
believes that a City-wide Advisory Ballot Measure on the
implementation of interim growth management controls is in the
public interest; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The question of whether interim growth
controls pending implementation of state directed growth
management measures as provided below shall be submitted to the
voters of the City of Kent through an Advisory Ballot Measure at
the General Election to be held on November 6, 1990. The wording
as it shall appear on the ballot shall be:
PROPOSITION NO. _ ADVISORY BALLOT
Should Kent immediately adopt interim
growth controls--pending implementa-
tion of state-directed growth
management measures--which would
require installation of public
facilities (schools, roads, parks,
etc.) before or during construction
of new multi-family, industrial, or
commercial developments; control the
rate of development; and control
conditions for multi-family rezones?
YES _
NO _
Section .2. The City Treasurer is authorized and directed
to pay the Records and Election Division of King County an amount
not to exceed $13,000 for placement of the advisory ballot for the
November 6, 1990 General Election.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of September 1990.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of September, 1990.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, 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
8940-310 - 2 -
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 4 , 1990 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Christi Houser Lauri Anderson
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Margaret Porter
James P. Harris
Other City Staff Janet Shull
Fred Satterstrom
Carolyn Lake Alice Shobe
Tony McCarthy
Bill Williamson
Planning Commission Representative City Administrator
Linda Martinez Ed Chow
1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball reported on Kent ' s 1991 proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program with a total estimated
amount of CDBG funds available of $219 , 719 for the program year,
January 1 through December 31, 1991. Enclosed in the Committee' s
Agenda packet was a memorandum that gave background material, the
recommended action to be taken, and a report listing the eight(8)
proposed programs. Ms. Ball briefly described. each • program and
went over the recommended funding levels.
Planner Alice Shobe reported specifically on the Housing Repair
Service Program that has operated since 1974 . She explained where
Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) homes are located. These homes
receive priority over other homes in the city. The program serves
low/moderate income homeowners throughout the city. Ms. Shobe
reported on the three elements of the program:
1. Major repair - The City contracts out repairing of roofs,
furnaces, sewer line hookups, etc.
2 . Minor repair - Three staff members perform minor repairs on
decks, plumbing, window replacements, etc.
3 . Painting program - This is the second year and is a more
visible part of the program. Priority is
given to homes in the NSA area. Nine
homes are planned to be completed in
1991.
1
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 41 1990
Ms. Shobe stated there will be more emphasis in 1991 on minor
repairs rather than major repairs due to the long waiting list for
repairs.
Ms. Ball explained the recommended action needed to adopt the 1991
Community Development Block Grant program as proposed and for it to
go to full City Council on September 18, 1990. The adopted program
must be forwarded to King County by October 1, 1991. Council
member Leona Orr MOVED and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to have this item go to City Council on September 18 ,
1990. MOTION carried.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball did not have an update today.
SENIOR HOUSING CONSULTANT (JANET SHULL)
Planner Janet Shull reported on the request for funds to pay for
technical assistance to the Senior Housing Bond program for the
purposes of helping the City develop an RFP' to acquire a site,
obtaining a design/development team for the senior housing, and
provide technical assistance for drafting grant applications for
both the Housing Opportunity Fund and Housing Trust Fund grant
programs to further the Kent Senior Housing Bond.
This was proposed to the IBC last week. The IBC is recommending
that a special budget be set up for this type of expenditure. This
budget that would be paid out of the bond proceeds after the
selling the bonds. A memo.was passed out explaining this process.
Ms. Shull explained they are asking for the Planning Committee' s
approval to set up a pre-bond issue budget of $40, 000 for
expenditures related to the senior housing bond. This is scheduled
to go to Operations on September 11, 1990 and recommended for
consent calendar of full Council on September 18, 1990. Council
member Leona Orr moved and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to forward this issue to City Council on September 18 ,
1990 with recommendation of approval. MOTION carried.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BALLOT (LAURI ANDERSON)
Senior Planner Lauri Anderson gave a little background about the
Growth Management Committee which was set up last spring by the
Mayor in response to the Growth Management Act. The committee
started meeting in the latter part of July with five meetings to
date. Before the committee was even established, the City Council
had made a motion to refer the petition from the Responsible Urban
Growth Group (RUGG) to the committee for their review and analysis
2
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
« MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
to bring back to the Council some ideas on how to address the
issues in this petition. As a first order of business, the Growth
Management Committee looked at the petition.
One idea that came of their discussions was for an advisory ballot.
The Responsible Urban Growth Group had mentioned this at the time
they presented the petition to the City Council. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss having the advisory ballot go from City
Council to the King County Records and Election Office by .September
21, 1990, to be included on the November 6 general election ballot.
The Committee held a special meeting last week to determine whether
they were interested in a ballot. The decision was in favor except
one dissenting vote from the Seattle Master Builders Association
representative. The association sent a letter stating their
opposition to the advisory ballot.
On the memo included in the agenda packet, the exact wording of the
ballot measure was not included. The Mayor's Growth Management
Committee met to compose the wording today. Ms. Anderson read and
passed out a memo of the approved wording by the Mayor' s Growth
Management ' Committee for the recommended advisory ballot as
follows:
"Should Kent immediately adopt interim growth controls--
pending implementation of state-directed growth
management measures--which would require installation of
public facilities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or
during construction of new multifamily, industrial, or
commercial developments; control the rate of development;
and control conditions for multifamily rezones?"
Ms. Anderson explained that to place this measure on the ballot
there will be a charge which is prorated out among all of the
jurisdictions which have measures on the November 6 ballot. At the
time we initially spoke to King County Records and Elections, they
quoted us a figure of approximately one dollar per registered voter
or $13 , 000. Last week the Planning Department was informed this
could be dropped to as low as fifty cents per registered voter.
The amount depends on how many measures end up on the ballot which
is not determined until September 21, 1990. Since there is a
fiscal impact, it is scheduled to go to the IBC on September 5,
1990.
The committee did not make a recommendation rather, the Committee
members decided to take this action to full City Council on
September 18 as a public hearing rather than Other Business for
discussion.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
Much discussion occurred as to the possibilities if this measure
failed and the consequences.
Rather than this item be placed under Other Business, the Committee
members decided to take this to full City Council on September 18
as a public hearing for discussion on the issue at hand for Council
to pass a resolution to place this question before the voters on
the November 6 general election.
ADDED ITEM - LABOR FORCE
Council member Leona Orr stated that it has been brought to her
attention through Jim White and a business owner of a problem with
the building, and housing the business called the Labor Force.
Senior Planner Carol Proud has been working on a zoning code
violation. The Public Works Committee met in the moring on
September 4 and recommended that the Planning Committee make a
report to find out what Council action can be taken about the
complaints and problems. Bill Williamson was instructed by the
Public Works Committee to meet with Carol Proud and look at what
can be done.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 : 10 p.m.
4
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember �J
seconds that ConserlCalendar Items A through F be approved.
Discussion d�
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 4 , 1990.
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through September 19
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
4: 30 p.m. on September 25, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
q02 ) I CD
Date Check Numbers Amount
9-5-90 140948-141691 $836,278.32
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
September 4, 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, and Orr, City Administrator Chow, City
Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Direc-
tor Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederiksen,
Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Personnel Director Olson,
Finance Director McCarthy and City Clerk Jensen. Councilmember
White and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Council-
member Woods has been excused and Information Services Director
Spang was on vacation. Approximately 20 people were at the meet-
ing.
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
COMMUNI- Employee of the Month Mayor Kelleher
CATIONS announced that Tom Arnson has been selected as
Employee of the Month for September, 1990. He
noted that Arnson works as an Apparatus Mechanic
for the Fire Department, and that he is
responsible for keeping the fire engines operating
in a safe condition. The Mayor commended Arnson
for his dedication and hard work, and presented
him with the Employee of the Month plaque. Fire
Chief Angelo especially pointed out that Arnson
has earned a reputation among apparatus vendors as
demanding the best possible equipment.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B)
D.A.R.E Program Mike Painter, President of the
Police Officers Union, commended the Police
Department on the D.A.R.E. Program and presented
Officer Dina Paganucci with a $2500 donation for
the program.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C)
United Way. Mayor Kelleher read a proclama-
tion declaring September 5, 1990 as United Way Day
in the City of Kent and urging all citizens to
preserve this long tradition of caring for one
another by volunteering and contributing to United
Way.
CONSENT JOHNSON MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through M be approved. Mann seconded and the
motion carried.
1
September 4 , 1990
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of August 21, 1990.
WATER (BIDS - ITEM 5B)
Rent Springs Transmission Main. Bid opening was
August 28, 1990 and five bids were received. The
low bid was submitted by Robison Construction in
the amount of $1, 056, 666. 69. Staff recommends
that this bid be accepted. JOHNSON SO MOVED.
Houser seconded and the motion carried.
STREETS (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2A)
Library - street closure - 1st Avenue. The plans
for the new Library call for closure of 1st Avenue
at the Smith Street intersection. This public
hearing has been scheduled to receive public input
on the closure. The City Clerk has duly advertis-
ed the hearing and the notice of hearing has been
posted in 12 locations in the vicinity._ Assistant
City Administrator Hansen described the project
and noted that the traffic impact is less than 300
vehicles a day. He also noted that the library
will contribute to downtown revitalization. He
noted that the contractor, Eberharter Construc-
tion, is presently on site and would like to
proceed with this closure so that they can bring
equipment onto the site. He noted that once
completed, the site will have 127 parking spaces.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There
were no comments from the audience and JOHNSON
MOVED to close the public hearing. Mann seconded
and the motion carried. JOHNSON THEN MOVED that
Ordinance No. 2939 be adopted approving the
closure of lst Ave. at Smith. Houser seconded.
Motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Temporary Street Closure. APPROVAL for Public
Works staff to immediately place a temporary
barricade at the dead-end on S. 240th (east of
30th Ave. S. on the West Hill) and to place a
temporary barricade at the dead-end at 45th P1 .
near Reith Rd. in 90 days, and for the attorney's
office to prepare an access agreement for property
owners in these vicinities, as recommended by the
Public Works Committee.
2
September 4 , 1990
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
LID 335 - Improvement of 77th Ave. S. AUTHORIZA-
TION to set October 2; 1990 for the public hearing
on the final assessment roll for LID 335.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
VACATION Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1257 ,
setting a public hearing date for October 2 , 1990
upon the request of Byron C. and Janice M. Beck
for vacation of a walkway at the northern end of
Parkside Division No. 2 Plat.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
CONTROL Traffic Division Change. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 2940 changing the direction of traffic in the
alley between the Titusville Building and Post
Office to southbound only from Gowe St. as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee.
DEPARTMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
OF ECOLOGY DOE Grant for Shoreline Management Program
Amendments and Wetlands Inventory - Phase II
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to accept and sign on
behalf of the City of Kent a $19, 500 grant from
the Washington State Department of Ecology to
amend the City' s Shoreline Master Program, com-
plete a Wetlands inventory, and develop a Wetlands
Management Program as recommended by the Planning
Committee. This grant must be matched by the City
on a fifty-fifty basis.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Auto Check Rezone No. RZ-90-6 . ADOPTION of
Ordinance No. 2941 . to rezone a 17, 299 square foot
lot from Ml, Industrial Park, to GC, General Com-
mercial, located on the west side of West Valley
Highway, north of S. 236th St. and S. 238th St. ,
as approved by the Council at its August 21, 1990
meeting.
REZONE (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ADDED ITEM 1D)
APPEAL Minshull-Wagner Rezone/Appeal Upon a question
from the audience, Planning Director Harris noted
that action on the Minshull-Wagner Rezone/Appeal
will be taken at the Council meeting of September
18, 1990.
3
1.
September 4 , 1990
ZONING (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
CODE Zoning Code Amendment. ADOPTION of Ordinance No.
2942 amending the parking revisions regulations as
recommended by the Planning Commission and ap-
proved by the Council at the August 21 meeting.
SUBDIVISION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ADDED ITEM 3M)
Harvey Preliminary Subdivision #SU-90-3 . AUTHORI-
ZATION to set September 18, 1990 for a public
meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's recom-
mendation for conditional approval of an applica-
tion by Townsend-Chastain & Associates for a ten-
lot single family residential preliminary
subdivision. The property is located north of
S. 252nd St. , between 22nd Ave. S. and
25th Ave. S.
NIKE HOUSING (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1E)
Nike Housing. Upon a question from Mr. Knapp,
Assistant City Administrator Hansen noted that
King County Housing Authority will be in charge of
the project and that the earliest it could be
occupied is October. He assured Mr. Knapp that a
resident manager will be on location and that the
program would be closely monitored.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Appointments. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s
appointments as follows:
Gwen Dahle to the Planning Commission to replace
Anne Biteman who has resigned. Her term will
begin immediately and will expire December 31,
1992 .
Christopher Grant to the Planning Commission to
replace Frank Chopp who has resigned. Mr. Grant ' s
term will become effective immediately and expire
December 31, 1990.
Faith Anderson to the Saturday Market Advisory
Board to replace Dennis Steussy who resigned. Her
term will begin immediately and continue through
July of 1993 .
4 _..,
September 4 , 1990
PERSONNEL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Internal Affairs Coordinator - Police Department.
AUTHORIZATION to elevate the Internal Affairs
Coordinator position to the rank of Lieutenant as
recommended by the Public Safety Committee. This
recommendation is based on the premise that the
tasks faced by the Internal Affairs Coordinator
would warrant the recognition of the difficulty
and stress of the position. In addition, the job
has expanded to include the responsibility of
coordinating the background investigation of
potential new hires. This change will be viewed
positively by staff within the Police Department
and will actually increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the position.
PARKS AND (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
RECREATION Lake Fenwick Park. AUTHORIZATION to accept as
complete the Lake Fenwick Park construction
project and to release retainage to Golf Land-
scaping, Inc. upon receipt of State releases as
recommended by the Parks Committee. The project
was completed in a timely manner and within
budget.
FIRE (RFP - ITEM 5A)
Radio Eauipment Building Construction Several
contractors were contacted, regarding the radio
equipment building construction. However, due to
the small size of the job and time restraint, only
two contractors were prepared to issue a quote on
the work. Prior to accepting a quote, one con-
tractor withdrew. The Fire Department recommends
that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign
a contract in the amount of $32,987 with C.E.
Skinner Construction to build the radio equipment
support building. MANN SO MOVED. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
CITY VEHICLES (OTHER BUSINESS - ADDED ITEM 4B)
Alternate Fuel Source. Councilmember Mann stated
that because of the current crisis in the Mid-East
and its effect on prices of gasoline, he feels the
City should look into alternate sources of fuel
for City vehicles. He suggested that a study be
conducted, and noted that natural gas and propane
are currently being used by other municipalities.
5
September 41 1990
CITY VEHICLES HE MOVED that Administration look into alternate
sources of fuel for City vehicles. Houser second-
ed. Motion carried. The Mayor then asked City
Administrator Chow to develop a committee of
department heads to study this issue and report
back to the Council in a timely manner.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through September 41 1990 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its meet-
ing at 4 : 30 p.m. on September 11, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Checks Amount
8/16/ - 8/30/90 95507 - 95534 $259, 857.30
8/31/90 95535 - 96160 719 , 704 .71
$979 , 562 . 01
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Checks Amount
8/20/90 140204 - 140947 $839 , 015. 27
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
LID 330 Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract. The
Finance staff is requesting the adoption of Bond
Ordinance No. 2943 and authorization for the Mayor
Streets to sign a purchase contract in the amount of
$4, 033 , 732 . 35 for LID 330 bond. These bond pro-
ceeds will be used for the construction and im-
provement on 64th Ave. S . (Meeker St. to S . 212th
St. ) The final assessment roll for this LID has
been adopted and the thirty (30) day prepayment
period has elapsed. The purchase contract with
Lehman Brothers is at a net interest cost of 7 . 61%
and has a gross underwriting spread of $20 per
thousand dollar bond. This results in an average
coupon of a 7 .35% and an assessment to property
owners of 7 . 85%. Finance Director McCarthy point-
ed out that on page 12 of the proposed ordinance,
the interest rate is listed incorrectly as 7 . 35%,
and should be 7 . 85%. HOUSER MOVED for the
adoption of Ordinance No. 2943 approving the bonds
for LID 330 and authorizing the Mayor to sign a
purchase contract for LID 330 with Lehman
Brothers. Johnson seconded and the motion
carried.
6
September 4, 1990
EXECUTIVE At 7: 35 p.m. City Administrator Chow announced an
SESSION executive session of approximately five minutes to
discuss farmlands preservation.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened at 7 :45 p.m. and then
adjourned.
Marie Jensen/% , CMC
City Clerk
7
..........
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SENIOR HOUSING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the establishment of a pre
bond issue budget of $40,000 for technical assistance to the
Senior Housing Program.
The Planning Department requires technical assistance to carry
out the direction of the Mayor and City Council in moving
forward with the Senior Housing Bond Program. The expenditure
of Senior Housing Bond proceeds for this technical assistance is
a legitimate expense of the bond money. The IBC, Planning and
Operations Committees recommend establishing a pre bond issue
budget of $40,000 to cover consultant expenditures incurred
since voter approval of the bond issue in February.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum, fiscal note d/ed8/29/90, Planning
Committee minutes dated 9/4/90
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: IBC Planning ommittee and Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examin , Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PE NNEL IMPACT: NO YES \
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTI : Recommende Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQU D: $40, 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Senior Housing Bond Issue
7 . CITY COUNCILXCTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
i ;
DISCUSSIO
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
M E M O R A N D U M
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 51 1990
TO: OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS ,
FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: HOUSING BOND ISSUE CONSULTANT
Recommended for approval by IBC and Council Planning Committee.
The Planning Department has been directed by the Mayor and City Council
to move forward with a Design/Build-Turnkey process and development of
a Request for Proposals, (RFP) to select site(s) and developer(s) to
build Kent' s senior housing. The Mayor has also directed the Planning
Department to pursue the County Housing Opportunity Fund and the State
Housing Trust Fund to further Kent' s Senior housing bond money.
Planning Department staff does not have the expertise to develop these
detailed documents and requires technical assistance in this effort.
The expenditure of senior housing bond proceeds for these activities is
a legitimate expense of the bond money.
On August 28th, IBC recommended approval of the hiring of outside
assistance to help prepare the RFP and grant applications. Further, the
IBC recommended that a pre-bond issue account be set up in the amount of
$40, 000 to cover consultant expenditures since the bond issue was
approved in February, 1990 . This would include the specific tasks
mentioned above as well as previous consultant expenditures related to
the implementation of the senior housing bond program. once the bonds
are sold, expenses charged to this budget would be credited with bond
proceeds (see attached Fiscal Note) .
The Planning Committee considered this item on September 4th and
concurred with the recommendations of the IBC.
Recommended Action:
To approve the establishment of a pre-bond issue budget of $40, 000 for
consultant fees related to the implementation of the senior housing bond
program. Once the bonds are sold these fees will be consolidated into
a issue budget.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print_
Subject: HOUSING BOND ISSUE CONSULTANT - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 08/28/90 at 1719 .
THE IDENTECHNICALE SUPPORTS
FOR GTHE R E PURPOSES OF APPLYING FORGRANTN CONSULTANT
$141730 IN FUNDS TO MONEY
TO PROVROV
TO FURTHER THE SENIOR HOUSING BOND AND TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR GN AND
BUILD
FORTSECURIINNG A SENIOR DEVGLOPFUNDSTFOR THISEAM To CQUI REQUESTRWILLTCOMEDFROMITHE HOUSINGDGEBOND
ISSUE
GATIOPROCEEDS
ToTBEBGENERATED
FROM LATE SALE 990,OF $6.7 MILLION VOTER APPROVED GENERA
KEN
OLD
OBLIGATION
THE IBC APPROVES THE USE OF OUTSIDE EXPERTISE IN DEVELOPING THE RFP AND IN
APPLYING FOR GRANT FUNDING. THE IBC FEELS THAT THESE ARE LEGITIMATE BOND
ISSUE EXPENSES THAT WOULD IDENTIFIED IN A BOND ISSUE BUDGET AT THE TIME THE
BONDS ARE SOLD. SALE OF BONDS IS BEING DELAYED PENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A DETAILED PROJECT SCHEDULE IN AN EFFORT TO MEET FEDERAL ARBITRAGE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS CRITERIA. IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT REQUESTED, THE IBC
WOULD LIKE TO BACKCHARGE THE BOND ISSUE BUDGET FOR PREVIOUS CONSULTANT
EXPENDITURES
ISSUEISOLDNCE V THESEOTER APPROVAL, AS WOULD
LEGIT
TE
EARLIER. THEREFORETHE IBC
THE RECOMMENDS IAA TOTAL PPRE EBOND
D
ISSUE BUDGET OF $40, 000.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
September 4 , 1990 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Christi Houser Lauri Anderson
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Margaret Porter
James P. Harris
Other City Staff Janet Shull
Fred Satterstrom
Carolyn Lake Alice Shobe
Tony McCarthy
Bill Williamson
Planning Commission Representative City Administrator
Linda Martinez Ed Chow
1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball reported on Kent ' s 1991 proposed Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program with a total estimated
amount of CDBG funds available of $219 , 719 for the program year,
January 1 through December 31, 1991. Enclosed in the Committee' s
Agenda packet was a memorandum that gave background material, the
recommended action to be taken, and a report listing the eight(8)
proposed programs. Ms. Ball briefly described each program and
went over the recommended funding levels.
Planner Alice Shobe reported specifically on the Housing Repair
Service Program that has operated since 1974 . She explained where
Neighborhood Strategic Area (NSA) homes are located. These homes
receive priority over other homes in the city. The program serves
low/moderate income homeowners throughout the city. Ms. Shobe
reported on the three elements of the program:
1. Major repair - The City contracts out repairing of roofs,
furnaces, sewer line hookups, etc.
2 . Minor repair - Three staff members perform minor repairs on
decks, plumbing, window replacements, etc.
, 3 . Painting program - This is the second year and is a more
visible part of the program. Priority is
given to homes in the NSA area. Nine
homes are planned to be completed in
1991.
1
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 41 1990 -
Ms. Shobe stated there will be more emphasis in 1991 on minor
repairs rather than major repairs due to the long waiting list for
repairs.
Ms. Ball explained the recommended action needed to adopt the 1991
Community Development Block Grant program as proposed and for it to
go to full City Council on September 18 , 1990. The adopted program
must be forwarded to King County by October 1, 1991. council
member Leona Orr MOVED and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to have this item go to City Council on September 18,
1990. MOTION carried.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (LIN BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball did not have an update today.
SENIOR HOUSING CONSULTANT (JANET SHULL)
Planner Janet Shull reported on the request for funds to pay for
technical assistance to the Senior Housing Bond program for the
purposes of helping the City develop an RFP' to acquire a site,
obtaining a design/development team for the senior housing, and
provide technical ,assistance for drafting grant applications for
both the Housing Opportunity Fund and Housing Trust Fund grant
programs to further the Kent Senior Housing Bond.
This was proposed to the IBC last week. The IBC is recommending
that a special budget be set up for this type of expenditure. This
budget that would be paid out of the bond proceeds after the
selling the bonds. A memo was passed out explaining this process.
Ms. Shull explained they are asking for the Planning Committee' s
approval to set up a pre-bond issue budget of $40, 000 for
expenditures related to the senior housing bond. This is scheduled
to go to Operations on September 11, 1990 and recommended for
consent calendar of full council on September 18, 1990. Council
member Leona Orr moved and Council member Christi Houser SECONDED
the motion to forward this issue to City Council on September 18,
1990 with recommendation of approval. MOTION carried.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BALLOT (LAURI ANDERSON)
Senior Planner Lauri Anderson gave a little background about the
Growth Management Committee which was set up last spring by the
Mayor in response to the Growth Management Act. The committee
started meeting in the latter part of July with five meetings to
date. Before the committee was even established, the City Council
had made a motion to refer the petition from the Responsible Urban
Growth Group (RUGG) to the committee for their review and analysis
2
f
f
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
-M MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
to bring back to the Council some ideas on how to address the
issues in this petition. As a first order of business, the Growth
Management Committee looked at the petition.
One idea that came of their discussions was for an advisory ballot.
The Responsible Urban Growth Group had mentioned this at the time
they presented the petition to the City Council. The purpose of
this meeting was to discuss having the advisory ballot go from City
Council to the King County Records and Election Office by September
21, 1990, to be included on the November 6 general election ballot.
The Committee held a special meeting last week to determine whether
they were interested in a ballot. The decision was in favor except
one dissenting vote from the Seattle Master Builders Association
representative. The association sent a letter stating their
opposition to the advisory ballot.
On the memo included in the agenda packet, the exact wording of the
ballot measure was not included. The Mayor 's Growth Management
Committee met to compose the wording today. Ms. Anderson read and
passed out a memo of the approved wording by the Mayor' s Growth
Management ' Committee for the recommended advisory ballot as
follows:
"Should Kent immediately adopt interim growth controls--
pending implementation of state-directed growth
management measures--which would require installation of
public facilities (schools, roads, parks, etc. ) before or
during construction of new multifamily, industrial, or
commercial developments; control the rate of development;
and control conditions for multifamily rezones?"
Ms. Anderson explained that to place this measure on the ballot
there will be a charge which is prorated out among all of the
jurisdictions which have measures on the November 6 ballot. At the
time we initially spoke to King County Records and Elections, they
quoted us 1 figure of approximately one dollar per registered voter
or $13 , 000 . Last week the Planning Department was informed this
could be dropped to as low as fifty cents per registered voter.
The amount depends on how many measures end up on the ballot which
is not determined until September 21, 1990. Since there is a
fiscal impact, it is scheduled to go to the IBC on September 5,
1990.
The committee did not make a recommendation rather, the Committee
members decided to take this action to full City Council on
September 18 as a public hearing rather than Other Business for
discussion.
3
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 41 1990
Much discussion occurred as to the possibilities if this measure
failed and the consequences.
Rather than this item be placed under Other Business, the Committee
members decided to take this to full City Council on September 18
as a public hearing for discussion on the issue at hand for Council
to pass a resolution to place this question before the voters on
the November 6 general election.
ADDED ITEM - LABOR FORCE
Council member Leona Orr stated that it has been brought to her
attention through Jim White and a business owner of a problem with
the building, and housing the business called the Labor Force.
Senior Planner Carol Proud has been working on a zoning code
violation. The Public Works Committee met in the moring on
September 4 and recommended that the Planning Committee make a
report to find out what Council action can be taken about the
complaints and problems. Bill Williamson was instructed by the
Public Worlds Committee to meet with Carol Proud and look at what
can be done.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 10 p.m.
4
�I Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: FAUS FUNDING PROPOSED ALLOCATION METHOD CHANGE
2 . s recommended by the Public Works
Committee uthorization to support the change in allocation of
ing to the City from a project priority basis to an
allocation based on current population and for the Director of
Public Works to communicate that support to the King County
1 Public Works officials and King Subregional Council.
l
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and
supporting information
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examin r, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO K YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL-NOTE Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIM: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
«• SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
PRESENT: JIM WHITE BILL WILLIAMSON
LEONA ORR ED WHITE
DON WICKSTROM JOHN BOND
GARY GILL
94th Avenue Between Canyon and James
Wickstrom explained the cost of the requested traffic modifications
would be $10, 273 which IBC has proposed taking out of the Street
Operating Funds. We had originally budgeted adequate funds in the
Street budget to cover a storm drainage utility rate increase which
has not been implemented to date; thus, there are adequate funds to
cover the expense for the 94th modifications. Ed White added that
Mr. Dunn has asked the City to reconsider this modification. Mr.
Dunn would like to investigate the possibility of constructing
curb, gutter and sidewalk. White stated he had expressed to Mr.
Dunn that the City did not have funding for that extensive an
improvement. Mr. Dunn wanted to meet with the residents of the
area to determine if they would be willing to put together an LID
for curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of 94th. Mr. Dunn
anticipates being able to meet with the residents this month. The
Committee determined they would be willing to delay installation of
the traffic circles until such time as Mr. Dunn has been able to
meet with the residents about an LID.
FAUS Funding - Proposed Allocation Method Chancre
Wickstrom stated the Public Works Directors of King County have
been discussing a change in the allocation of FAUS funding.
Currently the funds are distributed by King Subregional Council to
the cities for projects on a project prioritization basis. This is
not the way federal funds are distributed in other areas of
Washington. The King County Public Works officials are
recommending the funds be distributed based on current population.
White asked how that would affect Kent. Wickstrom responded we
have averaged $125, 000 a year over the past few years. Based on
population, we anticipate Kent's allocation to be $126, 000 which
would be guaranteed and we could budget accordingly. The Committee
unanimously recommended support for the change in allocation method
for FAUS funds.
228th Street Acquisition
Wickstrom stated that, based on the appraisals we have received,
acquisition costs for the right of way will be more than what we
originally estimated. Wickstrom proposed transferring an
additional $20, 000 from the non-LID portion of the West Valley
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
July 27, 1990
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: FAUS Funding - Proposed Allocation Method Change
King County Public Works Officials have recently discussed a
proposal to change the method of allocating FAUS funding.
Presently, in the King Sub-regional area, FAUS funds are allocated
to the State on October 1 of each year. King Subregional Council
receive FAUS funds based on the last census population averaging
approximately $5. 2 million annually. These funds are then
distributed to: Seattle based on last federal census;
approximately $24, 000 to King Consortium; approximately $349, 000 to
Metro/Commuter Pool and the remaining to King County and Cities
based on project prioritization. About 12 of over 30 projects
receive FAUS funding annually by this allocation. Elsewhere in the
State, Sub-regional Council allocates FAUS funds to the County and
Cities based upon population. These funds can then be allocated to
any project on the FAUS arterial system providing it is on the
approved TIP.
The King County Public Works Officials are recommending that the
King Sub-regional allocation method be changed to a distribution
based upon current population but make provisions for annual FAUS
fund allocations to the King Consortium and Metro/Commuter Pool .
Changing the method of allocation would allow agencies to receive
a predictable amount annually and to use those funds on any
approved TIP project.
It is our recommendation we support this recommended change in
allocation of FAUS funding.
pwcomm
o4lkER tk
U C
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
O 9611 S.E.36th St • P.O.Box 1440 • Mercer Island,WA 98040-1440
�`S'II I N G t (206)236-3582 • FAX:(206)236-3651 CITY Or I(Eti
-JUL 1 2 1990
July 10, 1990 ENGINEERgif"3 DEPT.
Mr. Don Wickstrom
Director of Public Works
City of Kent
220 South Fourth
Kent, WA 98031
Subject: FADS Funding
Proposed Allocation Method Change
This letter and the attachments have been sent to King
County, METRO and all 31 cities in King County to obtain
written responses as to your concurrence with the concept to
change FAUS Funding Allocations from a county-wide project
competition to an annual allocation based on population.
King County Public Works Officials at their last two monthly
meetings discussed this proposed change and found it to be a
good idea. Details of the proposal are in the attachments.
They asked me to send this letter to request your response
before requesting the King Sub-Regional Council to make the
change.
Please return the attached response form to me by July 23 ,
1990. If you have any questions or may be considering a
neqative reply, please call me at 236-3582 . We would like
to make this a unanimous recommendation to facilitate the
change.
Yours sincerely,
Philip D. Keightley, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Enclosures
RESPONSE FORM
FAUS FUNDING ALLOCATION METHOD
CHANGE PROPOSAL
Please return to:
Philip D. Keightley, P.E.
Director of Engineering
City of Mercer Island
9611 SE 36th Street
Mercer Island, WA. 98040
Subject: Proposal to Change Annual FAUS Funding Allocation
Distributions to Being Based on the Population of
Agencies in King County.
please fill in the following and check one of the three
responses:
Name of Your Agency
Responses 1. My agency supports the concept
to change to a population
allocation of FAUS funds;
or 2 . My agency is neutral to the
proposed change;
or 3 . My agency opposes the concept
to change to a population
allocation of FADS funds.
Name of Agency Official
Signature
Title
Date _..
Draft Letter t—o_K—in_cL SRC
Subject: FAUS Funds Allocation Method
King County Public Works Officials request that the King
Sub-Regional Council (SRC) allocate Federal Aid Urban
Systems (FAUS) Funds to agencies within the region based on
the current populations of agencies after an annual
percentage has been allocated to the King Consortium and
METRO/Commuter Pool. The attached list of the 33 King
County Agencies shows for, neutral, and against
the proposed change. This change is requested before the
October 1991 FAUS allocations are made and is for the
following reasons:
1. Reduce FAUS project administrative burdens and
costs, which are greater than non-FAUS funded
projects.
2 . Allow agencies to exchange FAUS funds for other
funds by simple agreement. This enables fewer,
larger FAUS funded projects, thereby further
reducing administrative burdens and costs.
3 . Enable multi-year project planning based on known
amounts of FAUS fund allocations and reduce budget
changes presently necessary when projects do not
win FAUS funds.
4. Provide FAUS funds at an earlier date and enable
projects to be implemented at an earlier date.
5. Allow agencies to spend FAUS funds on any TIP
project on the FAUS arterial system.
6. Reduce the work of the King SRC, its review
boards, and their staffs.
We believe this change is a win-win for all concerned and
hope that the King SRC will be able to make the change
quickly. Background information and additional rationale
supporting the change is attached.
Yours sincerely,
Summary of Responses
of
King County Public Works Officials
to
Change FAUS Funding to Population Based Allocation
Supports Opposed
Change to Change to
Name Population Neutral Population
Of Allocation as to Allocation
Agency Official Title of FAUS Change of FAUS
Cities
Algona
Auburn
Beaux Arts
Bellevue
Black Diamond
Bothell (part)
Carnation
Clyde Hill
Des Moines
Duvall
Enumclaw
Federal Way
Hunts Point
Issaquah
Kent
Kirkland
Lake Forest Pk.
Medina
Mercer Island
Milton (part)
Normandy Park
North Bend
Pacific
Redmond
Renton
SeaTac
Seattle
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Yarrow Point
other
King County
Metro
Totals
FAUS FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
RING SUB-REGIONAL COUNCIL AREA
Present System
1. FHWA allocates FAUS funds to State October 1
annually.
2 . King Sub-regional Council (SRC) receives FAUS
funds based on 1980 (last census) population.
This is about $5.2M average annually. This is
distributed as follows:
a. Seattle FAUS allocated based on last Federal
population census. This is about $2 . 4M
average annually.
b. King Consortium is allocated about $24, 000
average annually.
C. METRO/Commuter Pool is allocated about
$349, 000 average annually.
W d. King County and the Cities receive the
balance based project prioritization
improvement needs criteria. The amount of
FAUS funds authorized for the projects is
announced in about February of the year
following the FHWA FAUS allocation. About 12
of over 30 projects receive FAUS funds
annually.
System Elsewhere in State
1. FHWA allocates FAUS funds to State October 1
annually.
2 . Sub-Regional Council allocates FAUS funds to the
County and the Cities based upon population.
a. Funds are available October 1 of each year.
b. FAUS funds to be received can be fairly
accurately predicted for budgeting purposes.
C. FAUS funds can be allocated to any project on
the FAUS arterial system providing it is on
the approved TIP.
d. FAUS funds can be exchanged for other funds
between agencies within the sub-region by
simple agreement. This allows the
consolidation of FAUS funds into large
projects to reduce FAUS administration.
Goals
1. Reduce FAUS projects administrative burdens and
costs.
2. Receive predictable amounts of FAUS funds
annually.
3 . Be able to do multi-year projects planning based
on known amounts of funds available.
4. Receive FADS funds as early as possible.
5. Be able to exchange FAUS funds with other
agencies.
6. Spend FAUS funds on any TIP project on FAUS
arterial system.
7 . Allow for King Consortium and METRO/Commuter Pool
annual FAUS allocations as determined by the King
SRC.
Recommendations
1. Change the FAUS funds allocation method to a
distribution based upon current population but
make provisions for annual FAUS fund allocations
to the King Consortium and METRO/Commuter Pool.
2 . Submit a letter (draft attached) to the King SRC
requesting that the FAUS funds allocation method
be changed.
Notes
1. FAUS regulations require that FAUS funds be
distributed to sub-regions based upon the last
census. At present this is the 1980 census. The
results of the 1990 census will be available for a
FAUS funding allocation update for October 1993
allocations. Sub-regions can allocate funds to
agencies as they wish.
2 . The Federal Transportation Act update of 1990
appears likely to continue the FAUS program.
3 . The attached spreadsheet indicates that the annual
average FAUS funds most agencies received for 1973
through 1990 will be similar to the amount of FAUS _.
funds most agencies would receive from population
allocations based upon 1989 PSCOG population
estimates.
FAUS
King Sub-Regional Council
Population Percent FAUS % of Annual FAUS Annual FADS
(1989 Est.) (Pop.) 1973-1990) FAUS (1973-1990) by Population
King County
-Unincorporated 495.856 34.3ok $19,522,745 20.70 $1,039,989 $1232,121
-Federal Way 64,000 4.4% $2,519,795 2.7°k $139,989 $232,121
-SeaTac 24,000 1.70b $944,923 1.0% 552,496 $87,045
Subtotal 583.856 40.40 522,987,464 24:4 51,277,081 52,117,578
Cities Except Seattle
$134,700 O.tob $7,483 $7,
Algona 1,705 0.10
729
Auburn 32,460 2.2% $968.135 1.0% $53,785 $11 , 29
Beaux Arts 298 0.0% $26,710 0.00 $1,484 $1,081
Bellevue 86,350 6.0% $5,831,054 6.2% $323,947 $313,181
Black Diamond 1,375 0.1% $O 0.0% SO 54,987
Bothell(part) 10,430 0.7% $610,003 0.6% $33,889 537,828
Carnation 1,250 0.1% $O 0.0° $O 54,534
Clyde Hill 3,060 0.2% $199,773 0.2°b 511,099 S1t,098
Des Moines 14.020 1.0% $396,957 0.40b 522,053 553,750
Duvall 2,205 0.20/0 SO 0.0°k SO S7,997
Enumclaw 6,380 0.4% SO 0.0°k SO 523,140
Hunts Point 528 0.0% $O D.00b SO 57,915
Issaquah 7,440 0.5% 5579,a18 0.6° 532,190 526,984
Kent 34,860 2.4oh 52,264,b90 2.4% 5125,B16 5126,433
Kirkland 36,620 2.50,E 51,982,257 2.1ob 511p,125 5132,816
Lake Forest Pk. 2,790 0.2% 5419,593 0.4°h $23,311 $10,119
Medina 2,990 0.2% $250,540 0.306 $13,919 $10,844
Mercer Island 20.380 1.40 $1,360,737 1.40 $75,597 $73,916
Milton(part) 555 0.0% $O 0.0% $0 $2,013
Normandy Park 6,320 0.4% $524,776 0.6% $29,154 $22,922
North Bend 2,310 0.2°� $O 0.0% $O $8,378
Pacific 3,740 0.3% $172,900 0.2% $9,606 $73,555
Redmond 33,400 2.3% $1,829.815 1.9% $101,656 $121,138
Renton 38,480 2.7% $2,102,920 2.2% $116,829 $139,562
Skykomish 238 0.00 $O 0.0% $O $863
Snoqualmie 1,520 0.1% $O 0.0% $O $5,513
Tukwila
11,420 O.Bg4 $1,616,652 1.7%. $89.814 5.41,419
Yarrow Point 1,020 0.1% $O 53,699
Subtotal 364,944 25.2° 521,271,630 225 51,181,757 51,323,608
Miscellaneous
$435,906 0.50 $24,217 $24,217
-King Consortium 435,904
-MetroJCommuter Poo 6.278.264 $6,278,284 6.70 $348,794 5348,794
Subtotal 6,714,188 $6.714,190 7.1% S373,011 5373,011
Total Except Seattle 948.800 65.6° S$0,973,282 54.0° 52,831,849 53,441,t88
Seattle 497,200 34.4 $43.427.255 46. $2,4II2,625 $1,803,287
Total 1,446,000 100.LA $94,400,537 100. $5,244,474 $5,244,474
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1'. SUBJECT: 228TH STREET ACQUISITION
2. S As recomme the IBC Public Works
atio Committees horization to transfer 20,0 1
from the West Va ey Highway Improvement Fund to the 228th J
Street Acquisition Fund for right-of-way acquisition.
1
3. EXHIBITS: IBC recommendation and excerpt from Public Works
Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCWPERSONNEL IMPACT: �"artn NO YES \
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_AUN Not Recommended
(/V1 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ "" �\
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
PRESENT: JIM WHITE BILL WILLIAMSON
LEONA ORR ED WHITE
DON WICKSTROM JOHN BOND
GARY GILL
94th Avenue Between Canyon and James
Wickstrom explained the cost of the requested traffic modifications
would be $10,273 which IBC has proposed taking out of the Street
Operating Funds. We had originally budgeted adequate funds in the
Street budget to cover a storm drainage utility rate increase which
has not been implemented to date; thus, there are adequate funds to
cover the expense for the 94th modifications. Ed White added that
Mr. Dunn has asked the City to reconsider this modification. Mr.
Dunn would like to investigate the possibility of constructing
curb, gutter and sidewalk. White stated he had expressed to Mr.
Dunn that the City did not have funding for that extensive an
improvement. Mr. Dunn wanted to meet with the residents of the
area to determine if they would be willing to put together an LID
for curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of 94th. Mr. Dunn
anticipates being able to meet with the residents this month. The
Committee determined they would be willing to delay installation of
the traffic circles until such time as Mr. Dunn has been able to
meet with the residents about an LID.
FADS Funding - Proposed Allocation Method Change
Wickstrom stated the Public Works Directors of King County have
been discussing a change in the allocation of FAUS funding.
Currently the funds are distributed by King Subregional Council to
the cities for projects on a project prioritization basis. This is
not the way federal funds are distributed in other areas of
Washington. The King County Public Works officials are
recommending the funds be distributed based on current population.
White asked how that would affect Kent. Wickstrom responded we
have averaged $125,000 a year over the past few years. Based on
population, we anticipate Kent's allocation to be $126,000 which
would be guaranteed and we could budget accordingly. The Committee
unanimously recommended support for the change in allocation method
for FAUS funds.
228th Street Acquisition
Wickstrom stated that, based on the appraisals we have received,
acquisition costs for the right of way will be more than what we
originally estimated. Wickstrom proposed transferring an
additional $20,000 from the non-LID portion of the West Valley
Highway Improvement project. IBC has concurred with this
recommendation. Responding to White's question, Wickstrom
confirmed that if the property should ever be removed from the
"farm land designation', the City could possibly recover our costs.The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the transfer of
funds as proposed.
Water nnaiity Enforcement
Gary Gill stated we have recently discussed with the City
Attorney's office the City's enforcement regulations for water
quality problems. With the addition of a second water quality
re inspection and enforcement of
engineer, we are able to do mo
problem areas. The streams and creeks in Kent have deteriorated
considerably since the early 19801s. We will be notifying
violators of their offending actions and the consequences of any
WICKSTROM,DON / KENT70/PW - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Message. Dated: 08/28/90 at 1718 .
Subject: 228TH STREET ACQUISITION - FISCAL NOTE
Sender: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Contents: 3 .
TO: Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 1.
TO: Gary GILL / KENT70/PW
Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN
Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW
Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW
Part 2.
A FISCAL NOTE FOR THE 228TH STREET ACQUISTION. WITH RESPECT TO THE 94TH
AVENUE BETWEEN CANYON AND JAMES, WE FEEL IT CAN BE FUNDED WITH STREET
OPERATING FUNDS DUE TO STREET PAYING A LOWER DRAINAGE BILL IN 1990 THAN
BUDGETED.
Part 3 .
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL $20, 000 TO COMPLETE
THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AT 228TH AND 64TH AVENUE TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION
OF A FULL STREET IMPROVEMENT BY UNION PACIFIC REALTY FOR VAN DOREN'S LANDING.
$100, 000 IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED BUT THIS AMOUNT IS ENOUGH TO COVER INCREASED
COSTS OF ACQUISITION. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS TENATIVELY IDENTIFIED
AN ADDITIONAL $20, 000 IN FUNDS FROM THE NON LID PORTION OF THE WEST VALLEY
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET.
THE IBC RECOMMENDS THE TRANSFER OF THE $20, 000 FROM THE WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 228TH ACQUISITION.
...........
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 . 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 331 - 240TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete the contract with
R. W. Scott Construction for LID 331, 240th Street Improvement
Project, and release of the retainage after receipt of the
necessary releases from the state.
i
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from the Director of Public Works
4 . RECOMMENDED BY
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERPONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 12 , 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher ��annd City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom bQ
RE: LID 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvements
The contract was awarded to R.W. Scott on June 20, 1989 for the bid
amount of $914, 527. 64 .
The project widened S.E. 240th from 104th to 116th with sidewalks,
curb and gutters, two way left turn lanes, left turn pockets, street
lighting, and storm drainage. Construction costs were $1, 033 ,293 .98.
It is recommended the contract be accepted as complete and the
retainage released upon receipt of the State releases.
nn
' Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: HARVEY PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. SU-90-3
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of conditional approval of an
application by Townsend-Chastain and Associates for a 10-lot
single family residential preliminary subdivision. The property
is located north of So. 252nd St. between 22nd Ave. So. and
25 Ave. So.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, Hearing Examiner's minutes and
findings and recommendations
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. 8/22/90
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
With approval with four conditions.
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: bA
Councilmember mgpV�es, Councilmember seconds
accept/ t findings of the Hearing Examiner and to
adopt/ a Hearings Examiner's recommendation of
approval with four conditions of the Harvey No. SU-90-3 10-lot
single family residential preliminary subdivision.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION. (`
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 12 , 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HARVEY PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION #SU-90-3
On August 8, 1990 the Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing
to consider a request by Townsend-Chastain & Associates, Inc. for
a ten-lot single family residential preliminary subdivision. The
property is approximately 2 .47 acres in size, and is located north
of S. 252nd Street, between 22nd Avenue S. and 25th Avenue S. On
August 22, 1990 the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of this
preliminary subdivision with the following conditions:
A. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Provide detailed engineering drawings, obtain City or
appropriate utility district approval of those drawings,
and bond for or construct the following:
a: necessary water system improvements to provide
adequate domestic and fire flows to all lots as
approved by Water District #75;
b. necessary sewer system improvements to provide
gravity sanitary service to all lots as approved by
Midway Sewer District;
C. on site storm drainage facilities (with necessary
easements that may cross the subject property from
adjacent properties) to drain all roadways and lots
(including off-site tributary areas) which shall be
constructed to incorporate detention as well as
biofilitration (a minimum 200 foot long
biofilitration swale with maximum 3 to 1 side
Q� p L. slopes will be required) ;
02 . J Dedicate the south 30 feet of the subject property for S.
252nd Street right-of-way.
V
3 . Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for full street
improvements on proposed 23rd Court including a minimum
50 foot right-of-way width with a 50 foot radius cul-de-
sac and 25 foot radius curb returns at the intersection
with S. 252nd Street.
4 . Provide notations on the final plat mylar or linen that:
_. a. development on all lots must comply with Kent solar
setback requirements;
MEMO TO MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
September 12, 1990
Page 2
b. an accurate tree plan is required prior to the
issuance of any development permits on the lots;
C. access to all lots shall be limited to the cul-de-
N, sac (proposed 23rd Court S. ) .
provide half-street improvements. for the entire
property frontage of S. 252nd Street. Improvements
shall include a half-street pavement width of 18
feet with curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm
drainage, street lighting, underground utilities
and related appurtenances. The asphalt surfacing
of the new section must be properly feathered to
the existing asphalt pavement. A partial overlay
of the south half of S. 252nd Street may be
necessary to properly feather the asphalt surfacing
of the new section to the existing asphalt
pavement.
provide full street improvements for 23rd Court
South including curb and gutter, sidewalks, asphalt
pavement 28 feet curb to curb with a 45 foot radius
cul-de-sac, street lighting, street signs, storm
drainage, underground utilities, and related
appurtenances.
B. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for road work or
other work associated with the proposed subdivision, the
applicant or owner must receive approval by the Planning
Department of an accurate tree plan identifying all trees with
a caliper of six inches or greater.
C. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant or
owner must consult with surrounding property owners to help
assure that any excavation work will not adversely impact
drainage of surrounding properties.
D. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development
permit for any lot, the applicant or owner must construct the
improvements identified in Section A, above.
City of Kent - Planning Department
"
I I _
J S. 251st
1 - -- - - -i- T-- ��_ -1-� - 1� - - _
IL L�2A
/,
30. 329' J0,11
17
M1 . 7a3e n 8
I1,012.K M1
C I JO' 1
• i / Ha-�� 'I ,/r—�\' �8 I /��70 I (�+ 9q i� IJ I
—
mT. _ 103' oil k�7 3
r� aoss.a OL ?
1L 1N I \ \ dl I 7y N 10 I t
— — - 4- - - 1 s 7�a:.o M1 1. l a��tiho 9•t.-2� 111. \� � E
I I I >
...•'.
Iaioo oaew ua % 10 1 7.4k
�a M1 �+, iA«�a R• �\1
I 7,271 prM1 I
n 1,1 no
I I/ 77 l .y$ I �7 7e' 76' — —\\ J0' 3i
30, I 30'
El
F- E I
n1w IL - - - - �
cq
1 /
e
arr of Vttxd
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER -
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: HARVEY #SU-90-3
APPLICANT: Townsend-Chastain & Associates
REOUEST: A request to create ten residential lots.
LOCATION: The property is located north of S. 252nd Street,
between 22nd Avenue S. and 25th Avenue S.
APPLICATION FILED: 5/11/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 6/8/90
MEETING DATE: 8/8/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 8/22/90
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud, Planning Department "
Scott Williams, Planning Department
Randy Brake, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Paul Morrow, applicant' s representative
Other
Dick Mott
Mrs. Dick Mott
Ludean Osburn
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Robert & Luden Osburn
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.
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Harvey
#SU-90-3
FINDINGS
1. This application for approval of a preliminary plat was
submitted by Mr. Paul Morrow of Townsend-Chastain & Associates
on behalf of Harvey Grohs of Des Moines, Washington, owner of
the property proposed for development.
2 . The subject property is located north of 252nd Street, between
22nd Avenue S. and 25th Avenue S. and is approximately 2 . 47
acres in size.
3 . The applicant requests approval of a subdivision of the 2. 47
acres into 10 lots. The average lot size would be 8, 055
square feet with a minimum lot size proposed of 7, 212 square
feet.
4 . The City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the West Hill
Comprehensive Plan both designate the subject property as
Single Family. The zoning designation of the property is
R1-7.2 , Single Family Residential with a 7, 200 square foot
required minimum lot size.
5. The land use surrounding the subject property is virtually all
- single family. Some commercial uses exist on S. 252nd Street
at its intersection with Pacific Highway South.
6. Water service is available to the site from Water District
#75, subject to a Water Comprehensive Plan amendment. Sewer
service is available to the site through the Midway Sewer
District. The street system to be used by the site (S. 252nd
Street) appears adequate to serve the proposed development of
- the site if certain improvements are made. A storm water
drainage system does not now exist on the site.
7. A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued by
the City for the proposed development on June 8, 1990 with
conditions related to biofiltration of storm water, storm
water drainage patterns, fire flows and street identification.
There has been no appeal of the Declaration of
Nonsignificance.
8. Several residents of the area surrounding the subject property
expressed concerns at the time of the public hearing on this
application. The concerns included: (a) extent of excavation
and how this might impact drainage of the subject property;
(b) protection of trees now growing on the subject property;
(c) design of the homes proposed for construction on the
„. 2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Harvey
JSU-90-3 _.
subject property; (d) location of entry way to the subject
property and the impact on a home across from the proposed
entry way; (e) impact of proposed development on privacy of
surrounding homes; (f) density of proposed development; and
(g) location of sewer extension lines, if needed. The
applicant and the City responded to each concern at the time
of the public hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The purpose of the subdivision regulations, which includes the
requirement for preliminary plat approval, is to:
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and
standards for subdividing land in the City of
Kent, insuring that the highest feasible
quality in subdivision will be attained; that
the public health, safety, general welfare,
and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth,
development, and the conservation, protection
and proper use of land shall be insured; that
proper provisions for all public facilities
. shall be made; that maximum advantage of
site characteristics shall be taken into
consideration; that conformance with
provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall
be insured.
_ Section 12 . 04.262 of the Kent Subdivision Code sets forth the
particular requirements for an application for preliminary
plat approval. That section details nine specific
requirements that must be met before a preliminary plat can be
recommended for approval.
Based on the Findings detailed above, and with the conditions
recommended in the Decision below, the application will
conform to the standards set forth in City ordinances and
should be APPROVED.
2 . It is necessary to apply certain conditions to approval of
this application in order to assure conformance with the
standards set forth in City ordinances. Specifically,
conditions related to street improvements, drainage systems,
tree removal, excavation, and privacy of surrounding existing
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Harvey
#SU-90-3
residences are necessary to detail activities required of the
applicant as conditions to approval of the preliminary plat.
DECISION
The preliminary plat application should be APPROVED subject to the
following conditions:
A. Prior to recordation of the final plat:
1. Provide detailed engineering drawings, obtain City or
appropriate utility district approval of those drawings,
and bond for or construct the following:
a. necessary water system improvements to provide
adequate domestic and fire flows to all lots as
approved by Water District 175;
b. necessary sewer system improvements to provide
gravity sanitary service to all lots as approved by
Midway Sewer District;
C. on site storm drainage facilities (with necessary
easements that may cross the subject property from
adjacent properties) to drain all roadways and lots
(including off-site tributary areas) which shall be
constructed to incorporate detention as well as
biofilitration (a minimum 200 foot long
biofilitration Swale with maximum 3 to 1 side
slopes will be required) ;
2 . Dedicate the south 30 feet of the subject property for S.
252nd Street right-of-way.
3 . Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for full street
improvements on proposed 23rd Court including a minimum
50 foot right-of-way width with a 50 foot radius cul-de-
sac and 25 foot radius curb returns at the intersection
with S. 252nd Street.
4. Provide notations on the final plat mylar or linen that:
a. development on all lots must comply with Kent solar
setback requirements;
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Harvey
#SU-90-3
b. an accurate tree plan is required prior to the
issuance of any development permits on the lots;
C. access to all lots shall be limited to the cul-de-
sac (proposed 23rd Court S. ) .
d. provide half-street improvements for the entire
property frontage of S. 252nd Street. Improvements
shall include a half-street pavement . width of 18
feet with curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm
drainage, street lighting, underground utilities
and related appurtenances. The asphalt surfacing
of thenew section must be properly feathered to
the existing asphalt pavement. A partial overlay
of the south half of S. 252nd Street may be
necessary to properly feather the asphalt surfacing
of the new section to the existing asphalt
pavement.
e. provide full street improvements for 23rd Court
South including curb and gutter, sidewalks, asphalt
pavement 28 feet curb to curb with a 45 foot radius
cul-de-sac, street lighting, street signs, storm
drainage, underground utilities, and related
appurtenances.
B. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for road work or
other work associated with the proposed subdivision, the
applicant or owner must receive approval. by the Planning
Department of an accurate tree plan identifying all trees with
a caliper of six inches or greater.
C. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant or
owner must consult with surrounding property owners to help
assure that any excavation work will not adversely impact
drainage of surrounding properties.
D. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of a development
permit for any lot, the applicant or owner must construct the
improvements identified in Section A, above.
'Dated this 22nd day of August, 1990
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
5
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Harvey
#SU-90-3
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.
6
City of Kent - Planning Department
� LL'—n
44TH ST N w
244TH PL Cr
x
PfIR/fSIDE N
6 T H ST EL EM. SCHOOL
LU HEI
> S 248TH ST Pa
Cr
x r^
0
N w
50TH Cr 5 250TH ST rn
MIOwAr
S 251ST Sr
L RNOFIL L Q
e
0
S 253RD 253RD ST 1�
S T f' cn 5
Uj w
w
Sy ry Cr
A
7 H 2v CD x y
N p) 0
N CO S 2 5
to
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
Li
ao EDCD
O /�
JJ 1
.... ...........:.::::::::
o f i i o o Imo- V
I �
❑
21:6 3
w p p o f do I U� / A 1\
c_]dqL1co
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
"' City limits -�-
City of Kent - Planning Department
S. 251st
17<
f Ilk
17 7,328 "I� 30.
/
LM
ice/ `ryo —
N 4 1 - -
go
A I
R — •-I
lox I gill 7
p y L-2i ��1.
{� P/ l\ I los �. ��
I i \
� z I2
71"D s L 1O / 'I 7 4.7O
I/ 7.277„JM1 I \ J X 71
77 I �Otis I �1a�' 7e' 7e' — — —�
- -nn+ Ize' ear - - - -1- -
i U.,M I74,j_
S.) — — ST.
—�/�/� - - - - - - - - - - - - -f nlx - - - � - -
I
I
F TEi I ��
Iil
-4)L — nlo2—t
I I I v ya
e
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits -�-
cmroF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 1990
FILE NO: HARVEY #SU-90-3
APPLICANT: TOWNSEND-CHASTAIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ON
BEHALF OF HARVEY GROHS, OWNER
REQUEST: A bequest to subdivide 2 .47 acres into ten
residential lots.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Williams
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is to subdivide approximately 2 .47 acres
into 10 residential lots. The average proposed lot size
is 8, 055 square feet. The minimum lot size proposed is.
7, 212 square feet.
B. Location
The subject property is - located north of S. 252nd
Street, between 22nd Avenue S. and 25th Avenue S.
C. Size of Property
The subject property is approximately 2 . 47 acres in
size.
D. Zoning
The zoning of the subject property is R1-7 . 2,
Single-Family Residential with 7, 200 square feet minimum'
lot size.
1
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
E. Land Use
Land use adjacent to the subject property is all single
family residential. Land uses in the general area is
also predominantly single family. Some commercial uses
exist on S. 252nd Street, near its intersection with
Pacific Highway S.
F. History
1. Site History
A tentative plat meeting was held for this project
on April 5, 1990. The comments generated in that
meeting are contained in this report.
2 . Area History
The subject property is part of a 1, 100-acre area
that was annexed to the City in June 1958 under
Ordinance #984 (amended by Ordinance #1002) .
II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance
(#ENV-90-44) was issued for the proposal on June 8 ,
1990, a copy of which is included in the file of record.
B. Significant Physical Features
Topography and Hydrology
The site is flat and covered with native vegetation.
Many significant trees exist on the site.
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to S. 252nd Street
which is classified as a local collector. The
street has a public right-of-way width of 60-feet.
The actual width of paving on the street is
50 feet. The street is improved with two lanes of
2
Staff Report
„. Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
asphalt paving. The average daily traffic count
on the street is approximately 2, 500 trips per
day.
2 . Water System
Water service to the subject property is provided
by Water District 475. Facilities exist in
S. 252nd Street to serve the subject property.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
The subject property is provided sewer service by
the Midway Sewer District. Facilities exist in
S. 252nd Street to serve the subject property.
4 . Storm Water System
The applicant will be required to design and
construct a system to collect, detain and treat
storm water prior to discharging it into the City
system.
5. LID's
None at the present time.
III. 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
Midway Sewer District Water District #75
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 300 feet of the site' were notified of the
application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report
where applicable.
3
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
IV. 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.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for future land use in the City
of Kent.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as SF, Single Family. Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by
Planning Department comments.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas
where the needed services and facilities are available,
and in a manner which is compatible with existing
residential neighborhoods.
Objective 2 : Permit new residential development
on the East and West Hills as the
necessary facilities and services
are available.
Objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so
that it occurs in a responsible
4
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
,#SU-90-3
manner , consistent with
neighborhood objectives.
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of
areas already served by utilities
and transportation systems, to
achieve maximum efficiency in the
provision of services and
preservation of natural features.
Planning Department Comment:
The area surrounding the proposed plat is developed with
single family residential development similar to that
proposed. Most of the lots in the area are similar in
size to those proposed. As the subject property is
surrounded on all sides by developed property, it is
considered infill development. Facilities exist to
provide water and sanitary sewer service to the subject
.. .property. Conditions would be applied to the plat to
assure that the transportation system in the area is
sufficient to accommodate the development. Therefore,
the proposed plat is consistent with the above mentioned
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
WEST HILL PLAN
The West Hill Plan Map designates the subject property
as Single Family, 4-6 units per acre. Elements of the
West Hill Plan are addressed below and followed by the
Kent Planning Department comment.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE HOUSING THAT IS
SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND IS
SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
GOAL 1: Residential development that is related to the
availability community facilities and services.
Obiective 1: When making decisions concerning
land use, consider the adequacy of
and impact upon roads and other
public facilities and services
including utilities, police and
5
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
fire protection , public
transportation, schools and parks.
Policy Ensure that public facilities and
services are available or will be
available to support development at
proposed densities.
Planning Department Comment:
As discussed above, adequate public facilities exist to
provide utilities to the development. Conditions will
be applied to the plat to assure that impacts to the
transportation system are mitigated.
The request for subdivision was routed to the Police,
Fire and Parks Departments, as well as the Kent School
District. During the SEPA review for the project, METRO
was notified about the development. There was no
indication that the proposed project would have undue
impact on the provision of fire or police protection,
schools, parks or public transportation.
B. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A SUBDIVISION
The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards
for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that
the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general
welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth,
development, and the conservation, protection and proper
use of land shall be insured; that proper provisions for
all public facilities (including circulation, utilities,
and services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of
site characteristics shall be taken into consideration;
that conformance with provisions set forth in the City
of Kent Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be
insured.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the
regulations of the Subdivision Code. All proposed
sewers, water mains, and other utilities will comply
with applicable City requirements.
6
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
C. FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPOSED LOTS
Development on all lots in the proposed subdivision will
be subject to Zoning Code requirements for development
in the R1-7.2, Single-Family Residential, zoning
district. All lots meet minimum lot size and width
requirements.
Development on the proposed lots also will have to meet
solar setback requirements. As many significant trees
exist on the site, a tree plan identifying trees with a
caliper of six inches or greater will be required for
all lots and road improvements prior to the issuance of
development permits.
D. PROPOSED FINDINGS
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:
1. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates
the site as SF, Single Family Residential.
2 . The West Hill Plan Map designates the site as
Single Family 4-6 units per acre.
3 . The site is presently zoned R1-7 . 2, Single Family
Residential with 7, 200 square foot minimum lot
size.
4 . Land uses in the area are predominantly single
family residential.
5. A mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was
issued for the plat on June 8 , 1990
6. The site is flat and covered with native
vegetation.
7 . The site has access to S. 252nd Street.
8 . The subject property would receive water and sewer
service from Water District #75 and the Des Moines
Sewer District, respectively.
7
Staff Report
Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code
criteria for granting a preliminary subdivision, the City
staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed 10 lot subdivision
subject to the following conditions:
A. PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECORDATION OF FINAL
PLAT•
1. The •final plat mylar or linen shall bear a
notation which states that development on all lots
shall comply with City of Kent solar setback
regulations.
2 . The final plat mylar or linen shall bear a
notation which states that an accurate tree plan
shall be required prior to the issuance of any
development permits for the lots. Further, an
accurate tree plan identifying all trees with a
caliper of six-inches or greater shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval
prior to issuance of any grading permits for road
or other work associated with the subdivision.
3 . Dedicate the south 30-feet of the subject property
for S. 252nd Street right-of-way.
4 . Dedicate the necessary right-of-way for full
street improvements on proposed 23rd Court. A
minimum 50-foot right-of-way width is required
with a 50-foot radius cul-de-sac and 25-foot
radius curb returns at intersection with S. 252nd
Street.
5. The final plat mylar or linen shall bear a
notation which states that access to all lots
shall be limited to the cul-de-sac (proposed 23rd
Court S. ) .
6 . Obtain City or appropriate utility district
approval of detailed engineering drawings and
construct or bond for the following:
8
Staff Report
w Harvey Plat
#SU-90-3
a. Storm
i. Provide on-site storm system
improvements and any necessary easements
that may cross the property from
adjacent properties.
ii. Provide on-site detention in accordance
with Kent standards.
iii. Provide biofiltration of storm water
runoff prior to discharge into public
system. A minimum 200-foot long
biofiltration swale with maximum 3 to 1
side slopes is required.
b. Water and Sanitary Sewer
i. Obtain Water District #75 approval of
necessary system improvements to provide
adequate domestic and fire flows to all
lots.
ii. Obtain Midway Sewer District approval of
necessary system improvements to provide
gravity sanitary service to all lots.
B. PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON ANY LOT:
1. Construct the improvements identified in Section
A, above.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 27, 1990
9
City of Kent - Planning Department
N x U) _..
44TH ST to w
N
Q
244TH PL
x
PARlfSIDE N
S T H ST EL EM. SCHOOL
c
w HE/
cr
S 248TH ST ff^^ pq
0
v)
N W
SOTH cc5 250TH ST m
MI DWA r �,
5 251ST Sr !�
_~ L ANOFR L Q
co
v
e
S 253RD 253R0 ST K�
v�
n to
ST
w
> w
S,ry ¢ ¢ Cc
A
T H 2� z x s
N
5 2 5
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
1 ya
i f S. 251st ST.
1 \ I
124 ti
I
e.013 q M1
I..29. I l
�6�1
5 \ I I lean L I I F
103' 01i j 3 YI 'I
1 aou a n = I I
10
I
\F11 / � \
11Y5yt�p ' 2 I c
I I I 11EG w '.4mrcTa wo / 7,i77 nr I 17.No e4 ti �• aeee.a M1 r
1/ r `\ I n• ul nu J
_— � —I- -- i � 7T I L�R� I �2,.i 76' 76' � - - - .a I 70• 31
r \ b \\
b
r — 1ze' z01'
_
1 i NL 1%4,aw.1/4. 21S29' — —
_ I .
S 252nd ST.
�-� - - r -- — — — - - -- - - -
w• 170'/i i / i //�/� I — — — — —i nlSe - - - -r - -
I
P�TE r' El I
n1m� — TL- - -'3—L I 36
a l
N
I
w
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
.,.,rE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
of
Jl
or
QI 1 :• :..,.... ..: III } �
° o ' Joi ii i � o I ° i
�� If
C
2c63I ido
1
Cl cD d �j i o cil _
NxxL
1
WIIIIl111[In
APPLICATION NAME: Harvey
NUMBER: SU-90-3 DATE: August 1, 1990
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
... Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP 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.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
August 8 , 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, August 8, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Council Chambers.
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
-• and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
HARVEY
Preliminary Plat
JSU-90-3
A public hearing to consider the request by Townsend-Chastain &
Associates, Inc. , 409 S. Third Avenue, Kent, WA 98032, for a
preliminary plat to create ten residential lots. The property is
2 .47 acres in size. Zoning on the site is R1-7 . 2, Single-Family
Residential (minimum lot size of 7, 200 square feet) . The subject
property is located north of S. 252nd Street, between
22nd Avenue S. and 25th Avenue S.
Scott Williams, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff
report. Mr. Williams presented some view foils depicting 1) the
location of the site and 2) the zoning of the site and surrounding
uses. Mr. Williams commented a DNS was issued on June 8 , 1990.
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 8, 1990
Mr. Williams gave a brief topographical description of the
property. Mr. Williams commented the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the City-wide and the West Hill Comprehensive
Plans. The subdivision is in compliance with the Subdivision
Code. Mr. Williams stated the staff is recommending two additional
conditions as shown in the memo dated August 6, 1990 from Don
Wickstrom, Public Works Director. Mr. Williams commented staff
recommends approval with conditions as shown in the staff report
and the two added conditions recommended by the Public Works
Director.
Mr. Hunter asked whether there would be a difficulty in getting a
Water Comprehensive Plan amendment?
Mr. Williams stated he hasn't heard of any problems, although it
hasn't been granted yet.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Paul Morrow, Townsend & Chastain, 409 S : Third Avenue, Kent, WA
98032 , stated the conditions have been reviewed and basically the
applicant had no problems with the recommended conditions.
Mr. Morrow asked for an explanation of the Public Works condition:
the partial overlay of the south half of S. 252nd.
Mr. Hunter asked if the condition to agree to do an overlay of the
south half of S. 252nd is what the applicant objects to?
Mr. Morrow agreed.
Mr. Hunter asked if there was a Public Works Department
representative available to respond to the question.
Randy Brake, Public Works Department, commented the condition isn't
saying the applicant is to provide a full-street overlay, however,
it is necessary to feather in a transition to the south lane and it
could be necessary to overlay to the south lane in order to provide
the necessary transition. Mr. Brake stated there are other ways to
provide the transition without providing a complete overlay.
Mr. Hunter asked if there was anyone who would like to comment.
Dick Mott, 2321 S. 251st Street, Kent, WA 98032 , was concerned
about the height difference between his lot and the proposed
subdivision. Mr. Mott was concerned about the drainage in the area
and the effect on his property by this development.
Mrs. Dick Mott, 2321 S. 251st Street, Kent, WA 98032 , asked about
the Midway Drainage District. She thought this area was connected
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 8, 1990
to Water District #75 and the Des Moines Sewer District. Mrs. Mott
was also concerned about the effect on the drainage in the area.
Mr. Morrow commented that Des Moines Sewer District recently
changed its name to Midway Sewer District. Mr. Morrow felt the
sanitary sewer service would be located along 252nd. Mr. Morrow
stated the City of Kent has stringent regulations regarding storm
drainage that would be followed by the developer. Mr. Morrow
remarked the City of Kent has solar setback requirements.
Ludean Osburn, 2233 S. 252nd, Kent, WA 98032, stated the map
indicates a driveway coming out of the proposed development right
across from their driveway. Ms. Osburn was against having ten
houses being built on ten-and-a-half acres of land. Ms. Osburn was
concerned about the sight distance for cars leaving the site.
Ms. Osburn felt the trees should be saved.
Mr. Williams stated the staff report contains a recommended
condition to save as many trees as possible. Further, a notation
on the plat linen will be made stating a tree plan must be
submitted prior to any six-inch or larger in diameter tree being
removed from the site.
Mr. Mott commented twice previously trees have been removed from
the site.
There was no further public notice.
The hearing closed at 3 : 35 p.m.
3
..........
1
i
\, Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18. 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - REZONE MINSHULL/WAGNER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On August 21, 1990, the City Council
conducted a public hearing on the Minshull/Wagner rezone appeal
(RZ-90-5) from the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for denial
of the applicant's request for R-1-7.2 zoning. After closing
the hearing, the Council voted to modify the Examiner's
recommendation and to adopt R-1-12 (12,000 square feet minimum
lots) for RZ-90-5. The Council directed staff to prepare
conditions to mitigate traffic problems associated with the
rezone. Staff proposed conditions are attached.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, memo to Ted Hunter from Staff,
Hearing Examiner minutes dated 6/6/90 and 6/20/90, findings and
recommendations, appeal form, letter from Margaret
Minshull/Jacob C. and Lily Wagner dated 7/13/90, verbatim
minutes from the 6/6/90 and 6/20/90 hearings, City Council
minutes dated 8/21/90
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: -""NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not R ommende
1 U_II"/J
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �� -- ----------' ✓
Councilmember moves, Councilmember1 seconds
for Council to approve/roldi e ' of staff proposed mitigating
conditions that support the Council's action to zone application
for RZ-90-5 (Minshull/Wagner) to R-1-12, and direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
qq "-
ACTION: �,'l . [ ✓/'
l
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
crrrOF3ttXd
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
September 12 , 1990
TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and City Council Members
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
RE: Minshull/Wagner Rezone #RZ-90-5 Conditions
Per the Councils request to bring forward proposed condition's for
the Minshull/Wagner Rezone, RZ-90-5 made at the August 27, 1990
public hearing, staff recommends the following conditions to
mitigate the impacts to the transportation system in the area:
1. The developer shall reconstruct the west half of 92nd
Avenue South (minimum 18-feet of asphalt pavement)
including the installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk,
street lights, storm drainage, underground utilities and
related appurtenances for the entire property frontage.
On the east side of 92nd Avenue South a 12-foot wide
asphalt paved half-street improvement shall be
constructed.
2 . The developer shall widen and improve 92nd Avenue South
to a width of 24-feet with a minimum five-foot paved
shoulder on the west side of the street from the
southerly property line to the intersection of 92nd
Avenue South/South 208th Street.
3 . The developer shall install a minimum five-foot wide
paved shoulder on the north side of South 200th Street
from 92nd Avenue South to 96th Avenue, where an existing
paved shoulder exists.
4 . Secure necessary permits and approvals from King County
for all road improvements.
5 . If any road grades on the subject property exceed 12
percent, any single family residences constructed on the
site shall be sprinklered.
CC: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
MY of TAMi
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER w
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
nvvicra .
FILE NO: MINSHULL-WAGNER #RZ-90-5
APPLICANT: Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner
REQUEST: A request for a rezone from RA, Residential
Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential.
LOCATION: The subject property is located west of
92nd Avenue S . at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S.
APPLICATION FILED: 3/23/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 4/12/90
MEETING DATE: 6/6/90 and 6/20/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 7/1/90
RECOMMENDATION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department
Kathy McClung, Planning Department
Scott Williams, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
Ed White, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Lillie Wagner, applicant
Other
Donna Williamson
Lisa Bishop
Cal Stewart
Ken Mellott
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Cindy Cameron
William L. Robbins, Sr.
1
Findings and Recommendation
- Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
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 applicants are owners of approximately 18 . 5 acres located
west of 92nd Avenue S. at 20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue South.
The applicants propose a rezone of the property from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential
with 7 , 200 square feet minimum lot size.
2 . The City-wide and Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Maps
designate the subject property as SF, Single Family. The
Valley Floor Plan Map .was first adopted in 1979 . At that
time, the subject property was designated as RA, Residential
A- Agricultural. In June of 1988 , the City Council amended the
Valley Floor Plan Map by Resolution No. 1120. That Resolution
changed the comprehensive plan designation on the subject
property from RA to SF, Single Family Residential .
3 . Land use surrounding the subject property is predominately
single family residential. The property is bordered by SR 167
on the west. The area across from the subject property on
92nd Avenue S. is in the jurisdiction of King County and is
zoned SR-9600, Single Family with 9 , 600 square foot lot sizes .
Despite zoning which allows smaller lot sizes, most of the
lots in the area are one-half acre or larger.
4 . Several residents from homes surrounding the subject property
testified about traffic concerns at the public hearings.
Concerns expressed included heavy, fast traffic on
92nd Avenue S . (back-ups as far as from Central Avenue to mid-
span) with no shoulder or sidewalks; heavy, fast traffic on
S. 200th; unsafe pedestrian access along 92nd Avenue S . so
that children cannot walk to nearby school; and potential
problems with traffic on S. 202nd if it is opened up for new
development.
5. Any development of the subject property would impact traffic
on 92nd Avenue S . That road is currently classified as a
2
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
collector arterial. It has a paving width of 24 feet. The
City testified that the current traffic count for
92nd Avenue S . is 3 , 600 to 3 ,800 vehicles per day. The
estimated traffic increase which may occur as a consequence of
development • of the subject property with single family
dwellings 'is from 670 to 1, 100 additional trips per day
depending on the density of development. This represents
approximately a 20 to 30 percent increase in traffic on
92nd Avenue S. The City also testified that traffic
mitigation measures could be applied including a speed limit
of 35 mph, a 36 foot wide paved area, and a curb and sidewalk
(at least along one side of 92nd Avenue S . ) . It was suggested
that the formation of a LID for transportation improvements
was also possible.
6 . The Soos Creek Planning Area, which includes the area on the
east side of 92nd Avenue S. , is one of the fastest growing
residential areas in King County. The demand for housing has
increased substantially in the past year throughout the City
of Kent.
7 . The subject property slopes to the west at approximately 14
percent. Residents of the area testified that there are a
significant number of springs on the hillside. A number of
the residents use wells in the area that could be impacted by
development of the site. Some residents presented testimony
about the wildlife on the site (hawks, pheasant, quail,
rabbits, possum and deer) and expressed concern about loss of
wildlife. Some residents expressed concerns about loss of
views of the valley if development were to occur on the
subject property.
8 . A letter from Benson Realty, Inc. was presented by the
applicant and received in evidence as Exhibit 5 . The letter
states that there is an "urgent need for single family houses
in South King County" and that the subject property "is
ideally suited and situated for just that purpose" .
9 . A Declaration of Nonsignificance with no conditions was issued
for the proposed rezone on April 12 , 1990.
3
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
WRZ-90-5
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 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 . 04 . 010 of the Kent Zoning Code requires
that any rezoning of RA lands to more intensive use shall :
'be predicated upon the documentation of the need for
additional residential . . . land in Kent. This
documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis
showing the other lands already zoned and accessible to
municipal services are not sufficient and/or suitable to
accommodate demand for the proposed uses and that the
market demand for the proposed development is sufficient
to generate the revenues necessary to provide municipal
services required by the project.
The Examiner must evaluate the proposed rezone against both sets
of criteria to determine if a recommendation to grant or deny is
appropriate.
4
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Conclusions
Upon review of all the evidence submitted with reference to this
request for a rezone, and upon review of the standards and criteria
for evaluating the request for a rezone, the Examiner concludes
that:
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Both the City-wide and the Valley Floor Plan Comprehensive
Plan maps designate the subject property as SF, Single Family
Residential. The Valley Floor Plan also contains goals which
encourage residential development on the Valley Floor when
consistent with environmental quality.
2 . The proposed rezone from RA to R1-7 .2 and subsequent
development of the site would be not compatible with
development in the vicinity. The subject property is
surrounded by single family development that is far less dense
than that proposed in the application. A change of zoning to
R1-7 . 2 .would mean as many as 100 homes could be built on the
subject property or about 6 homes per acre. The surrounding
development has about two homes per acre. Even if some of the
subject property was not developed with homesites due to
streets and slopes, the density would still be far in excess
of that surrounding the subject property. A zone designation
of R1-12 or R1-20 would . be far more compatible with
development in the vicinity.
3 . The proposed rezone would unduly burden the transportation
system in the vicinity of the property with significant
adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. The proposed
•rezone, associated with single family development of the site,
would increase traffic on the main corridor road by 20 to 30
percent. The traffic level is already high and already has
adverse impacts on area residents. The additional traffic
would cause significant additional adverse impacts. Many of
these impacts could be mitigated. However, there was very
little evidence presented at the public hearings regarding
specific mitigation measures that would be applied. Although
traffic mitigation measures are typically addressed at the
time of environmental review or at the time of development
permit applications, the concerns raised at the public
hearings on this proposed rezone by residents in the vicinity
of the subject property are specific enough to require more
detail in the description of the mitigation measures that
would be applied rather than those the could be applied.
Without that level of detail, it cannot be concluded that the
5 _.
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
adverse impacts can be mitigated as required by Section 15. 09
of the Zoning Code.
4 . Circumstances appear to have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
Proposed. rezone, but the applicant has not provided sufficient
documentation to show this as required by the Zoning
ordinance.
The demand for single family housing in the area has increased
significantly in just the past year. The purpose of the RA
zone is to "assure efficient and attractive growth" at the
appropriate time. The key question to be addressed regarding
the proposed rezone is when it is appropriate to rezone the
property. For a rezone -of an RA zone to a more intensive
classification, the City Council has required a more detailed
analysis of the "change of circumstances" criteria. The
required analysis is specified in Section 15. 04 . 010 of the
Kent Zoning Code (as quoted above) .
The applicant must document the need for additional housing
by using a fiscal impact analysis showing the other lands
zoned for single family residential are not sufficient or
suitable to accommodate the demand for housing. The
applicant' s only documentation is a letter from a realtor
(Exhibit 5) which states the "urgent need for single family
housing in South King County. " Neither this letter nor any
other documentation made available at the public hearing
addresses whether other lands already zoned for single family
residential development are available in the City. In order
to recommend approval of the proposed rezone, the Hearing
Examiner must conclude that these other lands are insufficient
or unsuitable for development. This conclusion cannot be
reached without additional evidence to support it. The
Hearing Examiner must also conclude that "the proposed
development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary
to provide municipal services . . . required by the project" .
Section 15. 04 . 010. There was no evidence submitted by the
applicant or anyone else regarding the revenue needed to
provide the municipal services specified in the ordinance
(which includes, but is not limited to, police, fire, streets,
water, drainage and sewer) . Without this evidence, the
Examiner cannot conclude that there would be sufficient
revenues generated to provide the necessary municipal services
specified in the ordinance.
6
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
5. The nronosed rezone would adversely affect the safety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent
The testimony presented at the public hearings from
surrounding residents was overwhelmingly consistent with
regard to the traffic problems that now exist and the concern
about additional adverse impacts on the transportation system
that may occur if the proposed rezone is approved. The street
system in the area is not now safe for young pedestrians or
bicyclists. Approval of the proposed rezone would exacerbate
the situation. Traffic mitigation measures may be available
that would mitigate these additional negative impacts, but
they have not been identified with specificity. The
applicants proposed no mitigation measures whatsoever.
While some level of residential development appears
appropriate for the subject property, the City Council has
applied an RA zoning designation to the site to assure that
development does not occur until the appropriate time. "It
is essential that the City avoid excessive zoning far in
advance 'of demand" . Section 15. 04 . 010 of the Zoning Code.
Without documentation of the unavailability of other zones for
single family housing, approval of the proposed rezone would
adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of the
City.
The applicants for the proposed rezone appear to be model
neighbors and citizens by all accounts. Lillie Wagner stated
she has lived in the area for over 40 years. Her testimony
clearly indicated she shared the surrounding residents '
concerns about traffic problems, wildlife and safety for
• children. However, the requirements of the City as expressed
in the ordinances adopted by the City Council must be adhered
to by the Hearing Examiner in his effort to "interpret, review
and implement land use regulations" as required by law. The
requirements to approve the request for a rezone have not been
met by the applicants in. this matter.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the request for a rezone from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2, Single Family Residential, be
DENIED. . If additional evidence is provided by the applicant which
supports a more intensive zoning, it is recommended that the zoning
be no more intensive than R1-20 to assure compatibility. with the
existing residential development surrounding the subject property
7
Findings and Recommendation
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
and to help assure that adverse impacts due to traffic increases
can be adequately mitigated.
Dated this 5th day of July, 1990
-'0.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS .
Recruest 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.
8
City of Kent - Planning Department
/ , Q
If
1 1'• is << \n v yr 1 1/
Y.
All
�.�� \�•1+11� 1 1 I / nliirl
+ny i
I 1 11 if
+ , o C lill
N —
1 M 1,tr 1,11,
,1 11 1 1 R a 0'
11 + n ul ,
' I' I I j,`I III � 1 �''❑61�,;1;f''1``SI;1�1
it
p1 \1\
APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner
NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2
Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
LEGEND
:? Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary
'� City limits -!-
City of Kent - Planning Department
NTH ST
96TH ST CC
00
� o
3 �
CO
W
Y
Cr JJ W
F- Q Q
x
W H
W pp
S 200TH ST
OOTH ST
� <'' SPRINGER
• ' 3 S. EL EM. SC
202NO ST
,.
v
Q
N J
x S 206TH a
W
0) > x
Q1 ¢ �
m
rn
APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner
NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2,
Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
� '� City limits -'►
City of Kent - Planning Department
M HI\ Y
I al
1
P \ 1 `
Y
I(/ a
/ n «
_ e[
� J
.n
N ,
lY
APPLICATION NAME: Minshull - Wagner
NUMBER: RZ-90-5 DATE: June 6, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone an 18.5 acre site from RA, Residential Agricultural to R-1 7.2
Single Family Residential with minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet.
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.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
June 20, 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, June 20, 1990 at 3 : 00 , p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Council Chambers.
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing,
to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting'
testimony was ,sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
MINSHULL-WAGNER
Rezone
WRZ-90-5
A public hearing continued from June 6, 1990 to consider the
request . by Margaret Minshull, 28114 ilOth Avenue SE, Kent, WA
98031 and Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA 98064,
to rezone approximately 18 acres from RZ, Residential Agricultural,
to R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential . The property is located at
20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031.
Scott Williams,. Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Mr. Williams commented the rezone request is a rezone from RA,
Residential-Agriculture, to R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential.
Mr. Williams showed some view foils depicting 11 the location of
the site, and 2) zoning of the site and surrounding area and 3)
topography of the site. A Determination of Nonsignificance without
conditions was issued on April 22 , ' 1990 .
..., 1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 20, 1990
Mr. Williams commented the site will have access to 92nd Avenue S.
Mr. Williams -stated the Traffic Department did a traffic count on
92nd Avenue S . on June 12 . A total trip count of 3 , 832 vehicles
(north and southbound) for the 24-hour period was made.
Mr. Williams noted that traffic mitigation and road improvements
would be required at the time of preliminary plat application. '
Mr. Williams stated any plat application on the property would need
to go through SEPA and the preliminary plat process. A video of
the site was shown.
Mr. Williams commented on. the analysis of the Comprehensive and
Valley Floor Plans. Mr. Williams stated a revision to the staff
report was mailed last week. 'Mr. Williams stated that in June 1988
the City Council changed the Valley Floor Plan designation for the
property from RA to SF, Single-Family. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for the property is Single-Family. Mr. Williams stated
the rezone request could be approved without a Valley Floor Plan
amendment. The R1-7. 2 zoning would comply with the SF
designation.
Mr. Williams - commented there wasn 't an updated map available.
Mr. Williams gave a brief history on the Valley Floor Plan
amendment.
Carol Proud, Planning Department, commented there is available a
copy of the East Valley Study and Resolution making the change to
the Valley Floor Plan.
Mr. Williams submitted to the record a copy of Resolution 1170
(Exhibit 3) . Mr. Williams talked about Area 5 where the site was
changed from RA to SF. Mr. Williams reviewed the goals and
objectives relating to this rezone request. Mr. Williams claimed
staff felt the natural features of the site, especially the slopes
and trees, could not be retained with the R1-7 . 2 designation as
they would be with a larger-lot designation. Mr. Williams
mentioned that R1-12 zoning would be more consistent with the goals
and objectives. Mr. Williams commented the staff is recommending
approval to R1-12 , Single Family Residential.
Mr. Hunter stated there was a letter received from Cindy Cameron
(Exhibit 2) . . Mr. Hunter remarked that the Zoning Code, Section
15. 04 . 010, states that the rezoning of RA lands shall be predicated
upon the documentation of the need for additional residential,
commercial or industrial lands. Mr. Hunter asked if there was
evidence submitted relating to a fiscal impact analysis or market
demand.
2 _.
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 20, 1990
Mr. Williams stated the applicant submitted a letter from a real
estate agent in the area. Mr. Williams commented the reasoning for
the staff support of the rezone was the growth in single-family
residential development in the area.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to respond.
Lillie Wagner, applicant, submitted to the record a copy of her
prepared remarks (Exhibit 4) . She read from the remarks. Ms.
Wagner remarked the area is no longer rural. Ms. Wagner talked
about the area in regard to use, location and surrounding uses.
Ms. Wagner commented the site is located between a commercial area
and larger, 9, 600 square feet, residential lots.
Mr. Hunter asked if a fiscal impact analysis or market demand
analysis was done?
Ms. Wagner commented she hasn't seen one. Ms. Wagner felt the
analysis would have been done by a governmental agency.
Mr. Hunter said the report could have been done by a governmental
agency or Ms. Wagner could have hired someone to do the analysis.
Ed Cleveland, 19415 Talbot Road, Renton, WA 98055, commented there
are three subdivisions being built in the area; two across the
street from the subject property and one beside the property. Two
of the subdivisions will have 7 ; 200 square feet lots and one will
have 9, 600 square feet because of slope. These subdivisions are
located . in King County. Traffic impacts from these subdivisions
have been sent to Kent and Kent has responded that there would not
be any significant traffic impact from these subdivisions.
However, there will be about 80 homes total on these subdivisions.
Mr. Cleveland commented this strip of land where the subject
property is located has been considered by the City to be a
transitional buffer between commercial in the valley and
residential on the east slope. Mr. Cleveland stated this property
was down zoned by Kent to RA, density one home to the acre, about
ten years ago. Mr. Cleveland felt that to have one home to an acre
of land that had all the public services is unfair, when compared
to other lands with higher density and fewer available public
services. Mr. Cleveland felt a density of 9 , 600 square feet should
be allowed.
Ms. Wagner commented down zoning this property to a lower density
than surrounding property was- not equitable.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 20, 1990
Mr. Hunter asked if there were any more comments.
Cal Stewart, lives to the east of the Wagner parcel. Mr. Stewart
stated the property is view property. Mr. Stewart felt there could
be a possible obstruction of the view if the property was developed
with large houses. Mr. Stewart commented he had a well on his
property that was being used; he felt that the well could be
damaged by allowing development. Mr. Stewart felt the site was too
steep to allow 7 . 2 density. Furthermore, some natural springs are
located on the property
Mr. Stewart felt the traffic statements in the staff report are
inaccurate. He commented the traffic from this development would
impact the streets. Mr. Stewart wanted to know what the City was
going to do about the traffic. In addition, there are no
improvements to the street, no sidewalks or places to walk.
Ken Mellott, 20110 92nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031, lives across
from the Wagner property. Mr. Mellott had concerns about this
development in regard to the overall impact to the area, especially
with the other subdivisions being developed. ' Mr. Mellott had a
concern about the impact on the view with the development of this
site. Mr. Mellot asked if provisions for. drainage would be
required. Mr. Mellot mentioned the well on his property and the
impact the development might have on the well. Mr. Mellot was
concerned about the cumulative traffic impacts from this
development as well as from the other subdivisions being developed.
Mr. Williams remarked the City has view regulations that must be
complied with. He stated that any property with a 20 percent slope
is entitled to have the view protected. Mr. Williams commented on
the RA, Residential Agriculture, designation. Mr. Williams stated
the property has been zoned the same for approximately 30 years;
not as a buffer between industrial and single-family but to
facilitate a transition between agricultural use and single-family
residential uses.
Mr. Hunter commented the purpose of the residential agricultural
zone, as stated in the Ordinance, is as the key to assuring
efficient and attractive growth; it is essential that the City
avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand.
Mr. Williams commented his understanding of the idea is that the
original intent was to preserve the agricultural uses there. The
City Council looked at property they were reasonably sure was going
to be single-family at some future time. Instead of zoning it as
single family immediately, the City Council decided to enact the
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
- June 20, 1990
RA designation to protect the agricultural land until such time
there was a demand for single-family use.
Ms. Proud remarked the average slope is about 14 percent. The
hillside standards in the subdivision code govern any hillside
subdivision. The hillside standards begin at 15 percent slope.
Ms. Proud stated the subject site is less than the beginning
hillside standards. . One of the standards 'for a hillside
subdivision is the lots should be larger than usually allowed.
Thus, under a rezone the Planning Department tries to allow for
such standards.
Ed White, Public Works Department, talked about how the trip
generation figures are derived. Mr. White discussed the trip
generation figures for the proposed rezone using the different lot
sizes. Mr. White stated there are no improvements on the road;
the road is approximately 24' to 26 feet wide, open ditch on the
east side and a six to seven foot shoulder on the west side. This
road is currently functioning as a local arterial. Mr. White
stated with .,the build-out proposed the road could become a major
roadway. Mr. White stated a speed study was not done; if requested
a speed study can be done.
Gary Gill, Public Works Department, commented that when the
property is developed many of the questions regarding traffic and
storm drainage will be resolved. Mr. Gill stated that a future
developer of this property will be required to participate in the
228th/224th Corridor Project or the 192nd/196th Corridor Project.
Mr. Gill remarked the developer could be required to either fully
improve 92nd along the entire frontage of the property or sign a
no-protest LID covenant. The developer might be required to do
minimal improvements to 92nd. Mr. Gill stated that property owners
who have wells should get in touch with the Public Works Department
so any impacts from development could be restricted. Mr. Gill
stated storm drainage would be closely monitored.
Mr. Williams commented the purpose statements for the RA and MA
zones were changed at the time the agricultural land study was
completed approximately eight years ago. Mr. Williams read a
letter received from the Benson Realty dated June 4 , 1990 (Exhibit
5)
Mr. Stewart felt that a letter from a realtor stating that the land
is necessary for single-family use is lining the realtor's own
pocket. Mr. Stewart did not feel that letter was valid for showing
it would be necessary to have the land for single-family use.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing was closed.
5
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.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
June 6, 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, June 6, 1990 at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall, Council
Chambers.
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing,
to sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described _.
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
MINSHULL-WAGNER
Rezone
#RZ-90-5
A public hearing to consider the request by Margaret Minshull,
28114 110th Avenue SE, Kent , WA 98031 and
Jacob C. and Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA . 98064 , to rezone
approximately 18 acres from RZ, Residential Agricultural, to
R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family Residential. The property is located at
20227 and 20129 92nd Avenue S . , Kent, WA 98031.
Scott Williams, Planner, stated the applicant has requested a
continuation of the Hearing Examiner meeting to June 20.
Mr. Williams remarked the reason for continuance is the property
owners requesting the rezone need to discuss the staff' s
recommendation prior to the hearing.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
1
Hearing ' Examiner Minutes
June 6, 1990
Lillie Wagner, PO Box 5490, Kent, WA 98064, remarked the request
was a rezone from rural to residential. Ms. Wagner remarked they
wanted time to look at the ramifications of the Comprehensive Plan
on this property.
Mr. Williams commented the City is in agreement with this request.
Mr. Williams stated that if the applicant doesn't agree with
staffs recommendation on the rezone, then the applicant will need
to file for a Comprehensive Plan change prior to a rezone request.
Therefore, applicant will need to make a decision on whether to
withdraw the application, file for a Comprehensive Plan change, and
then file for a rezone.
Mr. Hunter stated he will take public testimony - today with the
understanding that the City and applicant will testify at the
continued hearing of June 20, 1990.
Donna Williamson was interested in the access to the property.
Ms. Williamson was concerned that the lots would. be 7 , 200 square
feet in size while the County land was 9 , 000 square feet in size.
Ms. Williamson remarked on the current congestion of 92nd Avenue S .
and felt the addition of this plat would create more congestion.
Ms. Williamson commented she had called about the speeding on the
road and the unsafe conditions; however, it has been difficult to
find who is responsible because the road is shared between City
and County.
Mr. Hunter asked Ms. Williamson to delineate the access.
Ms. Williamson stated it was the 30 foot access lane going down the
side of her property. There is a big gully on the north side.
Thus', the road cannot be widened unless the gully is filled in.
Mr. Hunter commented road improvements were required by the
Determination of Nonsignificance.
Lisa Bishop commented she lives on S. 200th Street which is an
access to 92nd. Ms. Bishop stated traffic is atrocious.
Ms. Bishop asked for an explanation of the traffic counts shown in
the staff report. Ms. Bishop felt the lots sizes should be larger.
Mr. Hunter asked that an explanation of traffic counts be made at
the June 20, 1990 hearing. A letter was received into the record
from Cindy Cameron (Exhibit 2) .
The hearing was continued to June 20, 1990 at 3 : 00 pm.
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 6, 1990
KENT EAST CORPORATE PARK
REZONE
WRZ-90-4
A public hearing to consider the request by Trammell Crow Company,
PO Box 80326, Seattle, WA 98108, to rezone 42 .85 acres from GWC,
Gateway Commercial, to M2 , Limited Industrial. The subject
property is located at the northeast corner of 84th Avenue S. and
S. 218th Street.
Carol Proud reiterated the request. Ms. Proud listed some of the
surrounding businesses in this area. Ms. Proud commented this is
a portion of a 42-acre site developed -as an industrial building
with a commercial portion located on East Valley Highway. Ms.
Proud stated there were two separate buildings, with a commercial
building on East Valley Highway. A video of the site was shown.
Ms. Proud identified the surrounding uses. Ms., Proud discussed the
criteria that are reviewed when a rezone request is considered.
The staff is recommending approval .
Mr. Hunter commented the Gateway Commercial zoning was established
one year ago. He asked what circumstances have changed
substantially since the establishment of the Gateway Commercial
district?
Ms. Proud stated, as shown in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, that
the established boundaries were a compromise between what the
current property owners desired versus what was reasonable in
determining a zoning boundary. Ms. Proud stated that if a
site-specific analysis had been done, the current request would
have been incorporated into the changes initiated with the Gateway
Commercial zoning.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Kirk Johnson, Trammell Crow, stated he had no formal presentation.
Mr. Johnson commented there were five property owners in the rezone
area. . Mr. Johnson gave a brief history of the establishment of
the zoning boundary. Mr. Johnson stated the requested zoning would
be consistent with the type of users that would locate in the area.
Mr. Johnson stated the intent is to maintain a service type of use
along the East Valley Highway. Mr. Johnson gave a brief history
of the ownership of this property and other property in the area.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
June 6, 1990
Mr. Hunter asked if there was any other testimony.
James H. Rust . talked about the various zoning requests that have
been made.
Les Snodgrass, American Lenders Service Co. , had some concerns; he
talked about the traffic as well as the LID imposed on his
conditional use permit. He wanted to know why this request does
not have the same LID condition. Mr. Snodgrass wanted to know what
was the setback for the southernmost building on the site.
Ms. Proud commented the developer will be participating in the
224th/228th Corridor Project as well as 218th improvements.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, gave a brief explanation on
the process of defining the GWC zoning.
Kathy McClung, Planning Department, commented on the rezone request
and the amenities that would be provided. Furthermore, the goals
of the GWC zone would be accomplished.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing was closed at 4 : 00 pm.
4
crrr of Rtnt
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
June 15 , 1990
b
MEMO TO: TED HUNTER, KENT HEARING EXAMINER
FROM: SCOTT WILLIAMS, PLANNER 7W
RE: #RZ-90-5 MINSHULL WAGNER REZONE
New information has arisen since the writing of the staff report
for the above mentioned application. The following revisions need
to be made to the staff report for the above mentioned application.
The revised portions of the staff report are shown in bold face:
Page 1: STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF REZONE TO R1-12
Page 3 : VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the subject property
as Sr, single Family Residential. The Valley Floor Plan
was adopted in 1979 as a more specific statement of the
City council ' s intentions for the -Valley Floor. The
adoption of the Valley Floor Plan amounted to an update
of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Valley
Floor. The Valley Floor Plan Map reflected an updated
intention for the subject property from SF, Single Family
to RA, Residential Agricultural , reflecting the intention
to create a smooth transition from agricultural to
residential uses. In June 1988, as part of the East
Valley Study, the City Council changed the Valley Floor
Plan Map designation of the property to SF, single Family
Residential. Elements of the Valley Floor Plan are
addressed below followed by Planning Department comments.
OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ON THE
VALLEY FLOOR, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT.
GOAL 3 : ASSURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS .
Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the
natural environment as possible.
Plannina Department Comment:
The subject property slopes to the west at a rate of
approximately 14 percent. The site 'is also covered with
many significant trees .
Memo To: Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner
Date: June 15, 1990
RE: Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5
Page 2
Smaller lots, such as those that would be allowed under
the proposed zoning, generally make it more difficult to
retain natural features. Small lots in sloped areas
often require retaining walls to secure a flat building
site, thus disrupting the natural topography of the area.
Because relatively large portions of the lots are covered
with impervious surfaces (i. e. , roofs, driveways) ,
reducing the number of options for site design,
significant trees are often difficult to retain.
Staff feels that zoning restricting lot size to 12 ,000
square feet would allow retention of natural features of
the site and would, therefore, be consistent with the
Plan.
Page 7 : B. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as
SF, Single Family Residential.
Pages 7
and 8 A. The proposed rezone is consistent with - the
Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Department Comment:
While the proposed single-family residential use
would be consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and valley Floor Plan designations for the
property, the Planning Department has some concerns
relative to the proposed density.
Page 8 : B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of
the site would be compatible with development in
the vicinity.
Planning Department Comment:
The surrounding land uses are predominantly
residential. The area has retained a rural
character. Most of the lots in the area are one-
half acre or larger, despite King COunty zoning
that allows smaller lot sizes (9, 600 square feet
minimum) . It is the opinion of staff that the
zoning proposed by the applicant (R1-7 . 2) , and the
subsequent development on the site, would not be
compatible with the existing development in the
area.
4
Memo To: Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner
Date: June 15, 1990
RE: Minshull-Wagner #RZ-90-5
Page 3
Staff feels that rezoning the subject property to
R1-12 would be more compatible with the existing
development in the area.
Page 10: VIII . CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION ,
Upon review of the merits of this request and the
Code criteria for granting a rezone the City staff
recommends APPROVAL of a rezone from RA, Residential
Agriculture to R1-12 , Single-Family Residential.
In summary, because the Valley Floor Plan designation for the
property is SF, Single Family Residential, the request could be
accommodated without need for a plan amendment, as was stated in
the original staff report. However, because of the physical
constraints of the property (i.e. , slopes) staff feels that R1-12
is a more appropriate designation for the subject property than
R1-7 . 2 .
SW:ch
cc: Jacob and Lillie Wagner
P.O. Box 5490
Kent, WA 98064
Margaret Minshull
28114 110th Avenue SE
Kent, WA 98031
James Harris, Planning Director
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1990
FILE NO: MINSHULL-WAGNER #RZ-90-5
APPLICANT: Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and Lillie
Wagner
REQUEST: A request for a rezone from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2 ,
Single Family Residential.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Williams
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF REZONE TO R1-20
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is to rezone approximately 18 . 5 acres from
RA, Residential Agricultural, to R1-7 . 2 , Single-Family
Residential (7 , 200 square feet minimum lot size) .
B. Location
The subject property is located west of 92nd Avenue S .
The addresses are 20227 92nd Avenue S . and
20129 92nd Avenue S .
C. Size of Property
The subject property is approximately 18 . 5 acres in size.
D. Zoninq
The zoning on the subject property currently is RA,
Residential Agricultural . This was designed as a holding
zone for areas that were recognized as being in
transition from agricultural to residential uses. The
original intent of the zone was to preserve agricultural
uses
Zoning across 92nd Avenue S . , which is in unincorporated
King County, is SR-9600, which is a single-family
residential zone with 9 , 600 square foot lot sizes.
M. 1
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
E. 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.
The City of Kent has also adopted subarea plans that
address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve as
policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject
property as SF, Single-Family Residential . Elements of
the Comprehensive Plan are addressed below followed by
Planning Department comments .
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
GOAL 2 : Guide new residential development into areas
where the needed services and facilities are available,
and in a manner which is compatible with existing
residential neighborhoods .
Objective 1 : Encourage new residential development
on suitable areas of the Valley
Floor, close to transportation
corridors .
Planning Department Comment:
The subject property is located in close proximity to
transportation corridors that access services on the East
Hill and the Valley Floor. It is also in close proximity
2
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
to a freeway interchange that provides access to a north-
south corridor.
The subject property is located in close proximity to two
east-west corridors . Services on the Valley Floor can
be accessed by utilizing either S . 208th Street or
S.• 212th Street, which is a major east-west corridor in
the City.
Access to the services on the East Hill can be accessed
by utilizing SE 208th Street or SE .200th Street.
South 212th Street provides access to the Valley Freeway
(SR-167) , which is a major north-south transportation
corridor.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the subject property
as RA, Residential Agriculture. The Valley Floor Plan
was adopted in 1979 as a more specific statement of the
City Council ' s intentions for the Valley Floor. The
adoption of the Valley Floor Plan amounted to an update
of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Valley
Floor. The Valley Floor Plan Map reflected an updated
intention for the subject property from SF, Single Family
to RA, Residential Agricultural, reflecting the intention
to create a smooth transition from agricultural to
residential uses . Elements of the Valley Floor Plan are
addressed below followed by Planning Department comments.
OVERALL GOAL: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION ON THE
VALLEY FLOOR, ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT.
GOAL 3 : ASSURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS .
Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the
natural environment as possible.
Planning Department Comment:
The subject property slopes to the west at a rate of
approximately 14 percent. The site is also covered with
many significant trees.
3
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5 .
Smaller lots, such as those that would be allowed under
the proposed zoning, generally make it more difficult to
retain natural features. Small lots in sloped areas
often require retaining walls to secure a flat building
site, thus disrupting the natural topography of the area.
Because relatively large portions of the lots are covered
with -impervious surfaces (i. e. , roofs, driveways) ,
reducing the number of options for site design,
significant trees are often difficult to retain.
Staff feels that zoning restricting lot size to 20, 000
square feet would allow retention of natural features of
the site and would, therefore, be consistent with the
Plan.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
There have been no other land use applications for the
subject property. The last building permit activity on
the site was in 1965.
B. ' Area History
The subject property is part of a 320-acre area that was
annexed to the City in April 1959 under Ordinance 1017 .
III . LAND USE
Land uses in the area are predominantly single-family
residential . The site is bordered on the west by SR-167 .
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Declaration of Nonsignificance (#ENV-90-29) was issued
for the rezone on April 12 , 1990 . No conditions were
attached.
4
Staff Report
- Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Tot)ograbhv and Vegetation
The subject property slopes to the west
approximately 14 percent. The site is covered
mostly with native . vegetation, including some
relatively mature trees. Portions of the site are,
or have been used for pasture and are covered with
grass.
C. Significant Social Features
I. Street System
The subject property has access to 92nd Avenue S . ,
which is classified as a collector arterial. The
street has a public right-of-way width of 60-feet.
The actual width of paving on the street is 24-feet.
The street is improved with two lanes of asphalt
paving. The average daily traffic count on the
street is 2 , 000 vehicle trips per day.
Any deedings or street improvements that would be
required would be addressed at the time of
application for a specific development proposal
(i. e. , short plat, preliminary plat) on the subject
property.
2 . Water Svstem
There are no City of Kent water mains in the
vicinity of the proposal . The Soos Creek Sewer and
Water District provides service to the subject
property. The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District
has indicated that there are facilities available
to serve the subject property.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There are no City of Kent sanitary sewer mains in
the vicinity of the proposal . The Soos Creek Sewer
and Water District provides service to the subject
property. The Soos Creek Sewer and Water District
has indicated that there are facilities available
to serve the subject property.
5
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
4 . Storm Water System
The applicant will be required to design and
construct a system to collect, detain and treat
storm water prior to discharging it into the City
system. This would be required as part of a
preliminary plat or short plat request for this
property.
5 . LID' s
None at the present time.
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief _..
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the
application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments and concerns have been incorporated into the
staff report where applicable.
The Fire Chief had the following comments:
"The number of houses given recent growth in the area
will put a great deal of stress on the currently heavily
taxed response. system. This and other developments will
further push the need for additionally staffed companies
on the east hill . Adequate and normal width roads will
be essential and some slopes could provide difficulties
with winter access and may necessitate the need for more
built in protection. "
6 _..
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
VI. 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 City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as SF, Single-Family Residential.
B. The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as RA,
Residential Agriculture.
C. The site is presently zoned RA, Residential Agricultural .
D. Land uses in the area are predominantly residential .
E. A Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for the
proposal on April 12 , 1990 .
F. The site slopes to the west approximately 14 percent.
G. The site 'has access to 92nd Avenue S .
H. The site ..receives sewer and water service from the Soos
Creek Sewer and Water District. There are facilities in
place to serve the site.
VII. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR A REZONE REQUEST
The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code,
Section 15 . 09 . 050) shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and
City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an
amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines
that the request is consistent with these standards and
criteria.
A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Department Comment:
The proposed rezone would be consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. However, it
would not be consistent with the Valley Floor Plan designation
for the site. As discussed above, the Valley Floor Plan was
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
adopted in 1979 and was, essentially, an update to the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of the City' s desire for growth
on the Valley Floor.
The site is recognized on the Valley Floor Plan Map as being
in transition from agricultural to residential uses. The
purpose of 'the Residential Agricultural designation is to
provide a smooth transition from agricultural to residential
uses.
It is the opinion of staff that the R1-20 zoning district
would retain the rural nature of the site and better
facilitate the transition from agricultural to residential
uses. The Planning Department has determined that this would
be consistent with the Valley Floor Plan and would, therefore,
not require a Plan amendment. However, a ' rezone to R1-7 . 2
would alter the character of the area such that the rural
character could not be retained. Therefore, a Comprehensive
Plan change from RA, Residential Agriculture, to SF, Single
Family, would be required.
B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Comment:
The surrounding land uses are predominantly residential . The
area has retained a rural character. Most of the lots in the
area are one-half acre or larger, despite King County zoning
that allows smaller lot sizes (9 , 600 square feet minimum) .
It is the opinion of staff that the zoning proposed by the
applicant (R1-7 . 2) , and the subsequent development on the
site, would not be compatible with the existing development
in the area.
Staff feels that rezoning the subject property to R1-20 would
be more compatible with the existing development in the area
and would, therefore, not require an amendment to the Valley
Floor Plan.
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.
f3 _..
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner
WRZ-90-5
Planning Department Comment:
Rezoning the subject property from RA to R1-7 . 2 and the
subsequent development would create more traffic in the area.
The Engineering Department would require road improvements and
traffic mitigation agreements to address the traffic impacts
of the development. It is not expected that the proposed
rezone would unduly burden the transportation system in the
City.
D. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed change.
Planning Department Comment:
In recent years, economic growth and in-migration have fueled
high demand for housing in the Puget Sound area. The Soos
Creek Planning Area in particular, which includes the area on
the east side of 92nd Avenue S . is one of the fastest growing
areas in King County (Kent Planning Department 1989) , in terms
of residential development.
The demand for housing has put increased pressure on areas,
such as the subject property, to be subdivided. This demand
has increased substantially since the establishment of the
current zoning district on the subject property.
The Kent Zoning Code requires that no RA zoned lands be
rezoned without documentation of the need for additional
residentially zoned land. The applicant has provided
documentation to the Planning Department to demonstrate the
demand for additional single-family residentially zoned land
in the City. '
E. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City
of Kent.
� . Planning Department Comment:
The health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Kent was considered by staff in preparation of this
staff report and will be considered during the evaluation of
specific development proposals for the subject property. No
adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated are anticipated as
a result of the proposed rezone.
9
Staff Report
Minshull-Wagner _..
#RZ-90-5
VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for
granting a rezone the City staff recommends APPROVAL of a rezone
from RA, Residential Agriculture to R1-201 Single-Family
Residential, subject to the following condition:
Recommended Condition for Approval of the Rezone:
If road grades on the subject property exceed 12 . percent, any
single-family residences constructed on the site shall be
sprinklered.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
May 23 , 1990
10
Office of the City Clerk O
220 S . 4 th C/� 1`? 1990
AyOj 70
City of 3Rent C,r)'C4 fCFlllr '
:Order for Transcript for �Rk
. Appeal "from Decision of ' Hearing Examiner 4
Resolution 896 9
�7 Ordinance 2233
Date Q APP eal , filed 07 e9
Appellant ' s Name '
Address
Hearing Examiner ' s File No . 2�. _ ��1��,�,c -' —
Date of Hearing Examiner Public Hearing -71
Date of Hearing Examiner ' s Decision U•'
Notice of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 19 days of '
tion taken by the Hearing Examiner and must be accompanied by
a $25 - ilin fee. Treasurer ' s Receipt $ .. /3 �„�3
Within 30 days of the- Nearing Examiner ' s decision , the appellant shall
order from the City Clerk a full transcript of the hearing held. before
the Hearing Examiner and must post at •the time of the . order, .security
in the amount of $100 for each tape to be transcribed . If the actual
cost incurred by the City exceeds the amount posted, the appellant
shall 'be required to reimburse the City for the excess amount. If the
cost is less than the amount posted, any credit due will ,be returned
to the appellant.
Order for Transcript received //-3 /
Treasurer ' s Receipt 11 13 13 (100 . 00)
^
^ `
~
TO : Kent City Council July 13, l990
FILE NO.. Mioshull/Wagner RZ--90--5
APPLICANT; Margaret Minshull /Jacob C . and Lillie Wagner
REQUEST : Appeal to City Council of Hearing Examiner recom-
mendation for denial ofRZ~90--5
In the findings of the Hearing Examiner it is felt there is an
error in statement that 100 houses would be allowable under R1 -7 . 2
zoning . This does not take into account necessary utilizatimn of
space for roads and utilities . .
However , although Ms . Proud noted the subject site is less than
the 15% slope for the beginning hillside standards , the logic for
the guidelines is appreciafed for larger lots as slope increases .
(See attachment #l ) Since the average of the subject site at 14%
approaches the borderline, we �%-ould be agreeable (as already noted
in our June 20th presentation) for approval for 9600 size . This
would be compatible with lots being developed immediately across
the street and in areas within a mile to North/ South and East .
To the We^ " lies the East Valley Hwy , industry and warehouses .
Also/ * with the acknowledged need for more affordable single family
housing, the larger the lot the greater initial cost of homes . .
All utilities are on hand for easy hook up---unlike many develop-
ments ocurring in outlying areas .
, The Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of July' 5th was predicated "
on his evaluation of our request in meeting the standards and cri-
teria (pacie 4) of recommendation report . His judgments in each
one of these items was negative to some extent . Ule would appre-
ciate the opportunity to present a positive response to each item
in. order for your Council to weigh the opposing opinions .
The question of wells being impacted was raised by neighbors . A
basic knowledge of the nature of wells and ground water would al-
leviate those fears . The book , Water ) a volume. from the Life
Science Library / and Constructing and Maintaining Your Wells and
Septic `System by Alth can provide insight . Wells in the area tend
to be over 100 feet deep . The well on parcel 2 (wagner parcel ) is
196 feet in depth .
r The Hear ing*Examiner appeared not to have taken note of *Mr .
Williams presentation of the June 1 *388 City Council action which
changed the Valley Floor Plan designation for the property from
RA to SF' Single Family . We feel this item has not been given due
consideration for planned growth , Nor did he address directly the
staff recommendation for 12000 square foot lots .
_
llflhl(1FiY ; Approval of
the p��l�•c��_1 Under h:�'-54-4 application
with acceptable r;r'_'di.ficat.ions would achieve the
following :
1 . Use of thre land for, i.t•s only useful Purpose .
it is ideally suited for residential and useless
for agriculture .
Reduce Urban 5Fr1'd!+:l-'-i>i_'6Vf_1' i water and other
services are cm site .
: . Reduce poi ].Lat.ic'n--t.tre parcel is ideally located
only one-1-la.lf ririle frorrr valley traffic corridors .
4 . Reduce fire_ hazards---tall dry grass and blaeberry
vines would be controlled .
1 . Fl t•l'r,je t•rall::ltl'='n k'et•',veen intensive volley floor
corid•rrt9rcia.l, and adjacel-O. �:R--96.00 .
1. . F'ri'-duCt•lcon ii"f E_i.gnif lcctnt tree growth reSUlting
from m landscaping r-if residential sites .
• 7 . f'rovicle for doCurrrented goals and need foi- single
fatrnil.y a.ffordal-.le hOLISirrq .
Gam'
Pa fed 2
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY GUIDELINES. FOR SLOPING GROUND
The folloiriag table represents the guidelines for- lot area and lot
width-used by. the Subdivision Tochnical Committee when reviewing
Subdivision Applications IAH tho Xing County Comprehensive Plan.
Variations 'may be approved on the basis of spacial evidence, (e.g. soils
reports, seismic data, etc.) .
maximum Slope of minimum Rsq'd** Minimum Hax. RC
Building Site Lot Area (Minus Rsq'd ,Lot Units Comp..
Area• Roads L Utilities) width' Per Plan
-Graduated- Acre Polic
(in square fast)
0 - 15l 7,200 60, S/A D-11
D-5
16 - 20% 8,00,0 - 15,000 70, 3/A SS-3
D-5
21 - 25% 15,500 - 20,000 80-' . 2.5/A SS-3
26 - 3o1 20,500 - 35,000 100, 2/A D-9
31 40: ----- 35,500 - Over 1351 . 1/A D-8
Olt - Over*** No Development - 0/A SS-1
• The slope of the Building Site Area is measured perpendicular to the
topographic lines shown on the preliminary plat drawn to a scale of at
least 1' - 100' and at intervals of. not more than 5' in elevation. The
Building Site Area of a lot is considered to be an, area of approximately
5000 square feet which includes the area• of &. house, patios and driveways,
cleared yard areas, etc.
'• All lots must first meet minimum area requirements of .the applicable
zone district. Required area in 'excess of the zone requirement may be
assigned to the lot, or, may be Assigned to permanently dedicated open
space if the additional open space lies adjacent to- the lot requiring
it and effectively minimises the ;impact•of lot development on the slope.
•*• In general, land of thin slopa should 'be placed in open space, or
left in .tracts' of 5 acres or .more for use as Torest-Recreation property.
Attachment
M
ATT"ACWE NT 8
ik o'n"! �czrre+�a.,�-� 7W .e�c •(d n�.�.,. .:r i.
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
MINSHULL/WAGNER
#RZ-90-5
Verbatim Minutes of June 6, 1990
Ted Hunter: First, Minshull-Wagner rezone 90-5 application. I
would like to turn to Mr. Scott Williams, Planner for the City of
Kent. Sir, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole
truth in the testimony you 're about to give?
Scott Williams : I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Williams: On this application, the applicant has requested that
the item be—continued until the June 20, Hearing Examiner meeting.
Hunter: O.k. , is the applicant here.
Williams: The applicant is here.
Hunter: Do you know the reasons for this request or . . .
Williams : Well, there are more than one property owner involved
and they need to discuss between themselves, I guess, how they feel
about the City' s recommendation.
Hunter: O.k. , I would like to hear from the applicant on this.
The reasons for the request for continuance. Do you swear, affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to
give?
Lillie Wagner: Yes. I 'm Lillie Wagner and we are two parties
working together on this and never having gone through it before we
have discovered there are other procedures that we should have been
f thinking of and we would like a little extra time to clarify.
Hunter: O.k. , now what steps precisely do you think you need to
clarify. I mean here' s why I 'm going to ask this, I 'm a little
concerned because we have a number of people here today to hear
this application and I want to know why the date should be
(unclear) .
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Wagner: I realize. Well, we requested a rezone from rural
agriculture and we have been advised that there is a Comprehensive
Plan for the valley that probably takes precedence over this. And
it' s something . that we haven't even considered and don't know
anything about so we are going to have to look into this and the
ramifications.
Hunter: How much time, do you think, will be necessary?
Wagner: Well, hopefully, we' ll know by the next hearing meeting.
Hunter: O.k. The ordinances of the City do have a deadline date.
Have you looked at this City' s. . .time of hearing and action by
Hearing Examiner, I believe its 100 days from the date of
application.
Williams: "I can tell you the date of application was March 23 ,
1990. So it' s been approximately 60 days .
Hunter: Well, March, April, May. . .you can—have you considered
withdrawing and refiling. . .
Wagner: I don't know about that you see. That' s something else
we have to look into. This is all new to us, so. . .
Hunter: You're not prepared to forward your application today, is
that what you're indicating?
Wagner: That' s right.
Hunter: And, is the City in agreement with the request for
continuance, Mr. Williams?
Williams: Yes, we are. The decision that needs to be made is
basically if the applicants don't agree with the City' s. . .with our
recommendation on the rezone, a. procedure they have to go through
before we can even consider a rezone is a Comprehensive Plan change
and, I guess, *communication wasn't what it could be so they need to
decide if they want to go forward with a rezone or if they want to
withdraw it and file for a Comprehensive Plan change and then the
rezone.
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
_. Verbatim Minutes
Mirishull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Well, I guess, I am a little concerned about a continuance
when it doesn't appear that we really know what we are continuing
for sure. If you are continuing this application which is a rezone
from rural agriculture to residential 7 , 200, whether we are looking
at a changing the nature of your application as I understand it,
you have not determined yet, o.k. , we have a number of people here
that plan to testify on this proposed application. If we are
changing the nature of the application, then it presents a concern
to the public notice. The public notice should be on what the
application is and if you are moving forward on this application,
RA to R1-7 . 2 , that is appropriate for continuance. If you are
going to change the nature of your application, we really should
look at withdrawing this and refiling.
Williams: At this point, I believe, the applicant just wants to
continue this item.
Hunter: O.k. , what we will do is this . There are a number of
people here who would like to testify on this proposed change and,
" I think, since they took time to show up today we should take
testimony from them to get an idea of what the concerns are, to see
what the sense of the community is on this application. So, I 'm
going to open the record, (unclear) , and take a brief testimony
today with the understanding that the applicant is not prepared to
move forward or prepared to respond to all the concerns that may be
raised. But, in deference to the folks that have shown up today to
testify, I don 't want to continue and just have them have to come
back. a' second time, since they took the time to show up today. So,
we will hold on, what we will do is, we (unclear) the description
in the file what the proposed application is. We ' ll conduct this
hearing a little bit different from our normal course in deference
to the people who have appeared we will allow you to raise your
concerns, present your testimony, recognizing that this will be
continued. We are looking at, I think, June 20, would be the next
hearing date. We will allow you to present some testimony today
and return on that date if there are some additional concerns that
you want to raise. We will dispense at this time with any
presentation by the City and the applicant, who asked for a request
for continuance. We' ll take report as is, the report has been
reviewed by the Examiner, (unclear) people that has testified a
either. . . (unclear) . Is there anyone present who would want to
testify on this application today? O.k. we have one individual,
and recognizing that this may be hardship for some, we will take
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes _.
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
your testimony today and then what we' ll do for others is continue
this hearing until June 20, 3 : 00 pm. O.k. , Ma'am, if you would
like to put your testimony on record, we' ll take that at this time.
I 'll swear you in to begin with. Do you swear, affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give?
Please proceed. State your name first.
Donna Williamson: O.k. , I 'm Donna Williamson and I live. . .the
property in question surrounds my property and the concern that I
would like to address today is that the access they plan to have to
the property. Because right now there ' s a lane that goes down the
whole side of my property and is that the area they plan to access
this property for this many homes. The noise level and just the
depth of the property, it' s very much a concern to me. The other
thing is the size of the lots that I 've. . .here 7200 square feet.
That' s a concern to me when across the street on the County it ' s
over 9, 000 square feet and with that many new homes or what have
you, I 've a real concern about the congestion on 92nd Avenue S.
since that street is the dividing line between the City and the
County. Right now, ' it Is like the Indy 500, at 7 in the morning and
3 in the afternoon and later on in the evening and there's no
shoulder on the road. The school buses have to stop a block from
my house and people park in my driveway to pick their children up
and although I don't have any children and that' s a concern that
there, you know, are there - going to be improvements or what have
you or just go on because when I called to do something about the
speeding on the street because of the children, its very difficult
to find out who takes responsibility on a road that is shared by
the County and the City. The other thing is that, like I say, its
the high volume of the street and the other thing is that since I 'm
going to be surrounded possibly by all ,this new development, what
is the cost to me. What am I looking at as far as outlay and
expense. That' s all I have to say.
Hunter: Let me make sure that I understand your concerns about the
access lane. . . attached to, do you have the Planning report provided
today (unclear) ?
Williamson: I picked it up but I have not read it.
Hunter: O.k. , there' s two maps that are attached to this report.
I just want to make sure that I understand what access?
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
- Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Williamson: I have the one that was sent to me in the mail. And,
I don't know if that's the same one. Its, can I show that to you?
Hunter: Certainly. 0.k. , let me just take a look at this. We can
use this. This is the map attached to the last page of the
Planning Department' s report. Can you indicate on that map
where. . .the concern you have. . .
Williamson: Yes, uh huh. Where you see 30 feet of easement. That
is actually a very small lane that goes down the side of my
property. The way it' s kind of laid out, this doesn't quite
indicate how my property is but then there's a big gully on the
north side and that' s my concern about if that would be access to
all this property because right across the street from it they are
putting in 23 homes up there and there's going to be more
congestion coming down the hill below Chestnut Ridge and that' s
where my mailbox is, across the street.
Hunter: O.k. so that 30-foot easement is bordered by a gully that
you are concerned about the access.
Williamson: Um hum.
Hunter: O.k. , you can 't get much wider on this thing.
Williamson: Right, unless you fill in the gully. And, the other
piece that is that when there is work done in the gully for the
City sewer what have you, a year after that I lost a very large,
probably 40-year-old maple tree and another one right on that
property line so that' s a concern too, loss of my trees. That' s
all I have to say.
Hunter: . One thing that you might want to do is look at the report
of the Planning Department you see the conditions attached at the
time of Declaration of Nonsignificance, there ' s conditions
regarding road improvements.
Williamson: 292nd Avenue S.
Hunter: Well, I guess, that' s what you want to look
at. . . (unclear) . One other criteria that will be considering is the
burden on the transportation system in the vicinity and whether
there are impacts which cannot be mitigated. So, typically, we
5
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
have some recommendations on how traffic impacts can be mitigated
and there' s you will want. to post your review. See if they can
take care of your concern. What we are looking at today, both
these applications are rezone criteria is set forth in the
ordinances and one use of the (unclear) is about traffic impacts.
Williamson: O.k. I ' ll do that.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you for your testimony. I noted those
concerns and they will be made a part of the record as this matter
is continued to 20th of June at 3 pm. O.k. , no further testimony
on that application, then. We have one other individual. You want
to present testimony at this time. O.k. Do you swear, affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you are about to
give.
Lisa Bishop:" I do. My name is Lisa Bishop and I guess I have more
of a concern than testimony and I think my neighbors share our
concern. I live on .S. 200th Street which is an access to 92nd and
like Mrs. Williamson mentioned that the traffic is atrocious on
that street right now and I do have small kids and I want to know
what this is going • to do to our traffic situation because it is
already just. . . its stressed to the max right now. And, I noticed
on the significant social features, Section C, number 1, they say
the average daily count is 2 , 000 vehicle trips and I 'm wondering
where they got their figures from and how they got it because I
think its a lot higher than that.
Hunter: O.k. , so traffic is a concern, you ask for some
explanation?
Bishop: Right. And the size of the lots is a concern too. If
they going to put houses in there, I think they should have larger
lot sizes to cut down on the amount of houses.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you very much. Mr. Williams, with the City,
are you familiar with the traffic count and how it was established.
Williams: That was information that was received from our
transportation department and how recent the count was or how it
was acquired, I don't know.
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Since we're continuing this see if you can find. a response
to that question for the record next time. ,
Williams: I will.
Hunter: O.k. , then we will begin on the 20th with the testimony
from the City and then from the applicant. We' ll take additional
testimony from anyone concerned about application at that time.
O.k. , we will then continue that and for today we will close the
record on Minshull-Wagner' s application.
ti
crrY of Vimd
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
MINSHULL/WAGNER
#RZ-90-5
Verbatim Minutes of June 20, 1990
Ted Hunter: Let's call this session to order. This is June 20th,
3 : 00, so it must be a continuation for an application for a rezone,
Minshull/Wagner, #RZ-90-5. We began this. . .this hearing, on what
date, June 6, 1990 and continued it until today, to gather
additional information that at the time was not available so that
continuation was agreed to by the applicant and the City. In
addition there were a number of the members of the public at that
hearing who did have an opportunity on June 6 to present oral and
written testimony and we've received both oral and written
testimony from the City, the applicant, and concerned citizens,
members of the public, at the June 6th hearing. This is a
continuation ' of that hearing date, to provide additional
information on the application. So, we will follow the following
order: We' ll have Mr. Scott Williams from the City Planning
Department present the new information and then give the applicant
an opportunity to supplement that and then anyone else that' s here
that cares to speak to the application. We ' ll hear from them at
that time. Mr. Scott Williams, do you swear, affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Scott Williams: I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Williams: All right. As you said the request we have before the
Hearing Examiner again, today, is the Minshull/Wagner rezone. The
request is for a rezone from RA, Residential Agricultural, which
has a minimum lot size of one acre associated with it to a rezone
from that R1-7 .2 which is a single-family residential zone with
7, 200 square foot minimum lot sizes. The subject property is
located on the west side of 92nd Avenue between. . . . south of
208th. . .I beg your pardon, south of 200th and north of 208th. It' s
the shaded area here. Two Hundred and Eighth is actually out of
the graphic. The site is approximately 18 and a half acres in
size. The current zoning on the area is RA, Residential
Agriculture. Its separated. . . .the site is separated by the valley
freeway from M2 , Limited Industrial. There ' s some small pieces of
R1-7 . 2 down here and on the other side of 92nd Avenue is King
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
County and the zoning in King county is SR 96 which is single-
family residential with 9, 600 square foot minimum lot sizes. A DNS
for the rezone only was issued on April 22 , 1990 with no conditions
attached. The site has an average east-west slope, maybe I ' ll put
this back on. An average east-west slope of about 14 percent,
local slopes in different parts of the site approach 25--30 percent
in places. The site has access to 92nd Avenue S. After a question
that, I guess, at the June 6th meeting, our traffic department did
a traffic count on that street on June 12th they found a total trip
count of 3 , 832 vehicles. That's north and south bound for the 24-
hour period on June 12th. I should note here that traffic
mitigation and any road improvements that would be required for
development on this site would occur at the time of preliminary
plat application. There would be another. . .any plat application on
the property would have to go through SEPA again and then through
the plat process, improvements and traffic mitigation conditions
are usually -attached not usually to the rezone., Water and sanitary
sewer for the property are also available in 92nd Avenue to serve
the property. I do have the video if you would like to see the. . . .
Hunter: Let' s play that, yes.
Video was played.
Williams: Staff reviewed the proposal in light of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan. The analysis in the
original staff report starts on page 2 . There' s also a revision to
the staff report which we sent out in the last week or so and what
that revision deals with is basically is in the intervening two
weeks between the last meeting and this one, we discovered that the
City Council in June of 1988 actually changed the
Comprehensive. . .pardon me. . . .the Valley Floor Plan designation for
the property from RA to SF, Single-Family. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for the property already was single-family and the
assumption made in the staff report, the original staff report, was
that the Valley Floor Plan Designation was RA, so this changed some
things in terms of our review. Basically, what it means is that
the application as it sits could be approved without a
Comprehensive or without a valley floor plan amendment. R1-7 . 2
zoning would comply with the SF designation where as it would not
have with the RA designation.
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Where' s that documented? Has there been a revised Valley
Floor Plan Map published since the time of this action? Explain
how this came about?
Williams: Well, the publishing of the maps was actually the
problem. We didn't have an updated map or least I didn't have one.
The amendment came about as part of the East Valley Zoning Study
and I can, although I don't have them with me, I can get the City
Council minutes and the Planning Commission minutes whereby the
designation on that property was discussed and eventually changed
from RA to single-family. And, the East Valley Study basically
covered a much larger area than the subject property. It also
included a lot of the valley floor and another major outcome of
that study was the Gateway Commercial zoning district. . .the
formation of that. But, this change came out of that same. . .very
same study.,,, .
Hunter: Is a change that now can be viewed on a map revision or is
it a textural change within an ordinance revision?
Williams: It was just a map change. And, again, if the map was
revised since in that. . . . since that time, I don't have a copy of
one.
Hunter: Does anybody that you know of have a copy of one? Carol
Proud of the Planning Department.
Carol Proud: I don't know if, I think the problem that happen is
that this one section was changed and it never got transferred to
the map upstairs so by resolution. . . ordinance it has been changed
officially but our staff never transferred, apparently, to the map
that Scott would have used to do the initial review of it. But, we
do have a copy of that study upstairs and those maps are available.
Hunter: O.k. , so this in embodied in the Valley Floor Study that
Changes. . .
Williams: The change itself is actually embodied in an ordinance
by the Council, the number of which I can't recall, but I can like
I say get a copy of the. . . .produce a copy of that in a couple of
minutes if you would like to see one.
Hunter: I think we ' ll do that. Yes, I think we should have the
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
_. Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
ordinance. Reference to you, so why don't we take a pause in the
action. If you can access it that quickly and then we' ll at least
get that into evidence.
Williams: O.k. Would you like me to. . . .take a pause, o.k. I can,
sure. O.k.
Hunter: Thank you. We ' ll' just take a slight break for the purpose
of gathering relevant evidentiary material. 0.k. , we' ll go back on
the record, now.
Williams: I guess the first correction that I should make over
what I said is that it's a resolution that changed the Plan Map not
an ordinance. An ordinance isn't required to change a Comp Plan
Map but it is Resolution #1170, signed June 22 , 1988, and the area
that the subject property is located in is Area #5 in Appendix A
which is the • last page. And then the resolution refers to Area #5
on page 3 where it changes the designation from RA to single-
family.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you.
Williams: I ' 11 just continue on with the staff s review of the
proposal in light of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
I 'd like to address in particular Goal #3 and Objective 1 out of
the Valley Floor Plan. This is discussed beginning on page 2 of
the original staff report and discussed again in the memo amending
the staff report. Goal 3 reads, "Assure environmental quality in
residential areas. ", Objective 1 says, "Preserve and maintain as
much of the natural environment as possible. " The staff basically
felt that by rezoning the property to R1-7 . 2 , the natural features
of the site, i. e. , the slopes that I discussed earlier and quite a
number of significant trees, these features couldn't be retained as
readily with the R1-7. 2 designation as they could with a larger
lot. Generally, the small lots are, oh, there' s a higher
percentage of impervious area and there' s generally just less
glexibility to incorporate the natural features of the site and,
therefore, we felt that an R1-12 designation would be more
consistent with these. . .this goal and objective out of the Valley
Floor Plan than a rezone R1-7. 2 would. We also reviewed the
request in light of the standards and criteria in the Zoning Code
for the granting of a rezone. These were discussed beginning on
page 7 of the original staff report. I 'd just like briefly to
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner _.
#RZ-90-5
touch on the Number V of these standards which reads, "The proposed
rezone and subsequent development be compatible with development in
the vicinity. " Staffs feeling was that the development that's out
there now both on the west and east sides of 92nd Avenue in spite
of the 91600 square foot zoning is fairly rural in nature. There
are a lot of larger lots and even with some subdivisions which I
know have been approved on the other side, there are still a lot of
large lots and we felt that the R1-7 . 2 or, I beg your pardon, the
R1-12 would be more compatible with the existing development out
there right now than would the R1-7.2 designation. So, our
revised. . . in summary, our revised recommendation for this request
is a rezone. . .approval of a rezone to R1-12 and that revised
recommendation is discussed in the revision to the staff report.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you. Hold on for a minute, I 've got a couple
of questions. I do want to note that the Resolution #1170 we' ll
receive as Exhibit 3, the file being Exhibit 1. At that the last
hearing we accepted one item of evidence, a letter from Cindy
Cammeron, that's Exhibit 2 and this will be Exhibit 3 which
references the Comprehensive Plan change from RA to single family.
Scott, I wanted to ask about the. . .the testimony. . . currently this
is a residential agricultural zone?
Williams: That's correct.
Hunter: O.k. , and looking at the Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 010
reads that rezoning of RA lands shall be predicated upon the
documentation of the need for additional residential, commercial or
industrial land. This documentation shall consist of a fiscal
impact analysis showing the other lands already zoned and
accessible are not sufficient or suitable and secondly, that the
market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to
generate revenues necessary to provide specified municipal
services. Are you aware of evidence in support of either one of
those; the fiscal impact analysis or the market demand.
Williams: What we received from the applicant was a letter from a
real estate agent in the area.
Hunter: Well, this isn't evidence that you 're submitting. Is this
part of the file, so far or is this something the applicant will
bring in.
5 ....
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Williams: This is something the applicant brought in. And, it
should be part of the file.
Hunter• O.k.
Williams: I 'm not locating it right at the moment. Our reasoning
was, as I discussed in the staff report, that, based on the growth
in single-family residential development in Kent and in the whole
region, the demand for that kind of development was pretty self-
evident and the. . . in conjunction with the City Council being on
record a number of times encouraging single-family development,
that the need and demand were both there.
Hunter: 0.k. We can. . .have the applicant respond to that as well.
The letter you referred to though was not part of the file, so if
you are able to find that and if that ' s relevant to the hearing
that we are..holding, it would be good to have that submitted. I do
not have that in front of me and will not consider it unless we do
see some copy of, it.
Williams: It' s not part of your file. O.k.
Hunter: 0.k. , shall we turn to a representative for the applicant.
Someone here to speak to the application. Good afternoon.
Voice: I have a copy of what I have for you, if you care for it
now.
Hunter: O.k. , let ' s, we' ll swear you in and we' ll take your name
for the record. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the
whole truth in the testimony you're about to give.
Voice• Yes.
Hunter• O.k. , and your name, please?
Lillie Wagner: Lillie Wagner.
Hunter: O.k. , and you have some information relevant to the
rezone.
Wagner: Well, I just made a copy of what I 'm going to present if
You would like it right now.
6
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Oh, that would be helpful. O.k. Thank you very much.
What we' ll do, Ms. Wagner, is we' ll just make this an exhibit to
the file as well then.
Wagner: All right.
Hunter: O.k. , label that Exhibit 4 . O.k.
Wagner: O.k. We note the revisions to this staff report now
recommend approval of our application modification to R1-12. We
are appreciate of the change. However, we feel that it still falls
short for land use in terms of highest and best potential in
. relation to the projected growth and development in the Kent city
area. The Planning Department comment, page 9 of the original
report, notes economic growth ' and in migration has fueled high
demand for "'housing in the Puget Sound area. The Soos Creek
planning area in particular. As a consequence, developments in the
greater Kent area .have resulted in far-flung, unbridled urban
sprawl. There is now a recognized over abundance of multiple
housing with its accompanying problems and a cry for more
single-family affordable housing. In the review of the Hearing
Examiner, one important goal is to promote the development close
in. Current planning philosophy opts for logical transition from
dense to lesser concentrations. For instance, the business and
commercial area, progressing to multiple residential, then to
single-family and on to rural. Our application addresses this
transition for the area in which it lies, from business and
commercial in the valley to R1-7 . 2 and R1-9 . 6 to the east. Valley
Freeway access is only one mile from the subject property as
compared to the 3 to 5 miles for multiple housing on SE 208th,
240th, 256th and the Kent-Kangley and the north and south roads in
between. It is noted that at the junction of 92nd Avenue S. and
SE 208th Street, a parcel of land is already designated R177 .2 and
that you saw on the topographical map. At the June 6 hearing which
was postponed at our request, Mrs. Donna Williamson and
Mrs. Bishop, expressed concerns about traffic and we have these
questions. Do you know of anyplace in the greater Kent area, where
rush traffic is not bad. Two, would you propose that the people
who would live in the projected development live further out where
xx number of miles of road would be further required and burdened.
Three, if one car per house, under the requested R1-7 . 2 would enter
92nd Avenue S . during rush hours it would add less than, and we
7
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
would say it at this point, approximately one and a half percent to
the traffic. That' s in view of your new figures as to the
traffic. We had three percent in here. Please remember that 90
percent of the traffic then and all of it now is from other
developments. The concerns of these people and Mrs. Cammeron in
her letter to the City of Kent for child safety, good schools,
changing boundaries and wildlife are not new or unique to the area
but have existed over the years. They all were and still are our
concerns. Three of our children walk to and from Panther Lake
school along the busy Benson Highway. Rules for the road were
stressed for their safety. They experienced changed schools, split
classes and had to make new friends and to adapt to new situations.
Upon moving from the Benson School road to.an acreage, we too enjoy
and protected the wildlife, quail, pheasant, a pair of .nesting
hawks, coyotes loping across the fields. It was truly a productive
farm, raising sheep, cattle and abundance of hay. However, it was
short-livedj • as a large development went in, immediately adjacent
only to be followed concentrations . of apartments in close
proximity. This in an area as far out as 132nd Avenue SE. It is
no longer country. We predict the wildlife in the 92nd Avenue S.
area will find some haven in the nearby ravines which are not
buildable because of the slope and this did not exist in the area
in which we lived. In critically examining the subject property as
to suitability for development, we observed: 1) the freeway was not
visible from any part of the Wagner parcel #2 ; 2) the noise of the.
freeway is very effectively dulled by the high-cut bank and trees
to the east of the freeway. The noise is actually more apparent on
92nd. Avenue S. , 3) there is a pleasant view across the valley to
the west hill, 4) a count of significant trees was 31 on the 18 and
one-half acres, less than two per acre, overall, and 5) comments of
the Planning Department and other agencies contacted appear
favorable for the most part. Those concerns for protection of the
environment and runoff from impervious surfaces, we believe, could
be met in careful planning and always subject to approval by the
examining agencies. We feel to restrict zoning to R1-12 would not
make for the highest and best use of the property. According, if
R1-7 . 2 is not determined to be acceptable we request that lot size
comparable to that immediately across the road, SR-9600, be
approved. As for the comments about the protecting the
environment. As of now, the large majority of our lot is
in. . . .overgrown with blackberry vines. It leaves much to be
desired in a suitable environment. And, they have been practically
uncontrollable. We 've sprayed several times. We've had a
8
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes -
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
bulldozer in. We can't eradicate them. So, we certainly would be
interested in leaving trees but I think the planning could be done
to preserve those. There are a nice group of them. And, then I
have another page of summary. Rezoning the property from RZ-90-5
application to the requested R1-7 . 2 would achieve the following:
Use of the land for the. . .the only useful purpose possible. It is
ideally suited for residential and useless for agricultural. Two,
reduce the urban sprawl as it spreads out through the country.
Sewer, water and other services are on-site. Three, reduce
pollution. The parcel is ideally located only one-half mile from ,
valley traffic corridors. Four, reduce fire hazards. Tall, dry
grasses and blackberry vines would be controlled. Five, a true
transition between intensive valley floor commercial and the
adjacent SR 960. Six, production of significant tree growth
resulting from landscaping of residential sites would occur.
Seven, at present, traffic on 92nd Avenue S. originates away from
the proposea' development. The rezone to permit R1-7 . 2 would add
less than two percent, around one and half percent, to this
traffic.
Hunter: Thank you very much, that' s helpful testimony. Let me ask
you, though, in addition, if I could, Mrs. Wagner, about the Zoning
Code requirement for the need for additional housing. The fiscal
impact analysis and the market demand analysis. Are you familiar
with anything that's been done in that area.
Wagner: We have seen that matter, it comes from some sort of
governmental agency.
Hunter: Well, it could or it could come from someone that you may
have talked to about it or hired to do that sort of a thing.
Wagner: I think this gentleman up here could speak.
Hunter: Is it someone that. . .
Voice: I know some of that.
Hunter: Sir, maybe if you can respond to that maybe we can have
you come to the podium and since this is official record, we will
swear you in.
Voice: All right.
9
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in
the testimony you're about to give.
Ed Cleveland: I do.
Hunter: O.k. , please proceed.
Cleveland: My name is Ed Cleveland. I live at 19415 Talbot Road,
Renton, about a third of a mile away from the subject property. We
have three subdivisions going in. Two across the street from our
property and one right beside us. Thirty, let's see, 19 homes in
one of them, 27 in another and proposed 25 in the third. These are
all 7200 square feet except the 19 lots and they are at 9600
because of the slope. And, I have been present at the hearings in
Bellevue, its King County level on those. So, I 'm very familiar
with them. -I don't know exactly what you would like to know about
them except that the traffic impact on the City of Kent has been
fed to Kent. That information has been fed to Kent and Kent has
accepted it as not having enough impact to be' significant and yet
the total of them is probably 80 homes there. But, they were in
bits and pieces so as to speak, you know.
Hunter: O.k.
Cleveland: I would like to speak further, if I could?
Hunter: Certainly.
Cleveland: I didn't know whether you were finished with that. . .
Hunter: Well, it seems that we had a question on that. . .on that
topic area that the applicant thought you could help address. You
provided some information on that. If there are additional
comments.
Cleveland: Yeah, I had some additional comments, yes. Yeah.
Hunter: . O.k.
Cleveland: Well, I 've lived at my property for almost 40 years and
became aware of the zoning and the density of the homes on the
strip as it came into being by the building of the valley freeway.
10
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
This long, narrow strip there was caused by the freeway coming
through. I contacted the land management several times regarding
zoning and density of that strip and was always told that this
strip was considered to be a transitional buffer between commercial
and the valley and residential on the east slope and that the City
would invite applications for multiple housing, medium density. A
little over ten years ago, Kent downzoned this land to RA, density
one home to the acre. This, at a time, when the property on the
east side of 92nd which is just across the street from the subject
property was zoned 9600. To place this land under the term
agriculture is misleading as it is a rocky, sandy hillside that you
stand on to view the agricultural land in the valley covered by
warehouses. Also, to put the density. . .a density of one to an acre
on land that had all the services, sewer, water, freeway, etc. is
very unfair in view of the density allowed on similarly endowed
land in Kent. I see and hear the word transitional use towards
this strip 6f land. Maybe I 'm in error but this word to me means
an orderly move from one zoning to another. In ,other words, some
zoning between commercial and 9600, not some zoning less than
either. I have walked this property, the subject property, and not
been overly aware of the freeway. Certainly, anything built on
this land will not affect the view of any of the homes to the east.
I would urge the City to look favorably upon a density of 9600
square feet. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you very much. Let ' s turn back. Is there any
further testimony from the applicant ' s side of this. Those that
are in support of the proposed rezone. Any further information
that you want to support at this time.
Wagner: This isn't really any further information other than a
comment. I think the die was cast when industry and business was
allowed to go into the valley and cover over the very fine lush
soil instead of putting industry on the hill as a study committee
had, many years ago, recommended. And, it is inconceivable that,
as the gentleman put it much better, that you downzone an area
'between two of more density.
Hunter: Thank you very much, Mrs. Wagner. O.k. , is there others,
now, that would like to come forward and present testimony for or
against or raise questions. Anyone else, testimony? Yes, sir. Do
you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the
testimony you 're about to give.
11
Hearing Examiner Minutes
w Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Voice: Yes, I do.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Cal Stewart: My name is Cal Stewart. I live directly east of the
Wagner parcel and this property is a view property and as the
applicant made reference to a moment ago there is quite a pleasant
view of the valley floor and of the west hill. And, I see a
possible obstruction of this view if the property was developed and
large houses put up there. Houses that seem to be quite popular
with developers these days. Ed Cleveland mentioned a while ago
that there would be no obstruction with view to the houses east of
this property. I would hope that would be the case but if they
elected to build right up close to 92nd Avenue with a two-story
house it would definitely block my view. I would also like to go
on record as having a well on my property. Its an excellent well,
we use it for the residence. I would like to go on record as just
mentioning this in case of any development that would possibly
damage the supply of water. To address the lot size, in my
- opinion, of course I 'm certainly no expert on the subject, but 7 . 2
is ridiculous for that property. It' s just too steep. There would
have to be so much terracing done in order to level the site. Then
you would have to take out trees . I 'm not sure about this
particular parcel, but I know that most of that hillside is covered
with. . .excuse me, not covered but has natural springs drainage. I
know there are several on my property and the small lot size is not
going to help that problem any. Even if you do figure out how to
put all these people on this hillside, what are you going to do
with them traffic-wise. The staff report says this is not going to
create a problem. They can be mitigated. I would like to know
what they are going to do about it. I 've lived on that street
since 157 and have watched all the development. . .all of the
development in the area. I watched it all build up and there
hasn't been any improvement to either 92nd Avenue or S. 200th in
the 30 plus years that I 've been living there and the traffic is
really getting bad and, you know, where do we draw the line. The
applicant says this is not going to create much more of a problem.
Well, if we continue with this attitude, I mean, you know, where is
it going to stop. One day last week I couldn't even get out of my
driveway. It was bumper to bumper the full length of 92nd Avenue
as far as you could see up 200th. I don't know if there was an
accident or what but it was just completely stopped. And, you get
another 80 or 100 homes across the street that' s not really going
12
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
to help the situation. There are no shoulders or sidewalks for the
kids. We have a school just a couple blocks up the hill. My boys
like to go up there and play, but its too dangerous for them to
walk up there. You got to get them in the car and actually drive
them up there which is, you know, crazy. But, there' s, just not
enough room along the side of road for the kids to safely get up
and with bumper to bumper traffic its. . . .its just crazy. I
personally feel that we .should just stop development in that area
completely until something is done with the roads. Any
development, now just across the street. Any development that is
served by 92nd Avenue, S. 200th, they put in Chestnut Ridge which
is just right up the hill, 100 and some houses. They did nothing
with the road and, you know, it just continued and continues and
who is going to fix the road, that's. Perhaps this doesn't pertain
to this meeting but, at some point, something is going to have to
be done.-
unter: On the density questions now, the Planning Department has
recommended approval. of the rezone to 12 , 000 square foot minimum
lot size.
Stewart: Yes.
Hunter: Is your testimony seems to indicate, you're not supportive
of that either. It's the. . .any increase. . .any development would be
a problem until the traffic is resolved, is that. . .
Stewart: That is correct.
Hunter: Is that your testimony.
Stewart: Yes. Twelve hundred, of course, is a lot better than
7200 but, at this point, I think we should address the traffic
situation. You know, maybe it is just going to increase at another
three percent but at some point that' s going to break the camel' s
back, so to speak, so. . . O.k.
Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony.
Stewart: O.k. All right.
Hunter: Others. Yes, sir. Step forward. Do you swear, affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony you're to give.
13
Hearing Examiner Minutes
— Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Mellott: Yes.
Hunter: Please proceed.
Ken Mellott: My name is Ken Mellott. I live at 2011. .•.
Hunter: I 'm sorry, I didn 't get the last name.
Mellott: I 'm sorry. Ken Mellott. M-E-L-L-O-T-T.
Hunter: O.k.
Mellott: We live at 20110 92nd Avenue S. , it's directly across the
street from the Wagner property again. Same as Cal, just south of
him. I guess I have a number of concerns. There are 22 houses
going in on the east side of 92nd, south of 202nd. Two Hundred
Second deadends at 92nd. And, in. . .as part of that development,
they're going to open up 202nd and go straight on through Chestnut
Ridge. We expect to see a tremendous increase in traffic because
that' s going to be another, not really an arterial, but another
good route down the hill from. . . A lot of that traffic, I expect,
that would have gone over to 200th and then come down on 92nd will
come down that way. It could drain some traffic off from. . .coming
down 208th to the south also. I 'm not sure about that. So, the
traffic count or the traffic increase just from this new
development is going to be augmented by another big increase from
the other side of this. . . 92nd. We also a bit concerned about a
view. Our house has a view across the valley and to the west hill.
Of course, true you're looking down at a bunch of warehouse roofs
but it 's better than looking across the road at another house. So,
we are concerned about building houses or a group of houses right
next to 92nd and especially if they are two-story houses. That
would. . . it would appreciably diminish any view that we have and on
7200 square foot lot it would probably totally obliterate it, just
wouldn't be anything left. I 'm also concerned, again, not an
expert but concerned about a 7200 square foot lot. That's all
hardpan that whole hillside is hardpan and springs and I don't know
where the drainage is going to go. There ' s going to have to be
some kind of provision for drainage. It' s not going to seep into
the ground, it' s going to loose a lot of that ground area for
absorbing any rainfall or moisture that we get now with the
driveways and the roofs. I. . .I assume there' s going to be some
kind of an improvement to 92nd. I don't know if that ' s going to be
14
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
done on a LID which all the neighborhood that's going to have to
contribute to or if it' s going to based on. . .or is going to have to
have to be. . .the cost going to be imposed on the developers of this
property, 18 and a half acres. We certainly don't look forward to
having to pay for improvements. I mean, if its true, it would be
an improvement for us also but that' s to me is a .major concern.
Who's going to have to pay for any road improvements. We
understand that the 22 houses going in south of 202nd and east of
92nd, there will be some road improvements to 92nd. . . 202nd which
will be paid for by the developers, not by the local homeowners.
There's also a well on our place and we recently purchased a couple
of places across 202nd to the south and our well is not to being
used but the well across the street is useful as a water source and
I don't know if this could disrupt that well or not. We had that
same concern with this development going in up the hill from us.
There's a lot of trees especially some real old eucalyptus
tree. . .not eucalyptus, what are they, locust trees in our front
yard that are right near the property line, this road line, the
road right of way. There' s also some very old rose bushes that are
actually in the roadway right of way. We'd be concerned about
damage to all of those and there are some other trees and bushes
there to in our front yard that we would be concerned about damage
to in the event of any road improvement. I don't know what the
legal ramifications are since they are already in the right of way
for the road. And, looking at just very crude figures, at 7,200
square feet, that would convert to something in the neighborhood of
100 houses or more and this a very raw figures. I don't know how
many,. . .much area will be taken up by access roads. and that kind of
thing. At 9600 square foot lot, we'd be looking at something in
the order of 70 houses for that area and at 12, 000 square foot
which is what the staff is recommending, we are looking at
something in the order of 15 houses. ' I don't know what kind of
traffic figures are generated. Usually, you find more than one car
per house or per family, typically two, some times three. If you
have any teenagers, could be many more than that. And, that' s
going to generate some additional traffic. Everybody seems to be
concerned. I think, agree with Cal pretty much', that there is a
potential for* real traffic problems in the area and we need to get
some road improvements. It would be nice to have a little
moratorium on development until those road improvements are put in
but I don't expect that will ever happen. I don't see it, its
never happened before, so, don 't see why it should happen now. I
guess that all I have. I can appreciate the landowners looking to
15
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
get a nest egg out of this. If I was in their position, I suppose
I would be looking for something like that too, although not 7200
square feet, I cannot understand that kind of density there.
Hunter: Thank you very much, sir. O.k. , are there others who
would like to testify. Anyone else in favor or opposed. O.k.
Opportunity for any clarifying remarks, applicant or the City?
Mr. Williams, of the City.
Williams: I ' ll just make a couple comments and then maybe I ' ll
have our representative from our Engineering Department discuss
traffic a little bit. Back to Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mellott's
concerns on views. The City does have view regulation and any of
the lots on this property or any. . . .I beg your pardon, any property
with 20 percent slope is entitled to have their view protected and
that would undoubtedly be enforced here as well. I guess going
back to the, first gentleman that testified . on the residential
agricultural designation, the stated purpose of that zone is to
provide a transition between the agricultural and residential use
of the property so zoned. So, the purpose and the property has
been so zoned for, I believe, at least 30 years. Not as a buffer
between the industrial and the single-family but as, to facilitate
a transition between agricultural use on that property and the
impending single-family residential use. So, I ' ll just make that
clarification.
Hunter: Let me understand that clarification. The purpose of the
residential agricultural zone as stated in the ordinance is that's
the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth, its essential
that the City avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. I
understand what you're saying but I wondering where it would be in
the. . .
Williams: I didn't mean to be quoting. And, the previous purpose
statement of the residential/agricultural designation are a little
more clear but my understanding of the idea was that
1lasically. . .well the original intent to preserve the agricultural
uses there instead of where the City Council saw property that they
were reasonably sure was going to be single-family at some time
rather than zoning it for that, you know, right now they decided to
enact this designation which would protect that agricultural land
until such time as the demand was really there.
- 16
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes -
Minshull-Wagner
##RZ-90-5
Hunter: I understand what you're saying and that's how one would
ordinarily think of it as that type of transitional zone. But,
I 'm. . .I struggle as I think you are, looking at what the Council
meant in terms of its designation of residential/agricultural
versus the stated purpose that is in the ordinance. They don't
seem to completely dovetail. But's that what's we are working
with, the zoning Code and its ordinance and the concept may or may
not be the same as what' s stated in the zoning ordinance. O.k.
Williams• O.k.
Hunter: Anything further from. . .
Williams: Maybe somebody from our Engineering Department can talk
a little bit about traffic if you would like that.
Hunter: That may be appropriate. Let' s first turn to Carol Proud
of the Planning Department has a comment. You're under oath from
the last meeting, I believe.
Carol Proud: That's true. I can go again, if you like. O.k. For
the record I 'm Carol Proud, I 'm senior planner with the Kent
Planning Department. In looking at this proposal and looking at
the slopes of the property and in the application without having a
lot of detailed analysis before us, the average was stated about 14
percent and typically when a request comes in like this, we have
regulations in the Subdivision Code, the Hillside Subdivision
standards and those kick in at 15 percent, when the slopes reach 15
percent and even' though this property is just, a least from
preliminary, our preliminary understanding and review of this
that's just a little bit under that. But, one of the things that
they discuss in hillside or in the hillside subdivision standards
is that lots should be sized larger than typically would be allowed
even under the zoning. So, in looking at a rezone we sort of try
to put the horse before the cart so we don't have to go retroactive
and look at it. The property to the east on 92nd doesn't have the
'slopes quite as steep as this hillside development so it's
understandable that the 9600 square foot lot size would be more
suitable for more level type land, topography. Whereas, on a
hillside you want to account for the sloped topography by sizing
the lots a little bit larger and depending on what those final
surveys are that come before us, regardless of the zoning, it may
be, in fact, be required or brought forth that the lots should be,
17
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
in fact, larger. But, typically, when we have the opportunity to
look at a rezone we try to, like I say, take those into
consideration in coming up with the size of the lots.
Hunter: Thank you. Traffic is clearly a concern and a problem in
the area, is there anything that the applicant or the City wants to
comment on about traffic. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth
in the testimony you're about to give?
Ed White: I do. I 'm Ed White, Assistant Traffic Engineer for the
City. I was requested by Scott Williams to take a look at the
proposed project as well as do the traffic count that you
requested. What I 've come up with is for the most part is a gross
estimation of what the trip generation potential of the site is.
So, keep in mind that we are talking about if the entire
development were subdivided into either the 12000 square feet or
the 7200 square feet, not allowing any roads or circulation, this
is what the trip generation potential would be. We start out by
looking at the current ADT. Based on the count that we did, we
estimate that the current ADT for this roadway, this would be a
two-way volume ranging between 3600 and 3800 vehicles a day with an
a.m. peak of being about 700 cars being 18 percent of your total
daily traffic and your pm peak being around 400 cars representing
11 percent of your total daily traffic. In taking a look at, first
of all, the Planning Department's recommendation of going to an
R1-12 or 12 , 000 square feet, you are looking at a maximum lot
development of 67 lots which would add approximately 670 daily
trips, 50 during the a.m. and 76 p.m. peak hour trips. This would
adjust the volume of the arterial from the again 36 to 3800
vehicles to . up 43 to 4500 vehicles. Given the developer 's
proposal, you get a maximum of about 112 lots on the site. This
would be adding around 1100 total daily trips to the site which
would bring the adjusted daily trip total up to 4700 to 5000 trips.
Now, what we are talking about in terms of a percent increase is
the daily traffic would be an increase over the existing daily
trip. . .the existing daily trips, around 30 percent. It would be
approximately 10 percent higher than the Planning Department' s
recommendation. Now, what we are talking about in terms of roadway
improvements that would possibly be necessary for or in order to
improve the roadway. Currently, the roadway is a two-lane roadway
ranging from 24 to 26 feet wide, two-lanes; one lane in each
direction. You have an open ditch on the east side and
approximately six or seven foot shoulder on the west side. Its
18
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
currently functioning like a local arterial and probably during the
a.m. and p.m. peaks probably close to a some type of a minor
collector arterial. With the added trips given the maximum
buildout of the developers proposal, you would go from, again, this
local type facility up to a potential of a major roadway given a
35-foot or 35 mile an hour speed limit, a, let' s see, a 36-foot
wide paved area and basically all the improvements that would be
necessary to come up to a major collector type facility. You're
looking at a range for a major collector facility as being between
four and six thousand vehicles a day. So, this kind of gives you,
again, somewhat of an idea of what you would be going from, again,
probably around the 3 , 000 that you have now up to a potential of
maybe four or five thousand vehicles.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much. Do you have perhaps a
question. Do you want to ask a question or me and we' ll see. . .
Voice: You mentioned a 35 miles per hour speed limit.
White• Correct.
Voice: It' s 25 now:-
White: Correct.
Voice: (Unclear) its going to be changed.
White: No, it wouldn't. Again, I was just giving, trying to draw
a comparison between a facility that this . . . a similar type facility
that may occur as a result of development.
Voice: (Unclear) . You said it would run 38 to 42 hundred
vehicles.
White: The current volume is. . .
Voice: (Unclear) approximately.
Hunter: Let me interject here that the traffic. . .
Voice: The traffic volume going by.
19
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
Hunter: Let me. . .
Voice: Wait a minute. Excuse me a minute.
Hunter: O.k. Finish your question.
Voice: If they put 150 homes in the homes in this area which is
300, they go twice a day that 600 trips how did we get 42 hundred,
38 from 42 , how did we get the 4, 000 cars out of 500 people or 120.
White: I 'm not sure I understand your question. What it is
basically you are looking for. . .
Voice: I 'm looking at your program. . . .
White: For each additional single-family house that is constructed
on a roadway, it is estimated that ten trips, .ten daily trips are
added.
- Voice: Ten daily cars a day.
White: Right. That means seven houses would be seven. . .
Hunter: Excuse me, sir. Let him respond to your question and
maybe that will help clarify your concern.
White: Basically, again, what you are looking at is the potential
of say, if the parcel were say develop out at 70 to 80 percent,
you 're probably looking in the neighborhood of 8o lots. O.k. , you
multiply those 80 lots by ten trips, you come up with basically 800
daily trips, new trips. O.k.
Voice: Excuse me, I 'm going to interrupt you. Does that go from
3800 to 42, 000. There' s 41000 trips.
White: O.k. , I estimated the adjusted daily trips for the site at
full build-out as being between 4700 and 5000 that' s an increase of
1100 trips or 30 percent increase. Now, that's based. . .
Voice: Now, I understand, we have a couple of kids that (unclear) .
White: O.k. , again, you're looking at a facility that currently
does not handle that traffic. The characteristics of the roadway
20
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
would change, may not significantly, but it would change from what
the existing characteristics would be.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you. That' s fine.
Voice: (Unclear) . I realize that I 'm driving down Benson Highway.
I just came from eastern Washington, ten cars in 50 miles. Come
over here and drive and 80, 000 cars.
Hunter: A whole different world isn't it.
Voice: Sorry, and it was 90 degrees when I left it.
Hunter: Any other testimony on this topic.
Voice: I have a question.
Hunter: O.k. , ma'am.
Voice: About 90 percent of the traffic, in peak hours at least, x
that goes down 92nd and up 200th is by-pass people. They come up
208th, down 92nd and up 208th, turn left at 106 and go over 'to
where they can get a light up on the Benson, and there' s nothing
that we can do about that as far as I know.
Hunter: Ma'am, that sounds almost like testimony. You have some
traffic things that you want to comment about and you're welcome to
put that on the record if that's a concern you want to address.
What we are looking at now since Mr. White' s testified about
traffic impacts, we want to get clarification of the numbers of
traffic, we're looking at that in terms of mitigation measures or
special concerns you have, we welcome you to put that on the record
as a concern. O.k. Thank you very much. Are there other
questions of Mr. White or others that want to testify. Question
about traffic?
Voice: (Unclear) traffic count and putting how fast the cars are
going?
White: No, we did not. We didn't do a speed study. That wasn't
a question that arose. You. . .when we look at a facility somewhat
similar to this one, you probably do have a certain percentage of
vehicles exceeding the speed limit. It hasn't been brought up in
21
Hearing Examiner Minutes
-' Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
any of the testimony, thus far, and it wasn't request that either
the Hearing Examiner of Planning staff requested. But, if
requested we can certainly do a study to identify what the speeds
are.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Any others that would like to testify on
the application. Yes, , sir. You have. . .we have additional
responses to questions raised here. Do you swear, affirm to tell
the truth in the testimony you're to give.
Gary Gill: I do. My name is Gary Gill, City Engineer. There were
a couple of other questions that came up and I know that these
issues will be resolved and discussed further when we get into any
future development potential on the property and when they go
forward with the platting procedure. But, there were questions
regarding what types of improvements will be required on 92nd
Avenue. Also, what future potential for improvements to this
street and others. As a condition of reviewing either an
environmental checklist or a future potential subdivision of this
property, Public Works will look at these issues and the developer
and owner of the property will have to agree to participate in one
of the nearest planned corridor projects that we've got planned on
our long-range transportation plan. One, is the 228th/224th
Corridor. Then there' s a north corridor which is the 196th/192nd
Corridor which would link the Benson Highway with Interstate 5
going across the valley floor. And our traffic people would look
at this particular property and determine which corridor this
project should be contributing towards. . .monetarily towards those
future projects. At this point in time we have some potential for
receiving substantial monies from the State through this new gas
tax increase that came up that would go into partially funding
these corridor projects and we are in the process of putting
together prospectuses to try to get the preliminary monies for
doing the planning studies and design of those facilities. As far
as adjacent to the site, as a minimum we would require a developer
to either improve their half of 92nd Avenue all the way along their
frontage which would include curb and gutter and sidewalks and
storm drainage facilities. If it looked like there was interest in
the area for forming a local improvement district which was another
question that came up, that very well could be a future mechanism
to go ahead and improve other portions of 92nd Avenue. I 'm not
positive what the County required on some of these other
developments that were raised but typically they will require as a
22
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
minimum that the developer execute a no-protest LID covenant which
commits them to participating in a future project for improving
that roadway if and when it ever comes up. So, we would require
that type of a similar commitment from this development as well.
They either improve it or maybe they will have to do some minimal
improvements as a beginning point and then they would have a
commitment to participate in future full-street improvements which
would include some of the facilities that I just talk about, curb,
gutter, sidewalks, street lights and the whole works. Storm
drainage would also be addressed during a development proposal. . We
are well aware that this hillside has a lot of springs. In fact,
the wells down in the valley and some of the wells that the City
has recently develop tap into some of the artisan aquifers that are
"quite deep. If you have specific information regarding wells that
you have on your property or adjacent properties, be sure to get
that information to us. If they are fairly deep, then ' the
potential for impacting those aquifers is going to be very minor
for this type of development. If they are shallow, then we
definitely want to know about it so if it can have an impact on the
site. Storm drainage, we are going to look at that very carefully.
They would have to provide on-site detention facilities. They
would have to provide a biofiltration or wet ponds which would try
to mitigate some of the water quality impacts that result from
urban growth and development. And, then obviously, this would
impact the state highway down below so I 'm sure DOT will have some
comments on this too. So, whatever is done to this site will not
adversely impact drainage facilities on the state highway. So,
these are all issues that will be taken into account in a .lot more
detail once we get a specific proposal .on the site.
Hunter: Thank you very much.
Gill: O.k.
Hunter: And as Mr. Gill has indicated some of these like storm
drainage issues are relevant to times of applications for filing or
actually development. Others, such as the traffic concerns, many
of you addressed, are relevant to the time of a proposed rezone.
Your City ordinances do require that transportation impacts at'the
time of a rezone request and if there are adverse impacts
associated that there be some discussion on whether its possible to
mitigate those impacts. So, there's different points in the
process where some testimony is relevant and that's what we are
23
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
trying to do in this public hearing is to sort out those items that
are relevant to the rezone request and we've. . .and I think we've
heard a lot of testimony on relevant points today and if there's
any additional comments that anyone would like to make now is the
time to do it. Scott Williams will have the final say it looks
like.
Williams: I guess to go back briefly to get in behind what the
City Council ' s intention was when writing the purpose statement.
As I was sitting here thinking, I thought of something that might
be helpful. Where this wording. . .the purpose statement wording for
the RA and MA zones were both changed and they were changed as a
result of the agricultural land study which the Planning Department
undertook for the City Council and I believe it -was six or eight
years ago now. The intent of that study was to look at
agricultural. . .current agriculture. . . existing agricultural lands
south and west of the Green River. And, what they were looking at
doing in that study, or what they eventually did was make a very
strong statement that they wanted to preserve those lands and not
have them be converted. Primarily, of course, in agricultural
lands we are talking about the valley floor and not having those
lands converted to industrial use as was most of the valley east
and north of the Green River. And, like one of the. . . . some of the
testimony today alluded to, this piece of RA was probably, as I
said earlier, has been so zoned for 30 years approximately. It was
probably a remanent of agricultural lands that continued down on to
the valley and, I believe, although I don't have a Zoning Code in
front of me, is probably one of the only pieces in the City that is
not either south or west of the Green River. And, I believe, that
the preservation of those lands was the impetus for this wording,
if that ' s any help. And, before you close the record I did find
the letter the applicant provided .to me and I can submit that as
evidence from a William Robbins, Sr.
Hunter: O.k. , thank you for the clarifying remarks and let's take
a look at. . . .this is a letter you refer to earlier in your
testimony that you received from the applicant. And, it' s a letter
from Benson Realty Incorporated, dated June 4 , 1990, signed by
William Robbins, Sr. and reads as follows: "This letter is a
follow-up to our previous conversations, it' s addressed to
Margaret Minshull, we wish to emphasize the urgent need for single-
family housing in South King County. Your acreage in Kent is
ideally suited and situated for just that purpose. Subdividing
24
Hearing Examiner Minutes
Verbatim Minutes -
Minshull-Wagner
#RZ-90-5
your acreage in Kent into single-family lots will'. help ease .the
..pressure and rapidly soaring costs of single-family housing in Kent
is most desirable to the proximity to the east side, downtown
Seattle, Puyallup, Federal Way and Pierce County locations. Kent
is a growing community with a (unclear) , don't you want to be part
of it. Sounds like a realtor writing a letter. We' ll receive this
into the record. I read it, so that anyone that wants to respond
to the letter has an opportunity to do so since it was brought up
late in the hearing process, it's appropriate that we read it and
allow anyone that wants to comment on it, to do so. O.k. , there' s
a gentleman who would like to comment.
Voice: Any realtor would think that land (unclear) is necessary
for single-family units, is going to line his pockets of his own.
I don't think that's really a valid letter showing that a property
is necessary to be developed as single-family use.
Hunter! And that's Mr. Cal Stewart commenting, on that. O.k. ,
we've heard a lot of material. What we will do now is wrap up the
hearing, we do have an application in front of us that we've had
Lillie Wagner speak too, as the applicant, where the request is to
zone from residential agricultural to R1-7 . 2 . We've had a
recommendation from the Planning Department, Mr. Scott Williams,
that that should be R1. 12 , 000 square feet and then we heard from a
number of people that live nearby/around the site regarding
transportation impacts, concerns on view and concerns regarding
wells and other concerns expressed and its my job then to take all
that testimony into account and to issue a recommendation to the
City Council which will have the final decision in this matter and
I will issue that recommendation within 14 days of today and I
think it will take that full amount of time to do that. So, thank
you all for coming and the record is now closed.
j
25
August/ 21, 1990
PUBLIC WORKS valuation on property owners in the flVe
Q control
zone district, sufficient funds would generated
to properly maintain the Green River evee system.
Wickstrom described the program, pointing out the
importance of proper maintenance o the levees and
management of the flood watch pro ram.
WHITE MOVED to adopt Resolutio No. 1256 request-
ing King County Council to imVlementthe flood
control zone district and it financing authority.
Johnson seconded. Mann sta ed he would oppose
this additional tax, to gi a the message to the
State that the additial taxes are not fair.
Motion carried with M nn opposing.
(BIDS - ITEM 5D)
Kensington Avenue St The Public Works Depart-
ment has designed a torm project for Kensington
Avenue to correct flooding problem in the area.
Funding for the p ject is included in the budget
for Miscellaneou Storm Projects. Because the
project estimat did not exceed $30, 000, a formal
bidding proces was not required, and proposals
were solicite instead. The following proposals
were receive .
1. Scocco o Construction $14 , 098 . 94
2 . Merli o Construction $15, 285. 34
3 . R.W. Scott Construction $18 , 344 . 57
4 . Cc Construction $22 , 192 . 93
5. Ro ison Construction $35, 013 . 59
Staff recommends that the project be awarded to
Scoc olo Construction. WHITE SO MOVED, Houser
sec nded. The motion carried.
REZONE AND (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEMS 2B AND 2C)
REZONE APPEAL Minshull-Wagner Rezone No. RZ-90-5. The Mayor
noted that this meeting will consider the
Minshull/ Hearing Examiner's recommendation to deny the
Wagner application by Margaret Minshull/Jacob C. and
Rezone Lillie Wagner to rezone 18 . 5 acres from RA,
Residential Agricultural, to R1-7.2, Single Family
Residential. The property is located west of 92nd
Ave. S. at 20129 92nd Ave. S. Scott Williams of
the Planning Department stated that the staff had
noted that the Valley Floor Plan designation is
SF, Single Family Residential, but due to the
5
August 21, 1990
REZONE AND slopes, staff recommends R1-12 rather than R1-7 . 2 .
REZONE APPEAL The .Mayor noted that an appeal has been filed and
will be heard after this item. He then opened a
public hearing on the rezone.
Minshull/
Wagner Donna Williamson, 20211 92nd Ave. S. stated that
Rezone the proposed project surrounds her home and she
objected to small lots, the increase in traffic
and loss of trees.
Linda Stewart of 20028 92nd Ave. S. agreed and
noted the increased traffic would be hazardous for
children in the area.
Lillie Wagner, one of the applicants, stated that
she had been a resident of the area since 1951 and
that the request to rezone to R1-7 . 2 was in com-
pliance with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted
that affordable housing was needed by young
families as well as for seniors, and pointed out
that an easement had been provided for sewer on
the west boundary of her property.
Midge Sweley also objected to the small lot size
and suggested that 12 , 000 square feet would be y
more appropriate.
Ms. Tweeten of 9030 S. 200th St. , stated that
roads were a problem and further that she had not
been notified of the hearing before the Examiner.
Ed Cleveland urged the Council to grant the rezone
and pointed out that the term agricultural zoning
was misleading.
Martin Durkan Jr. of 22401 Sweeney Road identified
himself as a business consultant dealing with land
use matters. He had reviewed Ms. Wagner's file
and noted that the property is served by sewer,
water, etc. and is ideal for residential develop-
ment. The rezone is consistent with the area, as
there is a pocket of 7200 zoning just to the
south. Whitney Hills, a plat across the street,
just approved by the county, consists of 28 lots
ranging from 9600 square feet up to 11, 000 square
feet. Neither the Planning nor the Public Works
departments could find negative impact which could
not be mitigated. He pointed out that the county
had requested that sidewalks be placed on
6 _
August 21, 1990
REZONE AND 92nd Ave. S. by the developers of Whitney Hills.
REZONE APPEAL He suggested a compromise between the applicant's
request and the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation.
Minshull/
Wagner Cal Stewart stated that he lived across from
Rezone the Wagner parcel and suggested that the Hearing
Examiner denied the rezone because the applicant
could not give a reason such as that there was no
more land available with this zoning.
Gene Williamson of 20211 92nd Ave. S. stated that
it was a matter of economics and more lots would
mean more money for the owners, without regard for
the residents of the immediate area.
The Mayor confirmed for Ken Mellot that the Hear-
ing Examiner minutes are part of the packet the
Council is considering tonight. Mellot noted that
he had asked about the view and the proposed
height of homes. He noted also the hardpan
composition of the hillside.
Dan Johnson, 10504 S .E. 206th, favored the appli-
cant's request, stating that the lot size would
make the homes more affordable.
There were no further comments and the public
hearing on the rezone was closed.
Upon White 's request, Scott Williamson determined
that written notice was mailed to all who lived
within 200 feet of the subject property, as is
required by law. He further explained the view
restrictions and the protection of property
upslope. Upon Houser' s question it was noted that
the minimum zoning across the street is 9600 and
that most of the lots are one-half acre or larger.
Scott Williamson clarified for Dowell that R1-20
zoning is nearby at S . 218th St. and 94th Ave. S.
and that streets and sidewalks were usually
required at the time of the development. He also
determined that if the grades were at 12%, sprin-
klers would be required in the homes. Upon Mann' s
question, it was reported that 92nd Ave. S. is in
the county and could therefore not be part of a
City LID and the Mayor suggested that those who
had questions about the road could speak to the
Public Works Director.
7
August 21, 1990
REZONE AND The Mayor noted that the applicants for the
REZONE APPEAL rezone have filed an appeal to the recommendation
of the Hearing Examiner and opened the public
Minshull/ hearing on the appeal.
Wagner
Appeal The Council 's options with regard to the rezone
and to the appeal were determined. Acting City
Attorney Carolyn Lake noted that many of the same
comments made during the hearing on the rezone
might also be part of the hearing on the appeal
and at her suggestion, MANN MOVED that the
testimony given for the rezone become a part of
the appeal hearing. Johnson seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
Martin Durkan Jr. noted that the developers of
Whitney Heights were required to improve
92nd Ave. S.
Ms. Tweeten stated that widening 92nd Ave. S.
won't help inasmuch as the other roads are only
two lanes.
Ms. Sweley requested that the traffic counts be
rechecked.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the hearing on the appeal Orr seconded
and the motion carried.
It was determined that traffic counts both actual
and estimated were contained in the Hearing
Examiner's minutes.
JOHNSON MOVED to modify the Hearing Examiner's
findings to rezone the parcel to R1-12 , White
seconded. Mann stated he would vote against this
as we are dealing with an area over which we have
no control. White stated that he looked at this
as an opportunity to upgrade the road as a miti-
gating circumstance, to be taken care of in the
EIS. Orr agreed but suggested that other roads in
the area be included. JOHNSON MOVED to amend his
motion to direct staff to recommend conditions to
go with the rezone approval to R1-12 and for the
attorney to include conditions in the rezone ordi-
nance. White asked Satterstrom to be more spe-
cific as to conditions and it was determined that
tion could be the Planning Department ' s recom-
8 _..
August 21, 1990
REZONE AND mendation dealing with the slope of the road in
REZONE APPEAL the plat and also the subject of 92nd Ave. S .
could be discussed with the Public Works Director.
Minshull/ Ms. Lake reminded Council that mitigation measures
Wagner must be limited only to the affect this proposal
Appeal will have on the existing area--the traffic,
roads, etc. The City cannot require mitigation
for affects that are already in place. In answer
to the Mayor' s question, she noted that conditions
could be attached as part of the SEPA review or as
mitigation measures as conditions to a rezone
ordinance as directed by Council .
It was determined that the motion as revised
is to modify -the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
and adopt R1-12 for RZ-90-5 and to delay action to
the next meeting to allow staff time to prepare
conditions to address the traffic problems.
Dowell noted that the Hearing Examiner said that
there is no other way out other than 92nd Ave. S.
and that this could not be mitigated and that he
would not vote for this motion. White reiterated
that this was an opportunity to improve the roads
and have sidewalks at the expense of the developer
-• Upon a roll call vote the motion carried with
Dowell and Mann dissenting. It was clarified that
the public hearing on the appeal has been conclud-
ed and JOHNSON THEN MOVED to continue action on
the appeal to the next meeting. White seconded
and the motion carried.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - IT�M 3C)
Willis Street Restaurant and Motel Rezone RZ-90-3.
ADOPTION of Ordinanc No. 2936 rezoning property
located in the gene al area of the southeast
corner of West Wil is Street and 74th Ave. S. , as
directed by the C 'ty Council at their meeting of
August 7, 1990.
ZONING (CONSENT CALEN AR - ITEM 3T)
Repeal of Ordinance Nos. 2776 and 2777 . As recom-
mended by s ff, adoption of Ordinance No. 2938
repealing O, dinances No. 2776 and 2777 .
Ordinanc No. 2776 and Ordinance No. 2777 were
passed ' May of 1988 approving a rezone and
mobile/ ome park combining district for the Kantor
property.
9
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PROSECUTOR SERVICES STAFFING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Council is being requested to
authorize an additional City Attorney position to handle growth
in the number of cases and double set calendars established by
the Aukeen Court. The Council Public Safety Committee and
Operations Committee have heard staff presentations on the
workload and need. The action has been deferred until this date
pending hiring of a new City Attorney. At its September 11,
1990 meeting, the Operations Committee considered the new City
Attorney's request to add one additional attorney and one
additional support staff to the Law Department's present staff.
The Committee approved the addition of one prosecutor to the Law
Department prior to the 1991 budget year, but deferred its
decision on the office support position until 1991. Funds for
the additional position will come from currently authorized
salary and contract budgets.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from City Attorney, fiscal note
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: IBC and Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED F�SP.14btPERSONNEL IMPACT• --,,n NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_A Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Covered within existing budget _
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �k-Lka� moves, Councilmember seconds
for authorization for the establishment of an additional
attorney position in the Law Department 0-0
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:-
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
NEMORANDUK
DATE: September 11, 1990
TO: Ed Chow, City Administrator
FTM: Roger Iubovich, City Attorney
SUSTECT: REQMST TO OPERATIONS OOMMI= FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY AND SUPPORT
STAFF POSITIONS
I have performed an initial review of the caseload activity in this department,
have had discussions with my staff, and reviewed the current circumstances and
needs of this department. To ensure adequate representation for the City of
Kent, I have cane to the conclusion that, after replacement of the attorney
positions currently being vacated, I will need one additional attorney and one
additional support staff. The department has one civil attorney on contract, two
contract prosecutors, and two part-time contract support technicians to assist
the staff, not including outside counsel assisting the City in litigation. In
view of the increase in caseload on the prosecutor's docket as well as the
increased activity due to the growth in the Kent area, the only alternatives to
addition of new staff would be maintaining arri/or adding to the contract services
to meet the legal requirements of the City or to be more selective about the
cases and projects that the Legal Department undertakes for the City and the
various departments.
As a consequence, I am asking that you present to the Operations Committee my
request for one additional attorney and one support staff for this department.
adlstaff.memo
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subject: PROSECUTOR SERVICE STAFFING - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/12/90 at 1445.
AS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST WITH BOTH THE COUNCIL'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, THE LAW DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL
PROSECUTOR SERVICES, INCLUDING AN ATTORNEY AND AN OFFICE SUPPORT POSITION.
THIS REQUEST IS DUE TO GROWTH IN THE NUMBER CASES BEING HEARD AT THE AUKEEN
COURT AND THE DOUBLE SETTING OF COURT CALENDARS. IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO
BE REPRESENTED AS NEEDED, THE COUNCIL HAS AUTHORIZED THE LAW DEPARTMENT
TO CONTRACT FOR PROSECUTOR SERVICES ON AN INTERIM BASIS PENDING THE HIRING
OF THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY.
SINCE STARTING WORK ON SEPTEMBER 2, CITY ATTORNEY ROGER LUBOVICH HAS BEEN
ANALYZING HIS DEPARTMENTAL STAFFING NEEDS. IN ADDITION TO THE PROSECUTOR
STAFFING ANALYSIS, HE HAS BEEN FACED WITH THE TERMINATION OF HIS TWO CIVIL
ATTORNEYS. HE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN HIS PROSECUTOR RECRUITMENT PROCESS AT THE
SAME TIME HE RECRUITS FOR THE VACANT CIVIL ATTORNEY POSITIONS.
COUNCIL HAS RANKED THIS REQUEST AS ITS NUMBER ONE REQUEST FOR 1991 FUNDING.
BASED ON THIS AND PAST COUNCIL COMMITTEE SUPPORT, THE IBC IS RECOMMENDING
AN EARLY RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR THE ATTORNEY POSITION ONLY. THE ASSOCIATED
OFFICE SUPPORT POSITION WILL BE DEFERRED UNTIL 1991. SINCE A FULL TIME POSITION
WILL REPLACE CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED CONTRACT FUNDING, THE IBC DOES NOT RECOMMEND
A BUDGET CHANGE BUT IS RECOMMENDING COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL
BUDGETED POSITION.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date September 18 1990
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS - 84TH AVE. SO. AND SO. 208TH
STREET
2. Si1KR&M STATEN=: Bid opening was September 7 with two bids
received. The low bid was submitted by Totem Electric in the
amount of $43 ,258 . jt�" recommendidA this bid be accepted.
j'
F I I C
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Director of Public Works and a bid
summary
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO_X_. YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: . Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIM: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL FACTION•
Councilmember_- : `" moves, Councilmember � �� seconds
the bid submitted by Totem Electric in the amount of $43,258 for
the signal modifications at 84th Ave. So. and So. 208th be
accepted.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 12, 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom 4)//(1
RE: Signal Modifications - 84th and S. 208th
Bid opening was September 7 with two bids received. The low bid was
submitted by Totem Electric in the amount of $43 , 258 .
The project consists of installation of loops, signal head and
controller at the intersection of 84th and S. 208th to interface this
signal into the City's Master Signal Computer. Construction costs are
estimated to be $47,584. It is recommended the bid submitted by Totem
Electric be accepted.
BID SUMMARY
Totem Electric $43 , 258 . 00
Signal Electric $55, 465. 00
Engineer's Estimate $49, 310. 00
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
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
i
i
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 4 , 1990
PRESENT: JIM WHITE BILL WILLIAMSON
LEONA ORR ED WHITE
DON WICKSTROM JOHN BOND
GARY GILL
94th Avenue Between Canyon and James
Wickstrom explained the cost of the requested traffic modifications
would be $10, 273 which IBC has proposed taking out of the Street
Operating Funds. We had originally budgeted adequate funds in the
Street budget to cover a storm drainage utility rate increase which
has not been implemented to date; thus, there are adequate funds to
cover the expense for the 94th modifications. Ed White added that
Mr. Dunn has asked the City to reconsider this modification. Mr.
Dunn would like to investigate the possibility of constructing
curb, gutter and sidewalk. White stated he had expressed to Mr.
Dunn that the City did not have funding for that extensive an
improvement. Mr. Dunn wanted to meet with the residents of the
area to determine if they would be willing to put together an LID
for curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of 94th. Mr. Dunn
anticipates being able to meet with the residents this month. The
Committee determined they would be willing to delay installation of
the traffic circles until such time as Mr. Dunn has been able to
meet with the residents about an LID.
FAUS Funding - Proposed Allocation Method Change
Wickstrom stated the Public Works Directors of King County have
been discussing a change in the allocation of FAUS funding.
Currently the funds are distributed by King Subregional Council to
the cities for projects on a project prioritization basis. This is
not the way federal funds are distributed in other areas of
Washington. The King County Public Works officials are
recommending the funds be distributed based on current population.
White asked how that would affect Kent. Wickstrom responded we
have averaged $125, 000 a year over the past few years. Based on
Population, we anticipate Kent' s allocation to be $126, 000 which
would be guaranteed and we could budget accordingly. The Committee
unanimously recommended support for the change in allocation method
for FAUS funds.
228th Street Acquisition
Wickstrom stated that, based on the appraisals we have received,
acquisition costs for the right of way will be more than what we
originally estimated. Wickstrom proposed transferring an
additional $20, 000 from the non-LID portion of the West Valley
Public Works Committee
September 4, 1990
Page 2
Highway Improvement project. IBC has concurred with this
recommendation. Responding to White' s question, Wickstrom
confirmed that if the property should ever be removed from the
"farm land designation" the City could possibly recover our costs.
The Committee unanimously recommended approval for the transfer of
funds as proposed.
Water Ouality Enforcement
Gary Gill stated we have recently discussed with the City
Attorney's office the City' s enforcement regulations for water
quality problems. With the addition of a second water quality
engineer, we are able to do more inspection and enforcement of
problem areas. The streams and creeks in Kent have deteriorated
considerably since the early 19801s. We will be notifying
violators of their offending actions and the consequences of any
repeated actions. White asked if DOE were involved. Gill stated
that DOE does not have the staff to adequately manage the
enforcement. White asked if DOE was appropriating any funds for
this. Gill responded while storm water quality standards will be
mandated through the State and Federal levels as well as through
the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority there is no money being
appropriated for enforcement activities. We are trying to improve
water quality in several reaches of Mill Creek and Garrison Creek
through several Centennial Clean Water projects which are partially
funded from a DOE grant program. Williamson stated that our
present ordinance allows us to make assessments on properties so
that we can pass along the costs of testing. We can include this
on the City' s utility bill so that if not paid can be placed as a
lien against the property.
Update on Canyon Drive
Wickstrom stated we are still in acquisition phase. We have also
applied for additional UAB funds since the acquisition costs will
probably exceed what was originally budgeted. An outside attorney
has been hired to handle the condemnation for rights of way we can
not acquire through negotiations. Gill stated we hope to have
construction under way next spring. White asked Williamson to
check on the status of acquisition of, the use and necessity and
right of entry and report back to him at the next meeting. Gill
added we hope that the additional funding is acquired to help with
the undergrounding costs of the electrical and telephone. If the
additional funds are not approved we may have to leave the
utilities overhead for now as our share is estimated by Puget Power
to be $loo, 000.
Public Works Committee
w September 4, 1990
Page 3
Labor Force Site
White asked for an update on that. Williamson stated that the
Planning Department has been working on this as a zoning code
violation as a non-conforming use. Williams stated he did not know
at this time if they have submitted an application to the Planning
Department for a rezone to permit that use. White stated he had
not had any complaints about the activity of the Labor Force but
has had some about the deterioration of the property. Orr stated
she has had complaints about the methods of operation and
percentages they charge the employees for the jobs. Williamson
commented he had observed people living in their cars at the site.
Orr stated she had also received comments from a local businessman
about people living at the site. The Committee asked Bill
Williamson to investigate the situation and report back to them.
NOTE: This was also discussed at the Planning Committee on this
date and the Public Works Committee questions were addressed.