HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/16/1990 .. ............................................ .... ..... . . ........ ............... ....... ........
.... ......
... .......... ....
.. ...... ...
p q.
City of Kent
.. .......
City Cou nci l Meet .
n �a
ll� 4 . ��r
Agenda
VI:X
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Leona Orr Steve Dowell
Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Jim White
October 16, 1990
Office of the City Clerk
. . . .............
...........
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 16, 1990
Summary Agenda
���� City of Kent Council- Chambers
Office of the City Clerk 7 :00 p.m.
NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the
back of this page.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
v1(.✓ Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week ►r
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
✓P;. Appeal - Best Fabrics Sign Variance
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR - -
i/A. Minutes
�B. Bills
,� V, LID 335 - d' a
�Wv Miscellaneou Sewer and Water Improvements
vl, 272nd/277th orridor
�✓ Local Hazardous Waste Management Pla)a----
�G.✓ Growth Management Act Grant Funds esolutio
V,,F3".L/ Soos Creek Cooperative Planning Agreemen
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Mayor's Salary - Ordinance
✓t.I/ Norman Anderson Rezone
✓C.✓ LID 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvements
5. BID
✓4. Van Service Truck
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 .V,�EPORTS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
There will be an executive session of approximately thirty
minutes to discuss the Kentview Appeal and solid waste
litigation.
9. ADJOURNMENT
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A. Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week
Kent City Council Meeting
I 0"4t Date October 16, 1990
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: APPEAL - BEST FABRICS NO. SV-90-2 SIGN VARIANCE
2. SUMKARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal by North American Signs and Luminart, agents for Best
Fabrics and Susan Rae Sampson, attorney for Best Fabrics, from
the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of denial of an applica-
tion for a variance from the provisions of Kent Zoning Code
Section 15.06.050 G1 to permit the installation of a second
identification sign. Best Fabrics is located within the Kent
Hill Plaza Shopping Center located on the S.E. corner of 104th
Ave. S.E. and S.E. 260th St.
3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal form with attachments, staff report, Hearing
Examiner minutes of July 18, 1990, findings and recommendations
and verbatim minutes, notice of appeal.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner as of 8/1/90
• (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
Denial
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS"
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �� moves, Councilmember " A seconds
to accept/E!�OVXf &JG the findings of the Hearing Examiner,
and to aR2rove the Hearing Examiner's
recommendaE_on of denial of Best Fabrics No. SV-90-2 sign
variance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
FROM:.IT-r OF KENT TO: 206 235 4939 AUC. 13• :9SO 2:09PM 9464 P.02
Y
p �i Clerk
Tice of. the CitY
220 s. 4th AUG 131990
q„a! .aT2-3 3 7 0
htNT City of Kent CITY OF KENT
G IOr TREASURY
C`IY CLERK grder for TransCript far r �S�
Appeal from Deci.si.on of Ilearinq 1?x ,ii:ircr
Resolution B96
ordinance 2233
1990 AF1:ed1. fi.lcd ••.-August -13 ,- 1990
August 13 , -
Data _ _ --. b--r- fi erican signs & Luminart
Agent for Best Fabrics nellaiif
APE.), artt ' sSusan�E--SMIVs=7-A 6r Ap_ Renton, Wa 9805`
450 Shattuck. Avenue So . ,
Sampson Wilson & Combs , ..___..-_--•--•-- ----
Address ---
235-4800 —
Phorlt. --
Best Fabrics # SV-90-2 ..-.-
Hearing Examiner' s File -•-- -
July 18 , 1990
ng
Date of lleax'i.ng I3xaminer Public heari - •--- ---- -
August 1, 1990
Dale of Iieari.ag T;xawi.ner. ' s Deci.sion_ �—_•-•-.-
_ t cthin :1� dais of
Notice af.�.2L'eal must be filed with the City r i;-' w-. — -
the Hearing
lixantJ•ncr and. :;,ur;C he :'• `' 's t>y
the act' On taken by —3
a $ r, fi.t_iny fee. Treasurer ' s necr".tpt -
_ the Ppe1:!.ant. shetli.
k a null transcript: of'. th : hearing h =.'j `'c l`w'e
Within 30_days of: the Ilearinq Examiner ' s dec_isio►'•. `
order from the City - Post at the ti.mc: of. the ord�'
the Hearing Examiner and must P Ole aE��,,11 J cc;:t:
h the amount of $100 for each L-ape to bct tr.ansc.i: iY�ed • Ll t-hc t ).1`" t.hr;
cost incurred by
lie �tY exceeds the amount W- ccCss arrOul)t -
ed to posted , any rred:i.t due tdi .l hra :r.c'. .Jrpirl
shall lset,e�qutham theramoluntsp the Cit for: t: tr: c-•
cost
to the appellant.
D -
ved_
'_ - - - -
Order for i�anscr>,precei
t �. U01
Treasurer ' s Recei-pt #
tq3?i AUMY902 TREASRY 125.00
I
I
I
i
!
1
2 ;
!
(
3
(COPY RECEIPT) ! (FILING Sl'AMP)
4 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENT
HEARING EXAMINER
5
6 APPLICATION OF NORTH AMERICAN ) No. SV-90-2
SIGNS AND LUMINART, )
7 ) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO
Re: BEST FABRICS. ) CITY COUNCIL
8 )
Applicant. )
9 )
10
11 TO: JAMES DRISCOLL, PRO TEM HEARING EXAMINER;
and to: CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT;
12 and to: KENT CITY COUNCIL
13 '
14 NOTICE IS HEREBY given that BEST FABRICS, appearing by and
15 through its agents LUMINART and NORTH AMERICAN SIGN CO. and
16 their attorney Susan Rae Sampson of Sampson Wilson & Combs,
t7 Inc. , P.S. , hereby appeals that decision of the Hearing Examiner
18 Pro Tempore dated 1 August 1990, denying Best Fabrics a variance
19 for an additional sign.
20 This appeal is based upon Best Fabric's inability to use its
21 wall and window sign entitlement under the Kent Sign Code due to
22 unique architectural features of its premises; and based,
23 further, upon the hearing examiner's failure to properly
24 consider Best Fabric's location and surroundings in denying the
25 variance; failure to properly consider Best Fabric's inability
26 to use either its facade sign allowance or window sign
SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S.
A M FESSIONAL SER%:('E'_A'A CORRIRA::ON
Notice of Appeal To City Council - 1 :N OLD MILA 4L KEE SL RSTATRIN
450 SHiTTL'CA A%ENL'E SOUTH
RE.NTON.WA:HING7,11 Q8055
PIERCE COL?TT 1276i 9o3.i363
allowance, due to architectural surroundings; failure to
1
2
properly consider the enhancement of safety provided by the
proposed sign; and failure to recognize the inequality sustained
3
by Best Fabrics without a variance.
4
Dated this 3 day of 1990.
5
6
SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC. , P.S.
7
8
9 ct�
Susan Rae Sampson WSB#5732
10 Attorney for Applicant
North American Signs and Luminart
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,. 26
SAWSON WILSON & COMM, INC., P.S.
.A IRO EESSK NAL SERVICE L,W CORRIRATION
00 OLD MR.WACKEE SILWAT10%
Notice of Appeal To City Council - 2 2450 SHArnr.K A%ENCE SUUTH
RENTON.WASHINOYT N 98055
TIERCE COUNTY(206)$63-4363
KING.CLA'NTY(206)235.48U3
September 25, 1990
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an appeal filed by Susan Rae
Sampson, Attorney for Appellant, Sampson Wilson & Combs,
450 Shattuck Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055 has been filed
from the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Decision issued
August 1, 1990. The project is known as Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2.
Notice is further given that the appeal will be
considered by the City Council at a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 16, 1990 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Kent City
Hall, Council Chambers. Public testimony will betaken.
The City Council has the option to accept, deny or modify
the recommendation as set forth by the Hearing Examiner.
Marie Jens n, CMC
City Clerk
A verbatim transcript is available in the Kent Planning
Department for perusal.
I1
1
crrroFAnd
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
FILE NO: BEST FABRICS #SV-90-2
APPLICANT: NORTH AMERICAN SIGNS AND LUMINART
AGENTS FOR BEST FABRICS
REQUEST: A variance from the provisions of Kent Zoning Code
Section 15. 06. 050 G 1 to permit the installation of
a second identification sign.
LOCATION: Best Fabrics is located within the Kent Hill Plaza
Shopping Center located on the southeast corner of
104th Avenue SE and SE 260th Street.
APPLICATION FILED: 5/25/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• Exempt
MEETING DATE: 7/18/90
DECISION ISSUED: 8/1/90
DECISION: DENIED
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud, Planning Department
Alice Shobe, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Susan Sampson, representing applicant
Clifford Min, applicant
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public
hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied
personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by
the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the
following findings, conclusions and decision are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
1
Findings and Decision
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant requested approval of a variance from the
provisions of the Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 06. 050 B 1. The
requested variance is for the installation of a second
identification sign in a shopping center that is zoned CC,
Community Commercial. The property is located within the Kent
Hill Plaza Shopping Center on the southwest corner of 104th
Avenue SE and SE 260th Street.
2. The Best Fabrics store will be the recipient of the requested
sign. Best Fabrics is located next to the corner business of
the modified "L" shaped shopping center. The Best Fabrics
facade faces 104th Avenue SE.
3 . Currently, the Best Fabrics has a sign that is placed on the
facade that faces 104th Avenue SE. The requested variance is
to permit a second sign to be placed on the north facade and
face SE 260th Street.
4 . The "L"-shaped shopping center was designed to include a
covered walkway over the corner section of the shopping
center. This covered walkway effectively covers a portion of
the building facade of Best Fabrics that faces
104th Avenue SE. Thus, the existing sign for Best Fabrics
does not cover the entire allowed aggregate area but includes
approximately one-half of the allowed area for the sign.
5. It is the intent of the applicant to place a 24- to 27 -
square foot sign on the north face of the covered walkway. If
allowed, the applicant would have two separate signs; one
facing 104th Avenue SE and the other facing SE 260th Street.
6. Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 05. 050 (g) permits signs
aggregating to 20 percent of the facade to be placed on each
occupancy within a shopping center. The exiting sign of the
Best Fabrics consists of 66 square feet. The applicant
requests the variance in lieu of using its entire sign
allowance on the facade sign.
7. The total facade of the Best Fabrics store is 1,850 square
feet. The total visible facade from 104th Avenue SE is 814
square feet. Thus, 20 percent of the maximum signage
permitted on the facade is 185 square feet. As noted, the
applicant's existing sign is 66 square feet in size. The
2
Findings and Decision
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
applicant has indicated that in lieu of using the entire
square footage allowed, the additional signage should be
allowed.
8. The Kent Zoning Code Section 15.06. 050 J reads, in part:
A. Signs Permitted in Shopping Centers
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate
sign area for each occupant of a
shopping center shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the front
facade of the unit. Wall signs are
permitted on each exterior wall of
the individual business unit. A
minimum of thirty (30) square feet
shall be permitted for any
occupancy. No combination of signs
shall exceed ten (10) percent of the
facade to which they are attached.
y If there is an attached canopy or
overhang, a ten (10) percent square
foot sign may be attached to said
canopy or overhang in addition to
the other permitted signs. Such
sign shall be at least eight (8)
feet above any pedestrian walkway.
The applicant seeks a variance from this standard.
9 . In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Kent
the criteria of Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 06. 080 E must be
satisfied. Those criteria includes:
a. The variance shall not constitute a grant of a special
privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of
other property in the vicinity and zone in which the
property on behalf of which the application was filed was
located.
b. Such a variance is necessary because of special
circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property to
provide it with the use rights and privileges permitted
_. 3
Findings and Decision
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
other properties in the vicinity and the zone in which
the subject property is located.
10. The Planning Department of the City of Kent interpreted
"canopy" as a roof-like projection that is not typically
attached to the primary structure. As a result, the
Department submitted that the structure on which the applicant
seeks to attach the additional sign is not a canopy but is an
extension of the roof or a projection therefrom. Further,
the Planning Department submitted that the canopy sign can
only be attached to the underside of a canopy. The Planning
Department concluded that the applicant's proposed sign is a
wall sign and is subject to the provisions of Kent Zoning Code
Section 15. 06. 050 G. In summary, the Planning Department has
concluded that the request was to place an additional sign in
an unauthorized location.
11. An adjoining business, Sports Plus, is located in the extreme
corner of the "L"-shaped shopping center. Recently, Sports
Plus was allowed to place a sign on the facade that faces
SE 260th Street. The City indicated that this sign was
allowed to be placed on the facade because the design of the
building effectively blocked all site view from
104th Avenue SE. Thus, according to the Planning Department
the only location for the sign for public exposure is the
facade facing SE 260th Street. The Planning Department
concluded that this approval to Sports Plus was unique and did
not set a precedence for other signs.
12 . The Planning Department submitted that the existing Best
Fabrics sign is similar in size and scale to other signs in
the complex and that the applicant can increase the size of
the existing sign pursuant to the provisions of the Code. The
City submitted that a use of less than allowed space was not
justification to grant a variance.
13 . The applicant submitted that part of the reason for the
increased visibility with the use of two signs, was to make it
easier for the customers in vehicles and the pedestrian
traffic to find the store in the corner of the "L"-shaped
shopping center. The applicant contends that because of the
low traffic volumes on 104th Avenue SE, the applicant does not
enjoy the exposure to the public that would be available if
the sign faced SE 260th Street.
4
Findings and Decision
- Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
14. The applicant submitted that because of the inability to
easily find the Best Fabrics store, safety factors are
involved. The City, however, responded that the issue of
safety is not necessarily present and that safety is not
dependant on an additional sign.
! 15 In addition to the sign on the facade, the shopping center is
allowed a general sign which identifies all stores within the
shopping center. There is no general sign located at the Kent
Hill Shopping Plaza Center.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance for the
installation of a second identification sign in a shopping
center zoned CC, Community Commercial, and more commonly
identified as the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center on the
southeast corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 260th Street. The
specific request is to allow a variance from the provisions of
the Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 06. 050 G 1.
2 . Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 06. 050 G 1 restricts the front
facade of a unit to have a sign that does not exceed twenty
percent of the total facade area.
3 . The Hearing Examiner of the City of Kent has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing pursuant to the authority granted
to him in the Kent Zoning Code.
4 . In order for a variance to be granted the criteria of Kent
Zoning Code Section 15. 06. 080 E must be satisfied.
5. The grant of a variance would constitute a grant of special
privileges that would be inconsistent with the limitations
upon uses of other property in the vicinity and zone. No
other stores within the shopping center have variances and all
stores signs are consistent with the Kent Zoning Code. To
allow the variance would allow the applicant to have a benefit
that is .not necessarily enjoyed by other businesses in the
shopping center, and in particular, all businesses that face
onto 104th Avenue SE.
6. The applicant has not shown any special circumstances relating
to the size, shape, topography of the property that warrants
a variance.
5
Findings and Decision
Best Fabrics _..
#SV-90-2
7. Provisions have been made by the City to allow the applicant
an amount of space on the facade facing 104th Avenue SE that
satisfies the City's standards for total sign area.
8 . The surroundings of the subject property do not warrant a
grant of a variance.
9. The applicant has the right to display a sign aggregating to
twenty percent of the facade that can be seen from 104th
Avenue SE. The fact that the applicant does not use all of
the space is not an adequate reason for the grant of a
variance. Variances cannot be negotiated as proposed by the
applicant.
10. Traffic safety will not be enhanced by the location of the
sign.
DECISION
Based upon the proceeding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site-view of the
property, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the requested variance from the
provisions of Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 06.050 G 1 is DENIED and
the applicant is not permitted to install a second identification
sign in a shopping center zoned CC, Community Commercial, and more
commonly known as the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center, located on
the southeast corner of 104th Avenue SE and SE 260th Street.
This variance has been denied because the criteria as outlined in
the Kent Zoning Code Section 15.06. 080 E are not satisfied.
The applicant sought the variance in order to put an additional
sign on the walkway overhead facade. The applicant contention that
because of Best Fabrics location near the corner, exposure to the
public from 104th Avenue SE is limited and a variance should be
granted. To support the request, the applicant indicated that in
lieu of the use of the total allotment of sign area, the applicant
would use smaller signs, but would have two signs. This argument
fails. Variances are not bartered, traded for, or negotiated, but
they must be earned through the satisfaction of the criteria of the
Kent Zoning Code. As noted in the Findings and Conclusions of this
document, the applicant has not satisfied these criteria.
6 _.
Findings and Decision
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
Clearly the variance cannot be granted and the applicant is
restricted to the standards for the attached wall signs as set
forth in Kent Zoning Code Section 15.06. 050 G.
The variance is denied and the applicant is restricted to the sign
standards that exist.
Dated this 1st day of August, 1990
Jro
M DR SCOLL
TM
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by
the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law,
or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available
_. which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are
answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written
appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually,
new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing
before the City Council.
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can
also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for
a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an
appeal is filed.
..W 7
City of Kent - Planning Department
r
LjI
` \
10
% i \ f
cz\
1
U a I\I \ 0 I I I I\t
\ I J\ i I <) ❑ �r Cry °�
\\ \
Em
o \
\\ \\\\ S
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
Application site
ZONING / TOPOGRAPHY MAP Zoning boundary —
City limits -djl�-
City of Kent - Planning Department
SE 248TH ST
w
w
> w
9
S 252ND ST f= >
0
CAMPUS
PARfr
o w
N
/SENT >
� MERIDIAN q
HIGH SCHOOL EAST HI
SE 256TH ST
y
UB `Y000 � CENTER sR
,M..... �9 s SIG
HIL L �oLn
RK SE 260TH ST
ENIC HILL
SCHOOL
SEOUOI
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
3 Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits -I&
City of Kent - Planning Department
tT
It
V C0
FARROS
&4�
I
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
Application site
WEST ELEVATION - Sign face Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
VHII I I fIH+O ; .. . . I
� "' I . �� Not■��i '. 1
s
t t.... t tt TN YT* IBT
1 ; • ■ M.
■
I A 17 i R • w� .
I
1 �
1 — V�Ilillllli 'tu .. ..
� 1
t •' I
i
■ 1
W ItlilllllllllllOmLi - 1
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
crry cFW6nt CITY OF KENT
- PLANNING AGENCY
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JULY 18, 1990
FILE NO: BEST FABRICS #SV-90-2
APPLICANT: NORTH AMERICAN SIGNS AND LUMINART FOR BEST
FABRICS
REQUEST: A variance from the provisions of Section
15. 060. 050-G1 of the Kent Zoning Code to
permit the installation of a second
identification sign in a shopping center zoned
CC, Community Commercial. Wall signs in
shopping centers are permitted on the exterior
walls of the individual business unit and may
be no larger than 10 percent of the facade to
which they are attached.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: ALICE SHOBE
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
Best Fabrics is located next to the corner business of a
modified "L" shaped shopping center. Refer to site plan to
note that a breezeway exists between the businesses facing
104th Avenue SE and those facing 260th Avenue SE. The
shopping center was architecturally designed to include a
covered walkway over the corner section of the shopping
center. This walkway covers a portion of the building facade
of Best Fabrics. The applicant proposes adding a 24 to 27
square foot sign on north elevation of the covered walkway
which faces SE 260th Street.
B. Location
Best Fabrics is located within the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping
Center located on the southeast corner of 104th Avenue SE and
SE 260th St. The facade of Best Fabrics faces 104th Avenue
SE.
1
Staff Report
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
C. Zoning
The shopping center is zoned CC, Community Commercial.
D. Sign Regulations
The application is subject to Kent Zoning Code Section
15.06. 050-G:
A. Signs Permitted in Shopping Centers
1. Aggregate sign area. The aggregate sign area for
each occupant of a shopping center shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the front facade of the
unit. Wall signs are permitted on each exterior
wall of the individual business unit. A minimum
of thirty (30) square feet shall be permitted for
any occupancy. No combination of signs shall
exceed ten (10) percent of the facade to which they
are attached.
If there is an attached canopy or overhang a ten
(10) square foot sign may be attached to said
canopy or overhang in addition to the other
permitted signs. Such sign shall be at least eight
(8) feet above any pedestrian walkway.
E. History/Land Use
The shopping center is located in a portion of the City
annexed in 1978 under Ordinance 2145. A total of 80 acres
was annexed at this time. The shopping center is completely
surrounded by other commercial uses.
F. Existing Signs Related to this Application
There is an existing sixty six (66) square foot sign located
on the front facade of Best Fabrics which was approved
October 23 , 1989 . The total facade of the building is 1,850
square feet; the total visible facade from 104th Avenue SE
is 814 square feet. The maximum size sign permitted on this
facade is 185 square feet.
Additionally, a forty-eight (48) square foot sign was
approved June 16, 1990 for Sports Plus which is located next
door to Best Fabrics. This sign will be located on the east
2
Staff Report
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
elevation of the covered walkway, and is permitted because
the entire facade of Sports plus is hidden by the covered
walkway and a portion of the shopping center. On the site
plan, Sports Plus is noted as Living Well Lady, the former
occupant.
II. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this sign
variance application:
City Attorney City Administrator
Chief of Police Fire Chief
Public Works Director Parks and Recreation
Building Official
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 Hearing Examiner's July 18, 1990 public hearing.
III. APPLICATION OF THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS
The Kent Zoning Code allows for variances from the terms of the
sign chapter in certain cases. Variances from the sign
regulations may be granted by the Hearing Examiner upon proper
application. Variances may be granted when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict interpretation
of the regulations of this chapter deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under
identical zoning classification. The variance shall not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other property in the vicinity and zone
in which such property is situated. (Section 15. 06. 080 E. )
The Planning Department has reviewed the above statements and has
the following comments.
A. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with a limitation upon uses of other
property in the vicinity and zone in which the property on
behalf of which the application was filed is located.
Planning Department Finding
In Exhibit B of the submitted application the applicant states
that a "canopy" stands in front of Best Fabrics. Section
15. 02. 070 of the Zoning Code defines canopy as "a roof-like
3
Staff Report
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
projection" which is typically attached to the primary structure.
The covered walkway does meet this definition of canopy because
the wall to which the proposed sign would be attached is not an
extension of the roof or a "projection" thereof. The covered
walkway is an architectural feature of the building and does not
constitute a canopy or overhang for the portion of the building
the applicant occupies.
Section 15. 02.380 of the Zoning Code, additionally, defines a
canopy sign as "a sign attached to the underside of a canopy. "
The proposed sign is a wall sign defined by section 15. 02 .480 as
"a sign affixed to the exterior wall of a building or structure
with the exposed face of the sign on a plane parallel to the plane
of said wall. "
The variance request is therefore not simply a request to increase
the size of a permitted sign, but a request to place an additional
sign in an unauthorized location.
The covered walkway is not considered an unauthorized location for
the Sports Plus sign which was recently approved because the
entire facade of the Sports Plus building is obstructed. Section
15. 06. 010 of the Zoning Code states that the private purpose of
signage is "the identification and promotion of the seller to the "
buyer, with public purposes. " In order to ensure Sports Plus has
equal promotion opportunity, a sign was approved on the closest
visible facade: the covered walkway. Sports Plus is the only
occupant in this portion of the shopping center that is unable to
display signage on its facade. This decision is further
supported by Section 15. 06. 050 of the Zoning Code which states:
In all districts the Planning Director shall have the
option to waive type requirements in unique and special
cases where due to building design or other special
circumstance the development is unable to conform to
stated standards.
B. Such a variance is necessary because of special circumstances
relating to the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the subject property to provide it with the
use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in
the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property
is located.
Planning Department Finding
Given the information provided under "A" above, any special
circumstances provided by the applicant must warrant an additional
sign in an unauthorized location.
4
Staff Report
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
In the submitted sign variance application, the applicant states
two circumstances which warrant an additional sign: obstructed
store frontage and pedestrian safety. The applicant made no
note of obstructed store frontage on the original sign permit
application and the site plans provided calculated facade as that
portion seen from 104th Avenue SE. The existing Best Fabric sign
is not smaller than other signs in the complex because the facade
of Best Fabrics is proportionately larger than the surrounding
tenants' .
The issue of safety was presented as a "minor" improvement by the
applicant. The additional signage may provide easier
identification of the building, but safety is not dependent on
this additional sign.
The other tenants signage in Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center is
limited to the facade of the portion of the building they occupy.
Because the existing Best Fabrics sign is compatible in size with
other tenant signs in the complex and the safety issue is not
significant, the Planning Department maintains the position that
significant circumstance is not present to warrant additional
signage.
IV. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Kent staff have reviewed this request for a sign
variance. The staff recommends DENIAL of this variance request
because the request does not meet the criteria for a sign variance
as discussed above.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 2, 1990
5
City of Kent - Planning Department
SE 248TH ST
w
uO
w
> w
co
S 2 5 2N0 ST >
0
CAMPUS �
PARLfLLJ
!(ENT >
MERIDIAN
HIGH SCHOOL E11S T HI
SE 256TH ST
c9'
y
UR ° CENTER SR SIG
9 �
HILL 20 "'
CD
4K SE 260TH ST
ENIC HILL
SCHOOL
D
SEOUOI
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits -I&-
City of Kent - Planning Department
k+-H fl l l 111-H .. .
i
. ■.•,. f • e T r IrT 4 t[ T
I
I � �• w
� - e
y- e
A " e
1 LM I I I
i
� 1
yI''II{I7I II II�It I,^I'1 i
CH 1 1 1 I 1 1 V 1 { ' tot
.40
N
s ���I 11 I I I I I I I I V � ��•:� - y I
w (l 1
I I I I I U
� �1TfTT1 I I I I I U � � •
y � a .
rg
APPLICATION NAME: Best Fabrics
NUMBER: SV-90-2 DATE: July 18, 1990
REQUEST: Sign Variance
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
Hearing Examiner Minutes
July 18, 1990
Richard King, 918 S. 208th, ent, WA 9 031, commented his property
was next to the subject site. Mr. ng asked if the trees on the
property would be conserved. ri. ing talked about the driveway
access to his property.
Mr. Haydon commented the Pub is Works DeRartment would meet with
Mr. King to discuss th/dripKiway access. Thedriveway access would
not be blocked.
There were no furthernts.
The hearing was clo d at 4 : 05 p.m.
BEST FABRICS
Sign Variance
ISV-90-2
A request by North American Signs and Luminart, PO Box 30, South
Bend, IN 46624 for Best Fabrics, for a sign variance to allow an
additional wall sign. The property is zoned CC, Community
Commercial. The site is located int he Kent Hill Plaza and the
specific address is 25704 104th Avenue SE.
Alice Shobe, Planning Department, displayed some view foils
depicting 1) the location of the site, 2) zoning of the property
and surrounding property and 3) location of the building in the
shopping center. Ms. Shobe described the amount of signage allowed
each building in a shopping center and the type of signage allowed
in a CC, Community Commercial, zone. Ms. Shobe described the signs
currently on the site. A video of the property was shown.
Ms. Shobe stated that on page 4 concerning the definition of
canopy, the statement should read " . . .does not meet definition of
canopy" . Ms. Shobe remarked on the criteria that needs to be
reviewed when considering a sign variance application. Staff is
recommending denial.
Susan Sampson, Sampson Wilson & Combs, Inc, P.S. 200 Old Milwaukee
Substation, 450 Shattuck Avenue S. , Renton, WA 98055, representing
applicant, submitted to the record a brief in response to the staff
report (Exhibit 2) . Ms. Sampson briefly reviewed the submitted
material.
Clifford Min, 118 A Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002, commented Best
Fabrics should be allowed to use the covered walkway to place a
4
Hearing Examiner Minutes
July 18, 1990
sign in order to use the sign allowance allowed by Code. Mr. Min
gave a brief description of the building location. Mr. Min
discussed, at the Hearing Examiner bench, a site plan (Exhibit 3)
along with some with pictures. Mr. Min submitted to the record a
site plan marked with red hatch marks (Exhibit 4) .
Mr. Driscoll asked if there were other businesses in the shopping
center who had the same problem, other than Sports Plus.
Mr. Min replied he felt this was the only area impacts by the
covered walkway. Mr. Min felt Best Fabrics, because of this
covered walkway, was unable to take advantage of the signage
allowed in this area. Mr. Min submitted to the record an view of
Best Fabrics store front (Exhibit 5) . Mr. Min commented that
because of the covered walkway, Best Fabrics is only able to use
about one-third of the total signage allowed. A frontal elevation
drawing of the covered walkway showing the proposed sign was
submitted to the record (Exhibit 6) . Mr. Min remarked that Best
Fabrics is a specialty store and most of its customers come
specifically to it to shop.
Mr. Driscoll asked if there was a general sign for the shopping
center.
Ms. Shobe replied there was not one, but the shopping center is
allowed to have one.
Mr. Min submitted the following to the record: 1) a drawing
showing the elevation of the canopy (Exhibit 7) ; 2) photos
(Exhibit 8) .
Ms. Sampson requested the video to be shown again.
Carol Proud, Kent Planning Department, requested an extension of
time to look over the submitted exhibits.
Mr. Driscoll stated the City of Kent staff had until July 25 to
make a response regarding the exhibits. However, the decision from
the Hearing Examiner would still be made on August 1.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing was closed at 4 : 40 p.m.
.• 5
«TyOF TAttd
_ CITY OF KENT
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER OFFICE
(206) (859-3390)
BEST FABRICS
VERBATIM MINUTES
OSV-90-2
A public hearing to consider the request by North American Signs
and Luminart, PO Box 30, South Bend, IN 46624, for a sign variance
to allow for an additional wall sign. The subject property is
zoned CC, Community Commercial. The site is located in the Kent
Hill Plaza. The site address is 25704 104th Avenue SE.
Jim Driscoll: The next hearing will be the request of Best Fabrics
for a variance. Actually it is the request of the North American
Signs and Luminart for a sign variance to allow an additional wall
sign--Best Fabrics is the retail store. The property is zoned
Community Commercial and is located in the Kent Hill Plaza at
25704 104th Avenue SE. This matter has been advertised according
to the laws of the State of Washington and the City of Kent and I
have jurisdictional authority to hold the hearing based on the
authority granted me in 15. 060. 080 E of the Zoning Code of the City
of Kent. I almost had it there and the criteria for review of
variances are also found in that same section. O.k. Do you
promise that the testimony you are to give in this matter will be
the truth, if so, please respond I do.
Alice Shobe: I do.
Driscoll: O.k.
Shobe: My name is Alice Shobe. I 'm a planner with the City of
Kent. As you stated Best Fabrics is requesting a sign variance
from Section 15. 060. 051 G1 of the Kent Zoning Code. Kent Hill
Place is located on the southeast corner of 101st and 260th, the
shaded area here. The site is zoned GC, again the shaded area
here, you can see that its surrounded by some office and then some
multifamily zoning to the east of it. An issue that is very
important to this case is where Best Fabrics is located in the
shopping center. The way the Plaza runs, it' s kind of in an L-
shape here. Best Fabrics is located right here and where it says
Living Well Lady is now another sports facility called Sports Plus.
So Best Fabrics has. . . it can be seen from 104th directly.
Driscoll: Where's 104th?
1
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Shobe: 104th is. . .I 'm sorry it's out here, 60th is here.
Driscoll: And it can be seen directly from 104th.
Shobe: Right. It. . .the front. . .
Driscoll: I see what you're saying.
Shobe: The front facade of Best Fabrics is on 104th.
Driscoll: Its the southern portion of the site.
Shobe• Correct.
Driscoll• O.k.
Shobe: First, I would like to begin by describing the signs that
are permitted in a CC zone. For a wall sign, ten percent. . how its
calculated, it' s ten percent of the facade. The sign can be no
greater than ten percent of the facade. Additionally, if a sign is
attached to a canopy. . .a ten foot square foot sign is allowed to be
attached to the canopy as long as its eight feet above the
sidewalk. I would like to explain the existing signs that are
there presently. On Best Fabrics on the front, facing out to
104th, there' s a 66 square foot sign, on the facade. It was
approved October 12, 1989 .
Hunter: Excuse me. . .where is the facade?
Shobe: O.k. , the. . .Best Fabrics space is out here. So, when I
talk about the front. . .
Hunter• O.k.
Shobe: So when I talk about the front facade, I 'm basically. . .
Hunter: O.k. , the front facade, o.k.
Shobe• O.k.
Hunter: And what is the size of the front facade?
Shobe: Well, the total visible facade is 814 square feet. So what
I mean by that is that right here, the way that the parking and
this building is design is that a portion of Best Fabrics cannot be
seen from this street, from 104th. So the total visible facade is
814 square feet and the total facade is 1, 850 square feet. So the
2
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
way our sign permit. . . .or our sign requirements read for the CC
zone, technically they would be allowed a total of. . .maximum sign
of 185 square feet and that measurement would be take as ten
percent of the total facade. The other existing sign, to be frank
with you, I don't know if its actually been put up yet is a 48
square foot sign for Sports Plus that was approved June 16, 1990.
Sports Plus. . .now this Bests Fabrics sign is one that would be
proposed and Sports Plus. . .a permit was obtain for but when I was
there at the site it had not been put up yet. Now, this structure
you're seeing right now is a covered walkway, which, I ' ll show you
in the video, it will make it more clear, this covered walkway
extends out in this area right here, you see this little square?
That is a covered walkway that extends out and that is what covers
a portion of the Best Fabrics facade. The reason why Sports Plus
was issued a permit to be. . .a permit to place a sign on this
covered walkway was because, as you can see, Sports Plus, which is
(unclear) Living Well Lady here is completely. . .the front facade is
completely blocked by the other buildings here. So it has no
street frontage on either 260th or 104th. The way the Zoning Code
reads is that we have an obligation to allow people to promote
their business and, so, in order to do so, the Planning Director
made a determination that the covered walkway was the best location
for Sports Plus in this instance. Its the Sports Plus sign is
the. . .will be the only one in the complex that received this
special consideration. O.k. , what I ' ll do now is I ' ll show the
video.
(Video is shown. )
Driscoll: So, this one overview is a little misleading is it not?
Shobe: This one, right here?
Driscoll: Right. Because those signs are not next to each other,
they are going to be. . .
Shobe: Right. This was submitted as a possible location for it.
Driscoll• O.k.
Shobe: O.k. There are a few things I wanted to clarify in the
application. The applicant has stated that they want to place an
additional sign on a canopy. Now, what they call a canopy, I 've
called a covered walkway. The reason that I've done that is
because in the Zoning Code under the definition of canopy it says
it is a roof-like project and we have determined that this covered
walkway is not a roof-like projection, it's actually an
3
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
architectural aspect of the building and this would be an
appropriate place to also add that on page 4 of the staff report
there's an error that needs to be corrected and that is the second
line from the top of the page, the sentence begins. . . "The covered
walkway does meet this definition. . . ", it should say, ". . .does not
meet this definition of canopy. . . " because the wall to which the
proposed sign would be attached is not an extension of the roof or
a projection thereof. Another definition that is helpful is the
definition of canopy sign. The Zoning Code defines it as a "A sign
attached to the underside of a canopy" . This only further enforces
the definition of this structure that stands as not a canopy
because where they are even proposing to put the sign is not
attached underneath, it would be attached to it. Additionally, the
definition of a wall sign is a, "Sign that sticks to the exterior
wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign
of a plane parallel to plane of the said wall" . This is, indeed,
what they are proposing, they are proposing an additional wall
sign; not a canopy sign. So, I just want to clarify that their
actual request is to place an additional sign in an unauthorized
location. They are not merely requesting an increased size for a
permitted sign. The applicant also in their application stated
that there were primarily two reasons that they should receive this
sign. One is obstructed store frontage and the other is for safety
purposes. The Planning Department has determined that this
application is in conflict with the conditions set forth in the
Zoning Code for the issuance of a variance for the following
reasons: The first conditions says that the applicant shall not
receive special privileges if this were to be granted. And, our
argument is that Best Fabrics, the existing sign is a large sign
and that compared to the other tenants in the complex it is not
significantly smaller. In fact, it appears to be larger,
especially when viewed from the street. . .the block style letters
and when they applied for their additional. . .or for their. . . . for
that existing sign, they made no note of any type of problem with
the block facade. In fact, they only provided the square footage
of the visible facade. They didn't even mention the part of the
facade that is behind so at the initial review of their sign permit
they made no mention of (unclear) . Additionally, if the signage
was allowed on this covered walkway, it would give Best Fabrics as
advantage because. . .just by the mere fact that they are located
near to the walkway which the other tenants are not. They would
have the advantage of an additional sign and the signage
requirements read is that you are allowed to have wall signs per
facade facing street frontage and, so, that's not part of their
facade and its facing another street frontage, 260th, so they would
receive that advantage.
4
Best Fabrics
;ASV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
The other issue that's addressed is that. . .to say that special
circumstances exist which warrant a request for additional signage.
Again, they stated that the obstructed store frontage and safety.
The safety, they even claimed, was a minor issue. And, it was
determined, especially from information they gave, that safety is
not dependant on this additional signage. They address such issues
as it would increase the ability to located the store from the
parking lot. The way its designed most of the access is going to
come off 104th or when people are looking for the building, they
will look for it off 104th and that's where their significant sign
is already. So adding the other one to 260th, would not add that
much of a safety factor. Again, I would just like to reiterate
that Sports Plus does not have an advantage over Best Fabrics
because their entire facade is covered and that's why their sign
was approved on the covered walkway location. Due to these
reasons, the City recommends denial of this application for a sign
variance.
Driscoll. O.k. Thank you. Ms. Sampson.
Sampson: Mr. Examiner, I 'm handing Ms. Shobe and the Hearing
Examiner, a brief which just outlines the petition of Best Fabrics
here today.
Driscoll: You wish to make that an exhibit?
Sampson: Please. Our (unclear) will be Cliff Mann who is here to
explain the details of this sign application. His testimony will
establish that Best Fabrics is not able to take advantage of its
full sign allowance under the Kent Zoning Code. It is entitled to
occupy 20 percent of its facade with signs, ten percent of which
may be wall signs because roofs signs are not permitted in this
district and there is not a canopy according to the definition the
City is applying. The only other possibility for a sign is a
window sign but Best cannot use its full allocation of ten percent
of the facade for signs because of the obstruction created by this
big block on legs that we will call a walkway. Mr. Mann will
testify and display some maps showing that Bests' suffers from
extremely limited visibility from the primary entrances to the
shopping plaza. His testimony will establish that the sign will
have no adverse public impact whatsoever and will be useful to the
public who enter on the shopping plaza to look for Best and this
will be an appropriate manner for them to be able to use their sign
allowance which is allowed them under the Code but which they are
practically unable to use because of the obstruction of their
facade.
5
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Driscoll: Better identify yourself, Ms. Sampson, for the record.
Sampson: Yes, my name is Susan Sampson. My business address is
Sampson, Wilson & Coombs, 450 Shattuck Avenue S. in Renton, 98055.
Driscoll: Do you promise that the testimony you are to give in
this matter will be the truth? If so, please respond I do.
Clifford Minn: I do. O.k. My name is Clifford Minn. I 'm from
Lumin Art Signs in Auburn, Washington, business address is 1118 A
Street SE, Auburn, WA 98002 and we're here on behalf on our
customer, Best Fabrics. We requested a variance from the sign code
for additional signage on behalf of Best Fabrics. At this
location, Best Fabrics is unable to use their facade sign allowance
due to an unique architectural features of this shopping center.
We occupy the inside corner of an L-shaped building which is set
back from the parking lot by a covered walkway which obstructs over
one-half of the tenant frontage. Because of this architectural
obstruction we cannot use our total frontage allotment and, thus,
our request for additional signage. I would like, at this time, to
present some exhibits that will demonstrate our reasoning. And,
since I don't have the transparencies available, I ask that I may
approach the desk there.
Driscoll: Fine.
Minn: What we have here, sir, is a plot map. . .
Driscoll: Let' s mark this as an exhibit so we' ll. . .what exhibit
will this be, Chris. Three? O.k. Correct.
Minn: And. . .and this particular exhibit, sir, what we have is a
general plot plan of the Kent Hill Plaza Shopping Center. The
yellow line. . . .the yellow area indicates where Best Fabrics is
located. There again, as per Alice's transparencies, you can see
where that covered trans. . .excuse me, the covered walkway is in
relation to the tenant frontage.
Driscoll: That is the square here?
Minn: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Driscoll• O.k.
Minn: O.k. Now, one of the things that we've noticed in this. . . in
this particular. . . . in reference to this particular drawing is
that. . .this. . . is that the Best Fabrics sign. . .well. . . in just. . . in
W 6
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
explanation of the area surrounding it, the area surrounding the
plaza is a heavily developed area with a majority. . .over here being
Kent-Kangley Road which is a very heavy traffic flow area. This is
the west. . .north end of Smith Street and we have found that this is
the primary entrance to the Kent Hill Plaza; 104th, down here,
across from Best Fabrics is an undeveloped area of brush and marsh
area and the traffic flow is not nearly as heavy down at this
particular entrance as it is in all the others. Here we have an
overview of the entrances coming off 260th Street. . .step back a
little bit and from this point you can see the long visibility that
you have down toward the corner where Best Fabrics is.
Driscoll: How far is it from Best Fabrics to the Kent-Kangley. . .
Minn Approximately two and a half blocks.
Driscoll: Two and a half blocks.
Minn Yes, sir.
Driscoll: Now, you are saying that the main entrance for the
traffic into this small shopping center is come off this
road. . .Kent-Kangley road and go through this other shopping center
by Albertsons and down into this shopping center.
Minn That is correct, sir. This is the primary entrance to the
shopping center. I might add that there is a stop light down here
or real good traffic control and leads people down 104th even
though the 260th is the main access for this area.
Driscoll: O.k. , so you're saying that traffic does come down 104th
onto 260th.
Minn A little bit, yes. But, I would argue that the primary
traffic flows comes off Kent-Kangley at the north end of Smith.
Now, what we are trying to do here is just establish a reasoning
behind our request for variance. One of the things we've found
see. . . from here, there is absolutely no visibility on the sign face
at all from this particular access. From access number. . .that we
have indicated on the plot plan number 3 , you can see that from
this point of entrance the front of Best Fabrics is obscured by
landscaping and so on and so forth. Now, access number 4 is. . .we
are getting better here. . .but, even so, this is a future site of a
building. From that point Best Fabrics frontage will be totally
obliterated as far as visibility. Even now, with the landscaping
on these parking islands it is. . . it's seriously handicapped. The
only place that you can see, as pointed out on the video, Best
7
Best Fabrics
JSV-90-2
verbatim Minutes
Fabrics, is from this access which I suggest is a
secondary. . .trinary access to the entrance of this parking and that
is the only area. Now, that is the reasoning behind that. This is
a more detailed. . .this is a copy of show there.
Driscoll: We' ll make this Exhibit 4. He's written on it, so we' ll
make these Exhibit 4. That will be the second site plan submittal
of the applicant. O.k. , sir.
Minn In reference to this, this as you can see, is just an
exploded view of this. The diagonal red area indicates the canopy
that is in question. You can see at this point how it does
encroach over the tenant's frontage. . .the tenant's frontage being
one of the viables that we come up with a square footage allotment
for any particular business. And you can see, as the canopy comes
out, it does, indeed, obstruct over half of the tenant frontage.
Driscoll: Now, you're saying that the red hatched area is a
canopy.
Minn Covered walkway.
Driscoll: Covered walkway.
Shobe: But the. . .the way you are describing it, you saying, that
it covers completely this facade. Only this dark red is where it
covers a portion of your facade.
Minn This goes back.
Shobe: Right, I know it goes back this way.
Driscoll: My question is what is the hatched area?
Minn Well, the hatched area is. . .o.k. , from the sidewalk area in
front of all these tenants.
Shobe: It doesn't. . . .there' nothing. . .
Driscoll: So, there's no cover. . . .
Minn It comes right back. (Unclear) straight back.
Driscoll: O.k. , how do you say that this blocks over half of the
front facade of Best Fabrics.
8
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Minn O.k. If I can take an example from these photographs here.
If I can just proceed on down on the line here in reference to both
these exhibits. This is the view from this entrance on into this
parking lot here.
Driscoll: Entrance 1?
Minn Entrance 1, and what we have here. . .at the arrow will
indicate where Best Fabrics is, indeed, located and that unit right
there is the front of that covered canopy. O.k. , and there again,
proceeding down to entrance 2, this alleyway that goes behind that
Sears Surplus store, as you can see, the visibility on the canopy
and, at this point, you can. . .you're beginning to be able to see
the sign. But, at this point, the sign really doesn't matter. . . . it
doesn't add to the legibility of the sign because of the extreme
angle that you would be reviewing it from. O.k. Now, entrance
number 3, there again, this is from this point right here. As you
see the landscaping. . . .the landscaping that is required in these
parking islands is. . . is causing the obstruction from the site at
that area right there. As I said what we are doing, we are just
setting a foundation as to why or a reason behind requesting a
variance from this particular spot. Now, number 4, here, is from
this point right here and as you can see that undeveloped area here
is a future building site and from that point Best Fabrics will not
be visible at all when the building is built. Now, proceeding
down, this is the view from this entrance right there and there you
can see that you do. . .you have a limited visibility on the sign
face. But, in conjunction with that particular sign, this is the
covered canopy. This is a (unclear) .
Driscoll: Would not the other stores, Frederick & Nelson Red Tag
store, a (unclear) store, six-stores, Sears Surplus, would they not
also have the same problems from viewing the signs from 104th
(unclear) ?
Minn: Well, no sir, I don't believe so. The first part, the angle
in which the majority of traffic sees these signs from, well, this
has since been vacated, but, for all intents and purposes,
(unclear) Sears, I don't believe they will have the same problem.
What they have here is the option to use the full extent of their
sign allotment that the City will allow because of their open store
front here that is not obstructed as is Best Fabrics is. Now, with
Best Fabrics because of that obstruction, that architectural
obstruction, they cannot take full advantage of their signs. . .their
sign allotment and that's one of the reasons we are
approaching. . .asking for this variance here.
9
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Driscoll: O.k. , we can't take full allotment or full advantage of
their sign allotment and as I understand, the City presentation,
the total facade is what 1200 square feet. . . 15. . .what is the figure
on that; 1850 square feet, is that correct. And visible facade is
814 square feet. As I understand the City, they are saying that
they could be given a sign that was 185 square feet so the City is
allowing them, are they not, the full advantage of the facade, ten
percent of that, for signs?
Minn: Yes, sir. And, what we are asking and presenting to the
City, here, is to take advantage of that. . .that area that is
allowed to us. However, because of the nature of this covered
canopy. That it does obstruct. . .the walkway here. . .we are asking
that we might be, and I ' ll introduce those in turn, the signage
where it will achieve its maximum effectiveness for Best Fabrics.
Driscoll: If this variance were granted, would you remove the
existing sign?
Minn: No sir.
Driscoll: So, you would have two signs?
Minn: That is correct. We would have two signs that were on
opposite points and not visible at the same time.
Driscoll: Are there any other stores in this shopping center or
the adjoining shopping center that have two signs and two
(unclear) .
Shobe: The only one that would be. . . for instance, this one right
here. When you have the advantage of two facades that face two
different streets and frontages. . .this one I 'm not sure if they
do. . .but they could have a sign here and a sign here. I think they
do too.
Driscoll: You're talking about the building in the very southwest
corner of the. . . .
Shobe: Correct, or, again, if you were this one could have a sign
here and a sign here.
Driscoll: Right. How about any of the internal stores. Do they
have. . . .
Shobe• No.
10
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
• Driscoll• O.k.
Minn: O.k. , this is. . .this exhibit number 6, I believe?
Driscoll: Chris, is this six or five?
Chris Holden: Five.
Driscoll: Five, exhibit no. 5.
Minn: This is a. . .that is an elevation drawing of the Best Fabrics
storefront from the 104th Street elevation.
Driscoll: O.k. , go ahead.
Minn: All right. Now, sir, this is, as I said, an elevation
drawing of the Best Fabrics. What we have here is a symmetrical
building and I 'm referring to the windows drawn on the print. Now,
Best Fabrics, has as many windows, which is six, to the right of
this doorway as they do to the left. Now, that just goes to
illustrate how much of this canopy which is a side view of that
canopy encroaches over the tenant frontage. O.k.
Driscoll: Are the windows the same size.
Minn: Yes, sir, yes sir, its a symmetrical building. And, what we
have here. . .this is the size of the existing signage. . .two and a
half feet or 30 inches; overall 26 feet 3 inches; that's currently
what' s up there now.
Driscoll: O.k. What's the total square footage of that, 60?
Minn: Yes, 66 square feet.
Driscoll: So you're, so you're, how many feet. . .square feet short
of your total?
Minn: Yeah, 185 and we're what about a third. O.k, now, the point
of this illustration was indeed to show how the canopy, covered
walkway, does encroach on the sign face. . .excuse me on the building
facade. These are. . .well, these are the drawing of your
transparencies and what we have here, sir, are two (unclear) . This
would be exhibit number 6 is a frontal elevation of the canopy sign
or the proposed signs, excuse me, on the covered walkway and what
we are at is, we have figured, these signs, these proposed signs to
be. . .proposed signage would be about 27. . . .this would be 27.405
square feet. Now, that plus the existing signage would bring us up
11
Best Fabrics
JSV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
to 92 square feet. There again, just about half of what Best
Fabrics is allotted for this location. Now, as most, a lot of
proposals that go through sign companies, positions of signs
change, at customer's and City's discretion, so it is now my
understanding that this sign will not be visible with the Best
Fabrics sign at the same time. It will actually be on this
elevation, the east elevation.
Driscoll: Why, do you have any idea, why they want it on the east
elevation? It sounds contrary to your presentation.
Minn: I have no idea, sir. It is, as far as I can see, it is. The
majority of traffic flow that enters into this center views this
station, quite honestly, and this entry does have the best
visibility. Why they chose over there, I really couldn't say.
Driscoll: But, is it your contention that people just come to this
store on an impulse? They look up and see the sign. . .
Minn: No, sir. Quite the opposite. People are coming to the Best
Fabrics because it is a specialty store. The items they sell are,
well I shouldn't say specialty store but it is a very specific
retail store. It is our contention that the customer that are
looking for Best Fabrics are having a more. . . .well, having a more,
well, having an unusually difficulty time locating the store by
nature of the sign placement as it is now.
Driscoll: Is there any master sign on this site that identifies
all of the stores in the shopping center?
Minn• No.
Shobe: There's not one. But, I was going to point out that the
sign. . . (unclear) is permitted, freestanding sign that can list
all. . . (unclear) .
Driscoll: O.k. All right.
Minn: All right. And the last thing that we have would be the
item 7. Again, this is a secondary or an optimal view of. . .that
was proposed to Best Fabrics. It is also an elevation of the
canopy frontage and there, again, our use is still (unclear) size,
excuse me, option B as I indicated in my notes. The Best Fabrics
sign is 24 square feet. There in conjunction with that 66 is still
well, well under what is allotted to this location through the City
Codes.
12
Best Fabrics
ISV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
Driscoll. O.k.
Minn: So, I think, in summation, Mr. Examiner, what we're asking
for not special favors in this particular application but just
acknowledgement of Best Fabrics problem that is. . . incurs because of
this architectural design within the building itself, within the
structure of the center itself. I might go on to add briefly that
the signage that is proposed is of. . . in accordance and as. . .already
been approved by the Vysis Corporation, the folks that manage this
area, they have a strict and very regimented sign code. These
signs will not be visible from the public right of way. They are
designed specifically to be visible from the parking lot and we
hope by that not to raise any traffic problems or have any traffic
consideration of that kind. It will offer no distraction to the
folks on public roads and there again the signs themselves are no
bigger and they are a lot smaller than many of the signs that are
already in this location, I believe.
Driscoll: Ms. Sampson do you have anything else on this.
Sampson: I have nothing further. I think it might be useful to
run the video one more time though to demonstrate in particular how
the sidewalks are recessed into the frontage of the building.
There was discussion on whether nothing covered the sidewalks here.
The sidewalks are covered by the overhanging building.
Driscoll: I understand both positions on this and I will consider
both of them. I will take the matter under advisement and I will
be issuing my decision no later than August 1 which is ten working
days from today. For the record I will admit the staff report and
the exhibits that are attached to it and all the other exhibits
that have been submitted today. They will be identified in the
report. Then they will include all of what Mr. Minn submitted.
Also, your brief will be considered an exhibit as well as the
photographs. Did you get the photographs. Let see how many
photographs there are. There appears to be four photographs.
Proud: Before we officially close the hearing can I ask just as a
matter of procedure here.
Driscoll• Sure.
Proud: I guess I 'm not real sure what was submitted in terms of
this brief and if there's any comment or anything that should be
reviewed by staff prior to. . .typically we send out staff reports to
the applicant a week ahead of time to review what staff s comments
13
Best Fabrics
JSV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
are before we come to the hearing and I guess I 'm not real sure
what. . .
Driscoll: So you were given the brief at the time I was this
afternoon.
Proud: Yeah, I have no idea what this is.
Driscoll: So in other words what you're asking for is that the
City would like time to respond to this brief.
Proud: At least have the time to look at it to see if there' s any
comments in here to be clarified.
Driscoll: How long would you need?
Proud: A week, five working days, maybe?
Driscoll: Fine, that's only fair.
Proud: Especially in relation to. . .there's typically a lot of
confusion that the public on the 20 percent facade. Where they are
talking here about the signs. . .what we calculate the facade. . .we're
talking about the entire shopping center. Typically where this, I
was going to draw a schematic but it never came up, on how that is
calculated in relation to corner buildings so they don't get more
signs compared to all the internal people. We tie them to a limit
of 20 per cent of the aggregate signs. You can have three wall
signs but no more. . .but none of the combined signs can equal ten
percent of the front facade and for corner buildings or for corner
tenants we. . .that's where kind of this aggregate signage comes in.
Driscoll: Is that set forth in the Zoning Code.
Proud: The language is there, the interpretation is something that
we've been using for years. So, so its the 20 percent has to do
with the aggregate of the entire front facade of the particular
shopping center and typically, in practicality, when you begin to
start counting the fact that everybody's guaranteed 30 percent or
guaranteed a 30 square foot sign, the aggregate signage is
permitted for a shopping center facade falls flat on its face and
we just typically by the ten percent front facade unless its a
corner.
Voice: The reason why she's verifying it, is when .you (unclear)
first, you said 20 percent of the front facade is permitted for a
14
Best Fabrics
#SV-90-2
Verbatim Minutes
wall sign. Twenty percent of the aggregate and ten percent of the
individual facade.
Sampson: If that's what I said, I do stand corrected. What the
Zoning Code provides is that for units in a shopping center, total
signage permitted is 20 percent, that devoted to wall signs is 10
percent.
Driscoll: The Zoning Code will speak for itself. I can interpret
that. I will allow the City, I won't change my date of giving my
findings out. I will allow the City until next Wednesday to
respond. If you do respond, make sure you serve on that date or
before that date a copy onto, or send Ms. Sampson a copy, don't
need to serve her, so if she has any, so she has enough time prior
to the August 1 date if she wants to give any kind of response to
your cross-statement. And, if either of you ladies submit exhibits
or submit, they will be admitted as exhibits and they will be
identified. And, so, I wonder if I 'm rushing myself there. What
I ' ll do, I ' ll knock my decision back to August 3, two days so just
in case Minn or Sampson wants to submit something to me I will have
the time to at least look it over.
Sampson: What is the address to which. . .
Driscoll: Submit it to. . .
Proud: Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Kent Planning
Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S.
Driscoll: And you can fax that to me, could you not. If fact you
can fax your response to me too. My fax number is 628-0953 . O.k. ,
thank you.
15
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Action:
Councilmember Vu moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through H be appr ed.
Discussion
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
October 2, 1990.
� I
3B Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 22 ,
1990 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 4:30 p.m. on October 23 , 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/5/90 142399 - 143126 $830, 188. 63
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
October 2, 1990
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7:00 p.m. by Mayor Kelleher. Present: Councilmembers Dowell,
Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public
Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Frederik-
sen, Information Services Director Spang, Personnel Director Olson,
Finance Director McCarthy and City Clerk Jensen. Parks Director
Wilson and Assistant City Administrator Hansen were not in
attendance. Approximately 60 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC (PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1A)
COMMUNI- Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced
CATIONS that Janet Shull of the Planning Department has
been selected as Employee of the Month for October.
He noted that she works as a Planner, and has
served on a number of appointed committees and
successfully completed Phase I of the Senior Hous-
ing Study. Planning Director Harris noted that
working with Ms. Shull is a pleasure and expressed
appreciation for her many contributions to the
City.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1B)
"We Care. . . . .The United WaVIT. Mayor Kelleher read
a proclamation declaring the week of October 8
through October 19, 1990 as the official City of
Kent Employees United Way Campaign period and urged
City employees to lend their support to this commu-
nity program. George Daniel, South Division Chair,
thanked the City for their support.
(PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - ITEM 1C)
Books for Kids Dave The Mayor proclaimed October
31 1990 as Books for Kids Day in the City, and
noted that this program supplies new books to many
children who have few or no books in their homes.
Wally Gomes noted that the program will be solicit-
ing the financial support of the community. He
encouraged donation of new books at any library or
at participating booksellers, and thanked the City
for their support.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through J
CALENDAR be approved. Johnson seconded and the motion
carried.
1
October 2, 1990
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 18, 1990
with the following correction: Information Servic-
es Director Spang arrived late and was therefore
not listed among those present.
STREETS (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 2A)
LID 335 - 77th Ave. Improvements. This date has
been set for the public hearing on the confirmation
of the final assessment roll for LID 335. Public
Works Director Wickstrom noted that the project
includes the improvement of 77th Ave. S. from
S. 212th to S. 202nd St. and S. 206th St. from
77th Ave. S. to the west end at the UPRR railroad
tracks. The project includes the following im-
provements:
1. • Curb and gutter
2. Cement concrete sidewalks (except along the railroad ROW)
3. Widened roadway, 36 feet between curbs
4. Storm drainage system including biofiltration
5. Street lighting (installed'on Puget Power poles)
6. Street trees (where possible)
7. Sanitary sewer and water main stubs to properties as required
8. Channelization and traffic signing
9. Traffic signal at the intersection of S. 212th Street and 77th
Avenue South
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Wicks-
trom clarified for David Nuss of McCann Construc-
tion that after passage of the ordinance confirming
the final assessment roll, there is a 30-day period
during which any portion or all of the assessment
can be paid without interest charges. Payments are
made over a ten year period.
Glen Dodge of Emerald City Chemical stated that
there is a discrepancy as to whether he or the City
owns approximately 6000 square feet of property on
77th Ave. and that it appeared his only recourse is
to take this matter to court. Regarding the as-
sessment, he noted that the monthly payment would
be $1600-$1700 which is 60% of the rental income
and there is no way to increase income. Dodge
noted that Seattle Auto Auction occupies property
2
October 2, 1990
STREETS in the area and that they generate approximately
40% of the traffic on the road, yet they are out-
side the zone and therefore not required to pay for
the improvements. He expressed hope that this
problem can be taken care of without going to
court. There were no further comments from the
audience and ORR MOVED that the public hearing be
closed. White seconded and the motion carried.
Upon White' s question, Wickstrom explained that the
property line dispute is simply a matter of two
different interpretations. He noted that Seattle
Auto Auction is paying their share of the improve-
ment to 206th. Dodge noted that most of the traf-
fic goes to a location which is not included in the
LID.
WHITE MOVED to accept the Public Works Director' s
memorandum as part of the record and for the City
Attorney to be directed to prepare the ordinance
confirming the final assessment roll for LID 335.
Dowell seconded. Motion carried. (Johnson was out
of the room for this hearing and did not vote. )
Upon Woods' question, Wickstrom stated that the
dispute regarding the property line will have to be
handled by the attorneys. He also noted for her
that he recommends proceeding with this project,
while working with the property owner to resolve
the dispute. He pointed out that the City is still
acquiring rights-of-way. Wickstrom stated that
part of the existing pavement of the property in
question is encumbered, so that even at worst there
would be adverse possession because the pavement
already exists on portions of that property.
Dodge said that the fence line has been wrong for
40 years and that adverse possession would not
apply to this taking of 20 feet at the north prop-
erty line and putting their fence out in the City' s
road.
City Attorney Lubovich noted for White that his
office has given approval to go ahead with work on
the project. The Mayor then directed Wickstrom to
proceed as he has been.
3
October 2, 1990
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
LID 331. AUTHORIZATION to set November 6 as the
date for a public hearing on the final assessment
roll for LID 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvements.
(BIDS - ITEM 5A)
LID 335 - 77th Ave. Improvements. Bid opening was
held on August 24th. Active Construction submitted
the low bid in the amount of $1, 057 , 084 . 44 and
staff recommends that this bid be accepted. DOWELL
SO MOVED, Orr seconded and the motion carried.
STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
VACATION Street Vacation. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1260
setting a public hearing for November 6, on the
application of Kelly's Cafe Americana, Inc. for
vacation of a portion of S. Central Pl.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
CONTROL Arterial classification System. APPROVAL of the
County's revision of the arterial classification of
S. 272nd/S. 277th St. from Urban Minor to Urban
Principal Arterial.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Crosswalk on S. Central. Al Varney, owner of a
business located at 1303 S. Central, noted that
there is a distance of over 2 1/2 miles on Central
without any way for pedestrians to cross to Aukeen
Court and the Corrections Facility. He urged the
Council to look into the possibility of setting
aside funds to put in a crosswalk and a light for
pedestrians. WOODS MOVED that this item be re-
ferred to the Public Works Committee. Houser
seconded. The motion carried. Woods asked that
Mr. Varney be contacted as to the time of the
Public Works Committee meeting. Dowell noted that
the Committee is aware of this request, but that
funds are not available at this time. Varney asked
that it be funded in the future.
WALKWAY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
VACATION Beck Request for vacation of Walkway East Side of
Parkside Division #2 Plat. An application has been
made by Brian C. and Janice M. Beck to vacate a
portion of Tract "A" of Parkside Division #2 Subdi-
vision. Tract "A" is located between Military Road
and 38th Ave. S. at the north end of Parkside #2 .
4
October 2 , 1990
WALKWAY Planning Director Harris pointed out the area
VACATION and explained that during the discussion on Park-
side Plat in 1976, it was decided that there should
be no access onto Military Road because it is a
major arterial. He noted that this leaves 2700 '
with no access from 38th to Military Road. Harris
recommended that this issue be deferred so that the
staff can work on it further, and that it be for-
warded to an appropriate committee.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Byron Beck,
25203 36th P1. S. , noted that the walkway creates
problems such as vandalism, broken fences, and
graffiti. He noted that police reports are on
file. He also noted that there is a steep grade at
the end of the walkway and that children on bikes
often can't stop until they are onto Military Road.
He noted there is no crosswalk on Military, and
proposed that the walkway be closed. David McCaug-
han agreed with Beck, and noted that there is no
crosswalk to the Yorkshire area, that the only
crosswalks are at Reith Road to the south, and one-
and-a-half blocks north. Lucille Kemp agreed that
there has been trouble since the walkway went in.
Joe McVicar, 25334 36th P1. S. , urged the Council
to deny this request. He stated that he uses the
walkway every day on the way to the bus because it
is the only convenient way to get to Military Road.
He noted that his children use the walkway to get
to friends homes in Yorkshire, and he does not want
them to have to walk along Military Road. He
stated that they also experience vandalism even
though they are not near the walkway.
Chief Frederiksen noted that they have investigated
reports of vandalism in the area.
Greg Wingard, 18848 S.E. 269th, voiced opposition
to the vacation and suggested that the residents
participate in the Block Watch Program. Joe
Hembree urged the Council to vacate the walkway
because it is dark and unsafe. McCaughan reiterat-
ed that people have to go north or south to cross
legally in a crosswalk. McVicar stated that cross-
ing any intersection is legal, and he is not cross-
ing illegally when he uses the walkway. He also
pointed out that it is the fences that make
5
October 2, 1990
WALKWAY the area dark, and that they have gone up in the
VACATION last year. McCaughan responded that the fences are
necessary to keep pedestrians off private property.
There were no further comments and JOHNSON MOVED to
close the public hearing. Woods seconded and the
motion carried. WHITE THEN MOVED that action on
this application be deferred and that the matter be
sent to the Public Works Committee so that a solu-
tion can be worked out. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Minshull/Wagner Rezone. ADOPTION of Ordinance No.
2945 approving this rezone in accordance with
Council action on September 18th and August 21st.
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
PLAT Westbrook Commerce Center Time Extension. APPROVAL
of a one-year time extension for the Westbrook
Commerce Center Preliminary Plat, as recommended by
staff.
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
AMENDMENTS - Group Homes - Planning Commission Recommendations.
GROUP HOMES This meeting has been established to consider
recommendations made by the Planning Commission to
the City Council concerning zoning code changes for
group homes. The Planning Commission made their
recommendations after considering the Group Homes
Committee's final report.
Rebecca Solomon, who chaired the Mayor' s committee,
noted that details of the Planning Commission' s
recommendations were shown in Exhibit A, distribut-
ed as a part of the packet. Janet Shull explained
the proposed changes including:
o Recommendations to add definitions in the zoning code for
family and Class I, II, and III group homes, including a
siting matrix and dispersion/separation requirements.
o A proposed licensing and monitoring program and
conditional use permit criteria for Class II and III
group homes, and,
o background information on the proposed licensing,
monitoring and condition use permit criteria.
6
October 2, 1990
ZONING CODE The final report of the Mayor's Advisory Committee
AMENDMENTS - on Group Homes was distributed with the agenda and
GROUP HOMES contains' the findings and the recommendations of
the committee. The recommendations are as follows:
Action Item One: Amend the current Kent Zoning Code to Implement the following:
A. Definition of Family
B. Definition of Class I, 11 and III Group Homes
C. Group Homes Siting Matrix
D. Separation and Dispersion Requirements for Class 11 and III Group Homes
Key Players: Planning Department Staff, Planning Commissioners, and City
Councilmembers.
Target Date: City Council adopts Fall, 1990
Action Item Two: Establish Conditional Use Permit Criteria for Group Homes.
Key Players: Planning Department Staff, Planning Commissioners, and City
Councilmembers.
Target Date: City Councils adopts in early 1991
Action hem Three: Establish Licensing and Monitoring Systems.
This Action Item Includes assigning a staff person to the monitoring of group homes
once the licensing and monitoring systems are in place.
Key Plavers: Planning Department Staff, Planning Commissioners, and City
Councilmembers.
Target Date: Have systems in place by end of 1991.
Shull explained that Class I group homes could be
for developmentally disabled and/or handicapped and
could be located in a single family residential
zone.
Class II was described as groups of juvenile of-
fenders and people undergoing rehabilitation for
drug or alcohol abuse. This class could be located
in multi-family or commercial zones. Class III
would cover those convicted of a violent crime, or
sexual predator.
Shull noted that Class II & III are subject to the
separation and dispersion requirements and must
meet the criteria established for the conditional
use requirements.
In answer to questions from the Council, she deter-
mined that these regulations would allow Class III
only in commercial or industrial zones and
7
October 2, 1990
ZONING CODE further that both II & III would require licenses,
AMENDMENTS - similar to business licenses and would be
GROUP HOMES monitored.
Linda Martinez, chair of the Planning Commission,
pointed out that outright banning of group homes is
not permitted and that the guidelines were estab-
lished so that the Hearing Examiner would know what
the Commission wanted. Commissioner Tracy Faust
pointed out that group homes could not be excluded
from the city but could be regulated. She suggest-
ed that Kent is the first city to propose control-
ling the group homes by establishing regulations.
She suggested to White that the license fees could
pay for the cost of monitoring. Fred Satterstrom
of the Planning Department stated that monitoring
would be done more than annually and especially so
if any complaints are received. Faust pointed out
that we are talking about a zoning matter not a
policing matter. Shull pointed out that the state
would be responsible also for monitoring. Chief
Frederiksen noted that the Police Department is
required to evaluate the criminal record of any
Class III participant. Both Mann and White object-
ed to Class III. Faust noted that if we had no
Class III, those who came under that category would
be permitted in Class II, which could mean sexual
predators in apartments. White suggested that if a
sizable bond were required for Class III groups,
applicants might be scarce.
JOHNSON MOVED to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation regarding proposed zoning changes
for group homes but to delete the reference to
Class III. Mann seconded. Woods offered as a
friendly amendment, to send Class III back for
further consideration, but this was rejected as a
friendly amendment. The motion and second were
withdrawn and ORR MOVED to adopt the recommenda-
tions on proposed zoning changes for Class I and II
and to include III as a class, subject to modifica-
tion by the Planning Committee before being fully
adopted. Houser seconded.
It was clarified for Dowell that this committee was
appointed by the Mayor, and that a question of
zoning for a group home at James and Alvord pointed
out the need for clarification of the Kent code.
8
w October 2, 1990
ZONING CODE Solomon noted that the Fair Housing Act of 1988 had
AMENDMENTS - motivated the study and the resulting recommenda-
GROUP HOMES tions. White and Mann noted that they could not
support the motion. White suggested an amendment
to change the definition of a family unit back to
its original wording, to require licensing for
Class I group homes and to require a minimum
$1, 000, 000 bond for all Class II homes to assure
compliance with the rules. His suggestion was not
supported and his motion to table the matter
failed, with only Dowell, Mann and White supporting
it. White noted that the proposal needs further
work before he could support it.
Russell Swenson of 3714 S. 239th, stated that the
federal government is bringing criminally insane
prisoners to the local prisons, and in turn local
prisoners are being released into society, increas-
ing the need for group homes. He stated that there
is money to be made in the group homes programs.
Greg Wingard favored the program, stating that we
need rules to deal with particular situations.
Don Knapp spoke against Class III homes in residen-
tial areas.
Floyd Bacon stated that Kent did not have to be the
pilot program and that he had objection to Class I.
Don Pugerude feared that Kent would become popular
as a place for group homes.
Mayor Kelleher reiterated that the motion had to do
only with Class I and Class II.
Jean Alexander, 11808 SE 236th, spoke in favor of
group homes for the developmentally disabled.
Mann noted that he could support Class I and Class
II. Dowell stated that he had no problem with
having a handicapped neighbor but objected to a
group home in a residential neighborhood. He read
the definition of Group Homes, Class I, to be
permitted outright, noting much leeway is allowed
for groups as large as 10 people. White asked that
9
October 2, 1990
ZONING CODE the City Attorney research the legality of requir-
AMENDMENTS ing a cash bond for Class II since this group would
GROUP HOMES include *recovering alcoholics and drug users wheth-
er they were in the program as volunteers or not.
Orr clarified that Class II would require a license
and would be monitored. Dowell noted that the
members of the advisory committee all had something
to do with handicapped in one way or another.
Rebecca Solomon stated that other citizens also
served on this committee. Orr complimented the
committee and the Planning Department for all of
the work over many months. Upon a roll call vote,
Orr's motion passed with Dowell, Mann and White
voting against.
Upon Janet Shull 's question, Orr clarified that the
Planning Commission's recommendations were accepted
as they pertained to Class I and Class II and to
acknowledge Class III as a category but to defer
action on Class III.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
Drinking Driver Task Force. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of
donations to the Task Force for support of the
Parent Education Program activities as follows:
Bell-Anderson Agency, Inc. - $100
Mountain High Burger Company - $50
Scenic Hill PTA - $100
FIRE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Station 76 . ACCEPTANCE of Fire Station 76 as
complete, under the Mar Jon contract.
MAYOR'S (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
POSITION Administrative Restructuring/Mayor's Pay. At the
Council meeting on August 21, 1990, Councilmember
Johnson proposed that the structure of the City's
Administrative Section be changed, and moved that
his proposal be referred to the City's Management
Study Committee. Councilmember Mann stated that he
would have an alternate proposal and MOVED to table
Johnson' s motion until he could present his alter-
nate proposal. Mann's proposal is in the form of a
resolution which leaves the Mayor's position part-
time and increases the annual compensation.
10
October 2 , 1990
MAYOR'S WOODS MOVED that Johnson' s motion be removed from
POSITION the table. Orr seconded and the motion carried.
Mayor Kelleher explained that Johnson's motion to
refer this matter to the City's Management Study
Committee is now before the Council. The motion
was defeated with only Johnson in favor. Mann
distributed copies of Resolution No. 1262 reaffirm-
ing the Mayor-Council form of government and pro-
viding for a cost of living increase to Mayor Dan
Kelleher and MOVED for adoption. Houser seconded
and the motion carried. (White was out of the room
and did not vote. )
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through October 3, 1990 after audit-
ing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
2 : OOp.m. on October 9, 1990.
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/17 - 9/28/90 96543 - 96558 $138, 126.74
10/1/90 96559 - 97025 678 , 405 . 10
$816, 531.84
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/90 141691 - 142398 $830, 838.24
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Resolution for Interfund LID Loans. ADOPTION of
Resolution No. 1261 approving interfund loans for
LIDS 329, 331, 333 and 335, as recommended by the
IBC and the Operations Committee.
The Council has previously approved interfund loans
for LIDS but no formal documentation was incorpo-
rated in ordinances creating LIDS No. 329, 331, 333
and 335. Bond Counsel has prepared this resolution
to formally authorize interfund loans when borrow-
ing money to perform local improvement district
construction prior to the issuance of bonds and
receipt of the bond proceeds. Future interfund
loan authorizations will be included in the specif-
ic ordinance creating LIDS.
11
October 2 , 1990
REPORTS (REPORTS - ITEM 7A)
Council President. Woods reminded Councilmembers
to make their reservations for the Suburban Cities
meeting to be held October 10th in Federal Way.
(REPORTS - ITEM 7E)
Public Safety Committee. Mann distributed copies
of a revised and amended noise ordinance and asked
Councilmembers to examine it.
EXECUTIVE (REPORTS - ITEM 7G)
SESSION Administrative Reports. At 10: 35 p.m. , City Admin-
istrative Chow requested an executive session of 5-
10 minutes to discuss pending litigation.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Marie Jens , CMC
City Cler
12
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 335 77
-tk Ovevu-a, S&e.�
J
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No.
confirming the final assessment roll for LID 335.
3 . EXHIBITS:\ Ordinance
r
4. RECOMMENDED Y:
(Committee, \Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_� YES
FISCAL PERSONNEL TE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED�. $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember m'pves, Councilmember seconds
4
1
l
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
i
i
I
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, approving and confirming the
assessments and the assessment roll of Local
Improvement District 335, which has been
created and established for the purposes of the
improvement of 77th Avenue South from 212th
Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street
from 77th Ave. South to the west end at the
railroad tracks including water and sewer
improvements; all as provided in Ordinance
2899; and the levying and assessing the amount
thereof against several lots, tracts, parcels
of land, and the properties shown on the roll.
WHEREAS, the assessment roll levying the special
assessments against the properties located in Local Improvement
District No. 335 have been filed with the Clerk of the City of
Kent, as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of hearing thereon
land of making objections and protests as to the roll was duly
published at and for the time and in the manner provided by law,
fixing a time and place of hearing therefor for the 2nd day of
October, 1990 at the hour of 7 o'clock p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Kent, Washington, and
I further notice thereof was duly mailed by the City Clerk to each
property owner shown on the roll ; and
WHEREAS, the Council held such public hearings and
considered all written and verbal testimony before it; and
I
1
II
i WHEREAS, the Council finds that the lots, tracts, parcels
of land, and other properties within LID 335 are specially
benefited by the improvements in at least the amount charged
against the same; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I
j Section 1. The assessments and the assessment roll of
Local Improvement District No. 335 which has been created and
1established for the purposes of the improvement of 77th Avenue
South from 212th Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street
from 77th Ave. South to the west end at the railroad tracks
including water and sewer improvements be and the same is hereby
in all things and respects approved and confirmed in the total
lamount of $1,409, 510.
Section 2. Findings. Each of the lots, tracts, parcels
of land, and other properties shown upon the roll is hereby
determined and declared to be specifically benefited by the
j improvements in at least the amount charged against the same, and
the assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the
jseveral assessments appearing on the roll. There is hereby levied
i
j and assessed against each lot, tract, parcel of land, and other
property appearing on the roll the amount finally charged against
the same thereon.
Section 3 . The assessment roll as approved and confirmed
shall be filed with the Supervisor of Treasury Accounting of the
City of Kent for collection, and the Supervisor of Treasury
Accounting is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice as
j required by law stating that the roll is in her hands for
i
- 2 -
i
I
i
collection and payment of any assessment thereof or any portion o
that assessment can be made at any time within thirty (30) days
from the date of the first publication of the notice without
penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter the sum remaining
unpaid shall be paid in ten (10) equal installments with interest
at an estimated rate of 9% per annum with the exact interest rate
to be fixed in the ordinance authorizing issuance and sale of the
LID bonds for LID 335. The first installments of assessments on
the assessment roll shall become due and payable during the thirt
(30) days succeeding the date one (1) year after the date of the
first publication by the Supervisor of Treasury Accounting of
notice that the assessment roll is in her hands for collection an
annually thereafter each succeeding installment shall become due
and payable in like manner. If the whole or any portion of the
assessment remains unpaid after the first thirty (30) day period,
interest upon the whole unpaid sum shall be charged at the rate asl
determined above, and each year thereafter one of the
installments, together with interest due on the whole unpaid
balance, shall be collected. Any installment not paid prior to
the expiration of the thirty (30) day period during which sum
installment is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent.
All delinquent installments shall be subject to a charge of
interest at the rate as determined above and for an additional
II charge of 9% percent penalty levied upon both principal and
interest due upon such installment or installments. The
collection of such delinquent installments will be enforced in the
manner provided by law.
3 -
Section 4 Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage,
approval and publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
I
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RO A. L OVfc , ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1990.
APPROVED the day of , 1990.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1990.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8990-320
4 -
~ - EXHIBIT 'A'
LID 335
77T11 AVENUE S. AND S. 206TH STREET IMPROVEMENT
(S. 212TIl ST. TO S. 202ND ST.) -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 4 and Section
12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East W.M. , King County, Washington
described as follows:
Portion of said Section 1 lying Easterly of C.M. and St. Paul ,
Railroad also known as Union Pacific Railroad and Westerly of
Burlington Northern Railroad;
AND ALSO
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter AND
the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 12
lying Easterly of C.M. & St. Paul Railroad also known as Union
Pacific Railroad, Westerly of Burlington Northern Railroad and
North of the North margin of South 212th Street;
EXCEPT that portion of said Section 12 described as follows:
That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of
East of C.M. and St. Paul Railroad right-of-way beginning at a
point 30 feet North of Centerline of O'Brien Road S. 212th Street
and 53 feet East of centerline of C.M. & St. . Paul Railroad main
line; thence N O100112211 East 425.51 feet; thence West 10 feet;
.thence ?! 01°.01122" Fast 29.49 feet; thence S 88058038/1 East 207.10
feet; thence S 2802810011 East 26.33 feet; thence S O1*0112211 West
443.40 feet; thence N 8505513811 West 210.15 feet to beginning less
road;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
The South 209 feet of the West 104.5 feet of the East 209 feet of
the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter less road;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
The East 104.5 feet of the South 209 feet of the Northeast quarter
of the Northwest quarter less the East 10 feet;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
That portion of undesignated Tract, Town of. Van lying West of Front
Street West 50 feet of South 200 feet of the Northwest quarter of
the Northeast quarter of Section 12 Township 22 North Range 4 East
less County road and the East 10 feet of the South 209 feet of the
Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section, less
County road;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
That portion of undesignated Tract, Town of Van West of Front
Street, the East 70 feet of the West 120 feet of the South 200 feet
of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 12,
Township 22 North, Range 4 East, less County road;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
That portion of undesignated Tract, Town of Van {Jest of 77th Avenue
South (Front Street) ; beginning 120 feet East of the Southwest
corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section
12, Township 22 North, Range 4 East; thence North 150 feet; thence
East 120 feet; thence South 150 feet; thence West 120 feet to the
True Point of Beginning less, County Road;
AND ALSO EXCEPT
That portion of undesignated Tract, Town of Van West of Front
Street; beginning 240 feet East of the Southwest corner of the
Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 22, Range 4
East; thence North 150 feet; thence East to the West line of Front
Street in Town of Van; thence Southerly to the South line of the
Northwest .quarter of the Northeast quarter; thence West to
Beginning, less County Road, less Easterly 60 feet measured
parallel to Front Street, less street.
312-89
EXHIBIT "B"
LID 335
77TH AVENUE S. AND S. 206T11 STREET IMPROVEMENT
(S. 212TH ST. .TO S. 202ND ST.)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
See Exhibit "A" attached and made a part hereto.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The project is the improvement of 77th Avenue South from S. 212th
Street to S. 202nd Street and S. 206th Street from 77th Avenue
South to the west end at the railroad tracks.
The project includes the following improvements:
1. Curb and gutter
2. Cement concrete sidewalks except along the railroad right-of-
way
3. Widened roadway,' 36 feet between curbs
4. Storm drainage system
5. Street lighting (installed on Puget Power poles)
6. Street trees
7. Channelization and traffic signing
8. Traffic signal at the intersection of S. 212th Street and 77th
Avenue South
It should be noted that the roadway has already been improved at
the northwest corner of 77th Avenue South and S. 206th Street.
Therefore, this portion of the roadway is not included in the
project.
WATER MAIN
Includes the installation of stubs from the existing water main to
the right-of-way line at various points within the project limits.
SANITARY SEWER
Includes the installation of• stubs from the existing sanitary sewer
main to the right-of-way line at various points within the project
limits.
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $1,261,704.10
LID SHARE: $1,261,704.10
W�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
Category Consent Calendar
$1. SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS
fi
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept as complete ontract with
Shoreline Construction for the miscellaneous sewer and water
improvements project and release of retainage after receipt of
releases from the state.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Director at Public Works
4. RECOMMENDED BY: '
(Committee, Staff, Exam er,` Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONkEL DEMCT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE:/-Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmemb/e� moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 11, 1990
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
U3
RE: Miscellaneous Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements
The contract for this project was awarded to Shoreline Construction
on February 20, 1990 for the bid amount of $249,289.41. Notice to
proceed was issued in April of 1990.
The project constructed water main improvements on 114th Avenue
S .E. , and sanitary sewer main improvements on James Street, State
Street and North Kennebeck. The final construction cost is
$247, 027. 02 . It is recommended the project be accepted as
complete.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16 . 1990
` Category Consent Calendar
r"
1. SUBJECT: 272ND/277TH CORRIDOR
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization for the Public Works Director to notify
King County that the City of Kent will reschedule the release of
our draft Environmental Impact Statement until early 1991 to
allow the County time to investigate a proposed alignment for
the S.E. portion of the corridor.
c
L
3 . EXHIBI' `" ' October 2 Public Works
Commit, ag County
L
4. RECOMME
(COMB ;sion, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETM FISCAL/PBR.gONtM I"ACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
Y
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 2, 1990
PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill
Leona Orr Tim Heydon
Steve Dowell Norm Angelo
Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust
Jim Hansen Al Varney
Carol Morris
L.I.D. 331 - S E 240th Street Imurovements
Wickstrom explained that at the beginning of this project we had
attempted to form two LID's - one for sewer and the other for the
street improvements. The one for sewer failed; however, the street
LID was formed. In conjunction with the street improvement, we
installed sewer crossings so that as properties developed they
would be able to connect to sewer without cutting the road. The
cost for these crossings was approximately $50,000. We had
originally planned to include this cost in the LID; however, the
LID costs have exceeded our original estimates. Thus, since the
cost of the sewer crossings are a legitimate expense of the sewer
utility, it is proposed to pay for this from the unencumbered sewer
fund. This will keep the LID assessments closer to the original
estimate. White asked if we have done this type of thing before.
Wickstrom explained it is not an uncommon practice and we did the
same type of thing on the Kent Kangley improvement project.
Wickstrom added that once the LID is finalized we will be asking
for a charge in lieu of assessment so that when the properties
connect they would reimburse the sewer fund for their appropriate
share of the cost. The Committee unanimously recommended approval
to transfer the $50,000 from the unencumbered sewer funds.
272nd/277th Corridor
-Wickstrom explained that we had previously met with members of King
County Council, King County Executive's office and King County
Public Works Department regarding this project. They have asked us
to defer finalizing our Environmental Impact Statement until
January to enable them to do some technical analyses as to how our
proposed alignments would fit with the proposed alignments of their
extension of the corridor to Highway 18. King County also wanted
to receive additional citizen input on their route alignment.
Wickstrom stated he would like formal Council concurrence with this
request. White asked when we are at risk of losing funding for the
corridor. Wickstrom stated that if Initiative 547 is approved then .
the gas tax issue is in question and that will jeopardize the
1i.>_ __ funding. White questioned if Council needs to be looking at their
•,' priorities and possibly think ni g about the 192nd/196th Corridor.
t White asked what would happen if the City determined not to build
the corridors. Wickstrom explained there were no other solutions.
The minor improvements to the existing system have been completed
and we still have intersections and roads at or exceeding capacity.
We know the 272nd/277th corridor provides a lot of benefit to our
East Hill area and to the Valley area along the 516 corridor, much
more relief than the 192nd/196th corridor would provide initially.
The Committee unanimously recommended the City defer the completion
of their EIS on the 272nd/277th corridor until January.
Street Utility
Wickstrom stated the growth management act requires concurrence of
the transportation system with the land use plan in order to allow
continued development. White asked if development could be shut
down unless the City improves its transportation system to comply
with its comprehensive plan. Wickstrom stated that we have two to
three vwarc
j
1 _ CITY OF KENT
,II II 2 3 1990
King county ENGINEERING DEPT.
Department of Public Works
goo King County Adniinistration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98104
(206)296-G500
July 18, 1990
Mr. Don Wickstrom, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Kent
200 Fourth Avenue
Kent, WA 98035
RE: Further Coordination of Southeast 277 Street Studies
Dear Mr. W' rom: V
This letter comes as a followup to the June 28, 1990 meeting between King
County Executive Tim Hill , Councilmembers Kent Pullen and Greg Nickels, and
Mayor Dan Kelleher. At this meeting, our respective elected officials
tentatively agreed to a modified course of action. The City of Kent will
reschedule the release of the North Corridor DEIS for early 1991 . King
County will have a draft version of the Southeast Corridor alternatives
analysis completed in December 1990.
Under this. new timeline, King County will also be able to examine the North
Corridor river crossing and hillclimb alternatives for compatibility with
the Southeast Corridor objectives. The additional time also gives both the
City and County further opportunity to involve concerned citizens in both
studies. I believe these efforts will benefit both projects.
We welcome the opportunity to work closely with you during our alternatives
analysis. We will develop additional citizen involvement options which may
include a citizen committee. I hope that the City will be able to
participate in this additional effort to provide better two-way,
communication with our citizens.
Mr. Wickstrom
July 18, 1990
Page 2
My staff will be contacting you in the near future to discuss these future
efforts. If you have any questions or concerns about the coordinated
project schedules, please call Bill Hoffman, Manager of the Transportation
Planning Section, at 296-6550.
Sincerely,
Paul Tanaka
Director
PT:WL:mv
cc: Kent Pullen, King County Councilmember
Greg Nickels, King County Councilmember
Tim Hill , King County Executive
Louis J. Haff, County Road Engineer
ATTN: Bill Hoffman, Manager, Transportation Planning Section
Wanda Lauderdale, Transportation Planner
JD. BiU A,
oF^: m
CitO{ c m Planning Department (206) 455-6880 • FAX (206) 637.7115
y I I� , Post Office Box 90012 • Bellevue, Washington • 98009-9012
Bellevue �-,ft �oz
SH1NG' �--
�D! U
July 16, 1990 u"� 'qf : I V rE D
i� 1..;i•i�.
Ni _ GuuNTY
Mr. Paul Tanaka
rJU l: 2 0 1990 PUBLIC YIORKS DIRECTOR
Director
King Co. Dept. of Public Works
900 King Co. Administration Bldg.
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Mr. Tanaka:
Thank you for your invitation to serve on King County' s
Transportation Management Technical Advisory Committee. I would
like to appoint Terry Morrison of my staff to serve on the
Committee in my place. She currently serves as co-chair of the
Eastside Transportation Program' s Transportation Demand Management
Subcommittee, and I believe her participation would provide some
continuity between both committees.
The City of Bellevue is committed to working with other local
governments to develop aggressive and coordinated demand management
programs aimed at reducing the demand for travel by single occupant
vehicles. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
3W
Bruce Freeland
Planning Director
cc: Tom Noguchi
Kay Kenyon
Terry Morrison
City of Bellevue offices are located at Main Street and 116th Avenue SE
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
2 . S Y S _ _-- As recommended by the Public Works
ommittee uthorization for a ayor o sign concurrence and
ado n of local Hazardous Waste Management plan for
Seattle-King County stating that any conditions or contingencies
pertaining to the adoption of the plan have been satisfied..,
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETEDUNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO > YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
1'
ENGINEERING DEPT.
PLANNING
GOVERNMENTS: August 8, 1990
King County
Mayor
Municipality of City of
Metropolitan Seattle
City of Seattle RE: Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County
Seattle-King County Dear Mayor
Department of Public
Health The Local Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Seattle-King County was reviewed
and recommended for approval by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum and was acted on
PARTICIPATING by twenty-two cities during the 120-day adoption period. However, there was variation
tURSAN in the language of the adoption ordinances or resolutions, and some resolutions
CrrlEs: contained qualifications. The Interlocal Forum wili seek to respond to these
Algona qualifications at their August 10 meeting. That meeting is intended to assure that we
Auburn have an adopted Plan which can be submitted to the State Department of Ecology.
Beaux Arts Village An approved Plan is a prerequisite to implementation of most of the Plan's programs
Bellevue and to receiving State implementation funds, which for the King County area are
Black Diamond estimated at over $850,000.
Bothell
Carnation
Clyde Hill Action Taken by Cities
Des Moines
Duvall Of those suburban cities taking formal action to approve or disapprove within the
Enumclaw prescribed 120-day period, cities representing ten percent of the incorporated
Hunts Point population adopted the Plan as recommended by the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
Issaquah (Group A in Attachment Cities such as Bellevue representing forty-nine percent of
Kent ( P ) P b' h'
Kirkland the incorporated population, made adoption contingent upon certain action by the
Lake Forest Park Interlocal Forum (Group B in Attachment). Cities, such as Renton, representing
Medina . forty-one percent of the incorporated population, made adoption contingent upon
Mercer Island requiring unanimity for certain actions by the Management Coordination Committee
Milton,;- (Group C in Attachment). Finally, some cities have taken no action to adopt the Plan
Normandy Park (Group D in Attachment). The attachment to this letter shows specifically which
North Bend cities fall into each category.
Pacific
Redmond
r 'ton
.-.,vkomish
Snoqualmie
Tukwila
Yarrow Point
Discussion of Bellevue Conditions
Nine cities adopted the Plan contingent on.agreement being reached through the Interlocal
Forum on:' 1•j•the.first year-budget, 2) details of the funding mechanism, 3) the evaluation
strategy, and 4) the manner of representation on the Management Coordination Committee. The
following discussion is designed to clarify these issues and to satisfy those contingencies. Several
of these issues were discussed by the Interlocal Forum in their review of the Plan, and are
addressed in the Plan or the Addendum as noted.
1) A copy of the 1991 budget proposed by the Management Coordination Committee is '
attached. The Management Coordination Committee is charged with preparing the
annual budget and implementation program for the Plan. This budget is approximately
$800,000 less than the 1991 budget estimated for the Plan. Because most programs will be
initiated next year, the first full year of Plan implementation, the budget is.generally
consistent with the first year (1990) budget included in the Plan. However, additional
money has been added for household hazardous waste collection to reflect the fact that
collection programs have been ongoing in 1990. The Wastemobile, specifically, is serving
more than twice the number of users estimated for 1991 and consequently disposal costs
are higher. This program has proven to be very popular with the public. In addition, the
matter of indirect cost has yet to be determined. Final approval of the budget will be the
responsibility of the Boards of Health, as part of the process of establishing the fee
ordinance.
2) We understand that one question regarding the funding mechanism pertains to how
r
multi-family residences are treated in regards to fees - i.e. are they considered commercial
accounts or residential accounts. Multi-family residences will be assumed to be residential
accounts, subject to the residential fee, provided that they can be separately identified for
purposes of billing. If they are categorized as commercial by the jurisdiction or hauler,
and cannot easily be separately identified, they will be considered commercial accounts. In
order to provide sufficient time to set and ratify the fee schedule, cities or haulers need to
notify the Health Department no later than September 15 if the number of commercial
and residential accounts needs to be adjusted..
Another question regarding the fees was whether cities that bill garbage customers directly
would have the flexibility to decide how to assess the fees. In that case their situation
would be same as that of Seattle. Seattle will contribute to the implementation fund an
amount based on a per account fee, but the Seattle Solid Waste Utility will determine how
this amount is generated (see page 3-33 in the Final Plan/EIS). This provides cities
another mechanism to adjust fees between commercial and residential accounts.
3) An evaluation strategy has been developed through a consultant, and a copy of it is
available for review. Application of this strategy will include data collection and analysis
by the agencies involved in implementation of the Plan. In addition, on a regular basis an
independent organization (such as the University of Washington) will conduct a review of
the entire program to determine if the direction of program implementation is
appropriate, and to make recommendations for change that would improve the program's
effectiveness or efficiency. This organization would publish a report that would be
2
provided to the Management Coordination Committee and made available to the public
(see page 10 of Addendum).
4) Representation on the Management Coordination Committee was described in the•..
Interlocal Forum's Addendum to the Seattle-King County Hazardous Waste Plan. The
Management Coordination Committee is composed of five members, one representative
each from King County, City of Seattle, Seattle/King County Department of Public
Health, Metro, and Suburban Cities Association. Geoff Ethelston of the Bellevue Public
Works Department is currently acting as the representative from the Suburban Cities (see
page 14 of Addendum).
Discussion of Management Coordination Committee Structure
Ten cities, including Renton, adopted the Plan with the provision that it be further amended
specifying the composition of the Management Committee and requiring unanimous agreement by
the Committee on the evaluation criteria, program design and reports, and on the annual plan
and budget. Representation on the Committee was addressed in the previous paragraph and is
consistent with the Renton language.
The Management Committee has functioned in a less formalized manner during the development
of the Plan, and has worked to coordinate budgets and programs for hazardous waste
management during that time. It has always operated with the principle of consensus for major
issues and will continue to do so. Unanimous approval for decisions is not specified in the Plan,
and we believe such a requirement is unnecessary. If a Committee Member has strong objections
regarding a major issue, we will continue to work towards consensus. Nor is the Committee the
only avenue for affecting decisions. Issues can be brought to the Interlocal Forum for discussion,
and directly to the Boards of Health who have responsibility for final budget approval.
Action to Take
We believe that this letter and the discussion by the Forum scheduled for August 10, 1990 should
resolve the concerns of the suburban cities who have acted to adopt the Plan. .To clarify whether
this is the case we are requesting that each city indicate its concurrence by sienine the attached
form. If there is concurrence from cities representing 75% of the population of those cities which
took action prior to June 1, then we have an adopted Plan which will be transmitted to Ecology.
If there is less than 75% concurrence that the above discussion addresses conditions raised in
local adoption resolutions, then we have no plan, we will be out of compliance with state law, and
subject to imposition of a plan by the State. We are urging all cities, whether or not they took
action prior to June 1, to indicate their concurrence.
3
We anticipate that we need to send the Plan, as amended by the Forum, to the Department
of Ecology, by November 1, 1990 in order for the Department to review and approve the
Plan prior to the deadline of December 31, 1990. Therefore, we urge early action by all
suburban cities on this matter, and no later than October 1' 1990. -
Sincerely,
AJ
Rod Hansen, Director Diana Gale, Director
King County Solid Waste Division Seattle Solid Waste Utility
m II e n Chuck Kleeberg, Director
ffice of p r Quality Environmental Health Division
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Geoff Ethelston, Manager
Utilities Intergovernmental Affairs
City of Bellevue
cc:Nancy Mathews, Councilmember, Renton; Chair, Suburban Cities Association
4
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PLAN ADOPTION STATUS
FOR THE SUBURBAN CITIES OF KING COUNTY
Cateeory A:' Adoption With No Contingencies*
Auburn
Beaux Arts
Yarrow Point
* Seattle and Metro. have also adopted the Plan with no contingencies
Category B: "Bellevue Version"
Bellevue
Bothell
Clyde Hill
Enumclaw
Federal Way
Hunts Point
Issaquah
Medina
Tukwila
Category C: "Renton Version"
Algona
Carnation
Duvall
Kent
Lake Forest Park
Mercer Island
Normandy Park
North Bend
Redmond
Renton
Category D: No Action Taken
Black Diamond
Des Moines
Kirkland
Pacific
SeaTac
Skykomish
Snoqualmie
CONCURRENCE IN ADOPTION OF
LOCAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SEATTLE-KING COUNTY
The City of has adopted the Local Hazardous Waste
Management Plan for Seattle-King County as amended on January 12, 1990:by the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. Any conditions or contingencies pertaining to that
adoption have at this time been satisfied.
The City of has not adopted the Local Hazardous Waste
Management Plan for Seattle-King County as amended on January 12, 1990-by the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum.
Mayor (Signature) Date
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16 , 1990
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GRANT FUNDS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution as approved
by the Planning Committee at its October 2 , 1990 meeting.
The City of Kent is eligible to receive $62, 385 in grant funds
from the State Department of Community Development to implement
the Growth Management Act of 1990. To receive funds the City
must first adopt a resolution confirming its intent to cooperate
with King County and neighboring jurisdictions in the prepara-
tion of plans and growth management strategies.
r
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, proposed resolution and attachments A. B. and
C. Planning Committee minutes of 10/2/90,1
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council Plannin ommittee 10 2 90
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, ommission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAUPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISgWPERSONNEL NOTE: ; ecommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIW—: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
i
7. CITY COUNCIL TION:
Councilmemb r moves, Councilmember seconds
DIS CUSS
I
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
crry oFVtent
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND KENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990
The Growth Management Act of 1990 appropriated $7 .4 million to be
allocated in the form of grants to cities and counties do complete
tasks mandated by the Act. The City of Kent is eligible to receive
$62,835 in grant funds contingent upon the City's acceptance of the
attached resolution. (This same resolution is being presented to
all other cities in King County. )
The Council's Planning Committee approved the model resolution at
its October 2 , 1990 meeting. Passage of this resolution by 60% of ,
all cities in King County representing 75% of the County population
will enable the City of Kent to receive funds. We expect this to
occur sometime before the end of this year.
FS:mp
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ACCEPTING GRANT FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990
WHEREAS, the 1990 Washington State Legislature passed an Act
dealing with Growth Management (HB 2929) which requires all
jurisdictions in King County to prepare comprehensive plans
consistent with new guidelines; and
WHEREAS, The Act requires that jurisdictions prepare these plans in
cooperation with their neighbors and with King County; and
WHEREAS, the Act assigns near term deadlines for the completion of
1) an inventory and regulations for the protection of resource
lands and critical areas, 2) a process to identify an urban growth
area, and 3) an assessment of land use data collection needs; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature appropriated $7.4 million dollars for each
year of the 1989-1991 biennium to assist the Department of
Community Development and local governments to comply with and
implement the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development will provide
approximately $2 . 1 million dollars to a consortium of general
purpose governments in King County provided that 60% of those
governments representing 75% of the county' s population agree to
the grant distribution formula and to jointly develop and
cooperatively implement a work program; and
WHEREAS, a technical committee of representatives from City of
Seattle, King County and Suburban Cities have prepared a draft work
program (attachment A) and a grant distribution formula (Attachment
B) ;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY RESOLVES
as follows:
Section 1. To be eligible for a share of the Growth Management Act
grant funds, the City agrees to:
a) Designate the King County Planning Directors as the
group which will manage the completion of the workprogram, receive
regular briefings on the activities and progress of the technical
forums, and coordinate preparation of the annual reports to the
State Department of Community Development (Attachment C) .
b) Send a representatives to and actively participate in
technical forums to accomplish the work program (Attachment A) ,
specifically, the inventory and protection of resources and
critical areas, the designation of an urban growth area, and
creation of a countywide data sharing group.
c) The grant distribution formula (Attachment B) , which
is that every general purpose government in King County will
receive a base amount of $35, 000 plus a per capita allocation based
on the jurisdiction' s proportional share of total county
population.
d) Designation of King County as the jurisdiction that
will accept the grant funds from the Department of Community
Development and disburse and administer those funds consistent with
the provisions of this resolution including attachments.
e) Submit a short written description of a high priority
project which is unique to this City and upon which the
jurisdiction intends to begin work in this funding year (September
1, 1990 to July 1, 1991) .
F) Complete the Growth Management Needs Assessment and
return it to the State Department of Community Development by
January 1, 1991, with a copy to the King County Planning Division.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Kent this
day of October, 1990.
APPROVED:
Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
City Clerk,
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney,
"ATTACHMENT A"
WORK PROGRAM
Each of the following work items will include a citizen
participation/community involvement element. Consistent - with
Section 14 of the Growth Management Act, the Technical Forums,
Planning Directors Association, and the various jurisdictions will
establish procedures for disseminating information, involving
citizens and interest groups, and considering alternatives. these
procedures will be identified in a detailed scope of work developed
for each technical forum.
RESOURCE AND CRITICAL LANDS TECHNICAL FORUM
BACKGROUND: SHB 2929 requires that King County, and each city
within King County, designate natural resource lands and critical
areas within their respective jurisdictions. The County and each
city must then adopt development regulations to assure the
conservation of resource lands, and to preclude land uses or
development that is incompatible with critical areas. These
actions must be completed by September 1, 1991.
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate and coordinate the designation and
regulation of natural resource lands and critical areas by King
County and each city within King County, as required by Sections 6
and 17, SHB 2929 .
ACTIONS: King County and the cities of King County will establish
and participate in a Resource and Critical Lands Technical Forum
charged with carrying out this objective. The Technical Forum will
undertake the following activities:
1. Seek consensus on a common or compatible approach to the
criteria for designation and regulation of both natural
resource lands and critical areas.
2 . Coordinate designation, mapping and other issues relating
to the political boundaries between jurisdictions.
3 . Exchange ideas, experiences and expertise and relating to
the designation and regulation of natural resource lands
and critical areas.
4 . Explore the joint use of consultants, data and other
resources among jurisdictions.
5. Coordinate with the designation and regulation efforts of
Snohomish and Pierce Counties.
6. Periodically brief elected officials through established
intergovernmental forums.
"Attachment All Continued/Page 2
PRODUCT: Each jurisdiction will adopt regulations which product a
coordinated and compatible system of natural resource lands and
critical areas throughout King County by September 1, 1991.
URBAN GROWTH AREAS DESIGNATION
BACKGROUND: SHB 2929 requires that by July 1, 1991, King County
begin consulting with each city regarding the location of an Urban
Growth Area. Urban Growth Areas must include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
King County over a twenty year period. Due to the complexity of
urban growth issues, ongoing planning efforts and other
consideration, it is imperative that the County and Cities begin
work on growth areas immediately. A cooperative effort will ensure
that the legitimate interests of all jurisdictions are considered
in the ultimate designations.
OBJECTIVE; To foster inter-jurisdictional cooperation and provide
an accurate information base upon which King County Urban Growth
Area decisions will be made.
ACTIONS: The urban/rural boundary of the King County Comprehensive
Plan, together with the land use, development and urban service
policies of the County and cities, will provide the basis upon
which Urban Growth Area decisions will be made. The first step
toward making these decisions will be to determine the growth
capacity of the county and cities, based on existing plans and
policies and on criteria established for urban Growth Areas. King
County and the cities of King County will:
1. Establish and participate in an Urban Growth Area-
Technical Forum, which will seek consensus on criteria,
methodologies and format to be used by the County and
each city to estimate their population and employment
growth capacities.
2 . Each city and the County will estimate their own
capacities for population and employment growth, based
upon a. ) local plans and policies and b. ) consistent with
agreed to criteria, methodologies and format.
3 . The Urban Growth Area Technical Forum will compile the
capacity estimates prepared by King County jurisdictions
for purposes of evaluating the countywide Urban Growth
Area.
4 . As a second priority, the Urban Growth Area Technical
Forum will take initial steps toward delineation of Urban
Growth Areas. This effort will be undertaken in light of
SHB 2929 's recognition that cities are the appropriate
providers of urban government services. This effort will
also recognize and support King County' s ongoing efforts
"Attachment All Continued/Page 3
to refine the existing urban/rural boundary through the
adoption and updating of Community Plans. Initial steps
will include:
a. Seeking consensus on criteria to guide
decisions on the future boundaries of King
County's cities. Decision-making criteria
should include such issues as development
densities, efficient urban services provision
and timing of annexation.
b. Identifying and mapping agreed-to Urban Growth
Areas and areas where there is not agreement.
C. Identifying key elements of a process for
achieving agreement on Urban Growth Areas.
d. King County will work directly with cities in
establishing Urban Growth Areas according to
the following sequence: 1) Cities in areas of
Community Planning projects in progress and
cities near or bordering rural
areas/unincorporated areas; and 2) Cities in
western King County urban area, not near rural
designation areas or not bordering
unincorporated areas.
PRODUCTS:
1. Estimate of countywide population and employment growth-
capacity, based on existing plans and policies by July 1,
1991.
2 . Process for delineating and agreeing to Urban Growth
Areas, by July 1, 1991.
3 . Map(s) identifying agreed-to Urban Growth Areas and
highlighting areas where there is not agreement, by
September 1, 1991.
4 . Urban Growth Area designations by end of 1991.
KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGIONAL GOALS CHAPTER
BACKGROUND: The current King County Comprehensive plan was adopted
in 1985. King County has recently initiated a major review of that
plan, and has taken steps to solicit the active involvement of all
local jurisdictions. This involvement is especially important in
light of the coordination and consistency requirements of SH 2929 .
"Attachment All Continued/Page 4
OBJECTIVE: To promote coordination and consistency between the
King County Comprehensive Plan and the planning of other King
county local jurisdictions through the King County Comprehensive
Plan review process.
ACTIONS: The Resolution of the Suburban Cities Association of King
County Regarding Priorities of the 1990 review of the King County
Comprehensive Plan (adopted May 9, 1990, will provide the starting
point for a joint effort to review, maintain and strengthen the
regional policies of the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan. King
County will continue to actively involve cities in the review and
refinement of goals and policies having regional import. The
cities will actively participate in the Comprehensive Plan Review,
through the King County Suburban Cities Association and, where
appropriate, through direct involvement and discussions with the
County. At a minimum, each city will be responsible for
identifying any conflict or inconsistency between their own plans
and policies, and any proposed regional policies for King County.
Cities should also make suggestions for resolving any such conflict
or inconsistency.
PRODUCTS: Adopt updated, strengthened and coordinated regional
goals and policies for the King County Comprehensive Plan and City
Comprehensive Plans by the end of 1991.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DATA SHARING GROUP
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of SHB 2929 will depend upon
a high level of cooperation and coordination among local
jurisdictions. Such coordination is currently hampered by a lack'
of comparable land use and development data from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
OBJECTIVE: To share land use and development data and work toward
common methods of compiling and reporting information.
ACTIVITIES: First year activities will involve consultation
between the cities and the County on standardization of references.
PRODUCTS:
1. Identify and compare data collection and tabulation
systems used by each jurisdiction, by July 1, 1991.
2 . Identify common data needs by July 1, 1991.
3 . Agree to a common format for collecting and tabulating
common data needs by September 1, 1991.
"Attachment All Continued/Page 5
WORK PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUAL KING COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
Each adopting jurisdiction is to provide a paragraph describing an
individual multi-year work program designed to implement SHB 2929 .
The focus of the work program should be on activities to be
completed July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 with highlights for the
years 1992, 1993 , 1994. Milestones and timelines are the two key
words in completing this requirement as they will be used as the
basis for measuring progress and disbursing funds during this first
year.
AttACH13I1 H
HOWIE RAIAOA1111 AOT TUIDING
II121l90
IOIDI AVAILIHII 17,4041111 VIC Coolly
AHGIOIAL 111000I01
DOI HrUlD8 I0I11I0 (1373,110) (ITS,111rperent) j2,1l0,6l2
COOIIT HOLDOCT (5 CODITIIS) (1600,0641
1189 POPDLIIIOR 1,482,600
2D1DI AIIILABLI 10 R101011 16,426,580 PIRCHII Of R10101AL PO MITIOR 30.111
11798,100 Still POPDLATIOI CITI18 - 31
3,711,100 POPDLiIIOA Of 111 15 RIGIOAS MITI till 14,311
.................................................................................................................
folio HA81 HOW 18 IOR Oil PLAIIIR(C01801,ti11 IOR 011 SIAR.
........................................................................................................ ........
III CAPIII
011 11181111111101
1980 1990 POPOLATIOA 10 11AR HASI SAM OR
JORI80!C1I01 POPD1ATIOI POPDLAIIOI PIACIIT GROIN RITI A1001T 4 Of RIGIOR TOM
ALSORA 1461 1,126 0,121 17,251 " 135,000 11,279 136,219
AOBDRA 26411 34,1SI 21361 29,271 13S,600 125,381 160,315
IIIDI ARTS 111 214 /,021 •11,37% 131,I10 1219 131,119
BILLLVOI 11903 88190 5.591 21,281 135,044 $66118S 1111,185
11AC1 DIABOID 1111 1,510 Clot 29,00 131,481 11,123 116,121
" 10111LL (PARI) "' 7913 11,540 4,181 44,781 131,811 $S,S56 142,116
CAR117101 $51 1,255 1,061 31,971 135,606 1933 13S,933
CLYDI BILL 1229 3850 CM •4,301 13S,400 $2,257 $31,297
DIE ROIIIS 1378 15,498 1,441 M AS1 135,100 111,516 146,516
HULL 729 2,131 6.16t 234,621 135,4@0 111110 136.J610
IKORCLAW 5121 6,390 01431 17,741 ;35,104 14,711 139,751
IIDIRAL 111 63,980 41311 14,371 $35,461 147,545 182,561
Buffs POIET 483 S64 0,03% 4135t 135,040 1375 135,315
I33190AH 5536 7,390 CM 33,491 ;39,@04 13,494 140,414
lilt
I1IG CODAfY 503363 514,834 31.111 21111 135,0@1 1382,150 1417,750
IIRKLAID 18779 37,780 2,54% 160,76t 135,000 118,128 163,021
Lill 101111 PARK 2485 2800 @,191 12,681 j3S,040 $2,112 $31,611
11DIn 1221 I'm 0,20% •8,411 ;35,40@ 12,261 117,261
RIRCIR ISLAID IIS22 20,638 1,391 •4,141 135,10@ 115$ 37 150,337
MILIOI (PAIL) "' 211 56S 1,041 119,17t 14,643 1426 14,869
IORRAIDY PARK 4246 6624 6,411 • 15.111 1314048 ji,122 $11,922
IORTB HAD 1711 2,42E 0.161 42,271 135,000 $1,799 1361195
PACIIIC 2261 4,I81 0,281 84,451 $15,100 13,133 136,633
RIDIOAD 23311 35,420 2,391 11,901 135.000 126,333 161,333
RIIIoA 30612 19,310 I'M 28,511 135,410 121,247 j64,247
HAW 24,04E 11621 14,371 135,@44 117,$43 152,243
31ATTLI 413846 501,808 33,14% 11611 135,418 13131440 $418,860
11TIOIISH 209 243 41421 16,271 $35,049 1181 135,111
81000A11II • I374 1,545 4,181 12,71% 135,I10 11,149 136,119
TOIIILA 3171 14,121 1.731 20 .M 135,100 18,644 1431011
YARROW POIAT 1177 985 1,911 •8,541 131.100 $732 13S,732
32 1,412,800 11,418,315 11,102,317 $2,190,692
"' BOIBI1L AID 1JUDA TILL IICIIVI A PROPORTIOIATI 82AR1 Of TBI Bill ARODIT
101HILL'E 88AR1 I8 96,761 NILTOI'I IIARI 18 12,71%
ATTACHMENT "C"
GOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORK
For approximately the past five years, the general purpose
governments in King County have been working more cooperatively to
resolve land use and service delivery issues. The Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum and the Eastside Transportation Forum are two
examples of effective regional problem solving groups in this area.
Building on the success of these and other groups, the County's
general purpose governments have been discussing the creation of a
more formal COUNTYWIDE PLANNING COUNCIL "to assure coordination,
consensus, consistency and compliance" among local governments as
they implement the Growth management Act and adopt comprehensive
planning policies to be applied countywide. Decisions on the
formation of a countywide planning council and other strategies for
local coordination and cooperation are anticipated during Fall 1990
and Winter 1991.
In the interim, the general purpose governments in this county have
agreed to designate the King County Planning Directors Association
as an appropriate forum for discussing issues, exchanging
information, promoting standardization and consistency, encouraging
cooperation and providing technical assistance. The directors have
been functioning in this capacity for several years with
considerable success. The group meets regularly each month,
attracts planning directors from City of Seattle, King County, and
from most of the suburban cities and small towns in the county.
cxrr of Ti erd
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
October 2 , 1990 4: 00 pm
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Jon Johnson, Chair James P. Harris
Christi Houser Fred Satterstrom
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Margaret Porter
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball passed out the Roundtable' s Family Violence
Work group' s final plan entitled, "The Challenge: Building an
Effective Response to Family Violence" . The second item that was
passed out was the Human Services Roundtable Family Violence
Project state Legislative Agenda for the Roundtable to take to the
legislature to advocate for family violence. The Roundtable at the
September meeting accepted the work which the Family Violence Work
Group has completed, including development of a comprehensive
Family Violence System, and a proposed funding mechanism to put the
system into place. The RT also adopted a Legislative Agenda for
the RT Family Violence Project. The main funding for the System in
1991 would come from the cities ' commitment of a portion of its
Law/Safety/Justice money. Ms. Ball reported that the Law, Safety
and Justice Measure did pass. There is now funding available.
Ms. Ball updated the Commission on the Human Services Housing levy.
Originally in August the County Housing Finance Master Plan was
going to be forward to the county Executive. This has been delayed
due to the Regional Work Group doing some additional work on the
plan. The process and timing has changed in that this Plan will be
forwarded to communities and cities for their review prior to it
going to the County Executive. This way input can be integrated
into the Plan that is forwarded to the County Executive. The Plan
was to be mailed out the week of October 2 . Community forums will
be held around the County in different areas to review the Plan.
The County staff will be coming to the City to talk with us. A
potential housing levy could, at the earliest, be in February but
more likely will be in the Fall. The housing levy would contain a
small portion for housing related services.
It has not been decided at this time how to move forward with a
separate human services levy. The Roundtable has a concern that
service dollars should not be tied to a levy which is temporary; it
needs a permanent funding source.
1
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2 , 1990
SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom mentioned this has been the third
time that this agreement has come back to the City for signature
with Tim Hill's signature on it. The City of Kent has always
responded quickly to the County. Mr. Satterstrom gave a history of
delays that has occurred in the last few years, which was also
given in the memo in the agenda packet. Mr. Satterstrom passed out
Comparisons between the City and County wording of the Proposed
Soos Creek Cooperate Planning Agreement. The wording changes to
five items were discussed at the meeting.
The recommended action stated in the agenda packet is as follows:
"The Planning Department staff recommends that the City
Council Planning Committee approved the proposed Soos
Creek Cooperative Planning Agreement and place it on the
consent calendar at the next available City Council
meeting. "
Councilmember Christi Houser made a MOTION and Councilmember
Leona Orr SECONDED for this agreement to go on the City Council
Consent Calendar for October 16, 1990 for approval. The MOTION
approved.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT FUNDING (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reported on these six items (SEE
memo included in agenda packet) . According to a formula, Kent is
eligible to receive $62, 835. However, the City must agree to
perform certain conditions to receive this money. In order to be
eligible to received the projected funds, cities in King County
must agree to work cooperatively to accomplish the objectives of
the Growth Management Act. Listed below are the six conditions
listed in the memo that the City would agree to perform:
1. Designate the King County Planning Directors
as the group that will manage the completion
of work program tasks;
2 . Send a representative to participate in
regional technical forums on critical areas,
urban growth boundaries and regional data
sharing.
2 _..
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2, 1990
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the above two items were mandated by
the Act. Further, Kent would want to coordinate with the County on
these items.
3 . Agree to the preliminary grant funds
distribution formula developed by the Planning
Directors group.
Mr. Satterstrom commented there was a base of $35, 000 and according
to our population a prorated share of all monies available would be
$62, 835.
4 . Designate King County as the jurisdiction that
will accept grant funds from the Department of
Community Development and disburse them to the
cities.
Mr. Satterstrom stated the Department of Community Development
(DCD) requested the County to accept and disburse the funds to
reduce paperwork.
5. Submit a short written description of a high
priority project which the City intends to
work on in this funding year.
Mr. Satterstrom passed out a memo concerning this description and
proposed changes (SEE explanation on page 5) .
6. Complete the Growth Management Needs
Assessment and return it to the State
Department of Community Development by
January 1, 1991.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the above items are the conditions that
must be agreed to in order to receive the money. The conditions
are delineated in the Work Program (SEE Attachment A in agenda
packet) . According to a September 24 , 1990, memo some subtle
changes have been made to the Work Program (SEE "Attachment All
passed out at the meeting) . Mr. Satterstrom discussed the changes
as follows:
1. RESOURCE AND CRITICAL LANDS TECHNICAL FORUM: The City is
agreeing as mandated by the Act to work with the County to
have uniform definitions and a consistent designation process
to identify resource in critical lands.
3
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2 , 1990
2 . URBAN GROWTH AREAS DESIGNATION (relates to the Soo§ Creek
Plan) : The City agrees to work with the County in urban
growth designations. Mr. Satterstrom noted on page 3, in
1991, some of the first cities that they intend to work with
respect to urban growth boundaries are the valley cities:
Auburn, Kent and Renton. One of the reasons why is because of
the Soos Creek Plateau Plan. The County has the
responsibility of doing the urban growth areas and designating
the boundaries. In 1992 , other cities will be doing this.
3 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGIONAL GOALS: The City will be working
with King County. The County will be having a stronger role
in reviewing their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom quote
on page 4 in the middle of the Actions section as follows:
"The cities will actively participate in the
Comprehensive Plan Review, through the King
County' Suburban Cities Association, and, where
appropriate, through direct involvement and
discussions with the County. At a minimum,
each city will be responsible for identifying
any conflict or inconsistency between their
own plans and policies, and any proposed
regional policies for King County. Cities
should also make suggestions for resolving any
such conflict or inconsistency. "
Mr. Satterstrom stated the burden is on us, The City, to
resolve any of these conflicts. Mr. Satterstrom stated this
is a new task and was not in the original Work Program.
4 . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DATA SHARING GROUP: The City will be
getting together with the County to find some comparing data
collection and tabulation or some common methods of collecting
information.
5. WORK PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUAL KING COUNTY JURISDICTIONS: On
page 5 are some subtle changes. Originally, it was the City's
understanding that the City would tell the County what the
City was going to be doing; e.g. data collection or working on
a sensitive area ordinance. Once the City told the County
what the City would be doing, the City would get a lump sum of
money and the money would be used to accomplish the task.
However, in the final paragraph, last sentence, changes were
made as follows:
4 _.
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2, 1990
"Milestones and timelines are the two key
words in completing this requirement as they
will be used as the basis for measuring
progress and disbursing funds during this
first year" .
Mr. Satterstrom stated that this is a grant and will be
monitored by the County, and the progress made will be
measured and funds will be disbursed accordingly. The
Planning Department had originally understood this
differently. The County will be performing a more key and
central role not only in disbursing funds but in evaluating
progress.
Councilmember Leona Orr made the MOTION and
Councilmember Christie Houser SECONDED to approve the proposed
Resolution accepting the grant funds to implement the Growth
Management Act of 1990 and to recommend this to full Council
with the inclusion of the revised Attachment A with the
provision that this be treated as grant money so that the
Planning Department has access to the funds before the funds
will become available from actuality from the State. The
MOTION carried.
It was decided to change the meeting time to 4 : 30 p.m. instead of
4: 00 p.m. and meet in the Court Room at Kent City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 :55 p.m.
5
`>
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16 . 1990
n Category Consent Calendar
11. SM3JECT: SOOS CREEK COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the
Soos Creek Cooperative Planning Agreement between King County
and the City of Kent for the Soos Creek Plateau area. The
agreement has been signed by King County Executive Tim Hill.
The Planning Committee recommended approval of the Agreement at
its October 2, 1990 meeting.
3. EXHIBITS: Memo, Soos Creek Cooperptiive Planning Agreement and
Planning Committee minutes dated 10/2/90.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Council Plahnina Committee 10/2/90
(Committee, Staff, Examjrher, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/P ONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL N Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQVIERED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS"
7. CITY COUNCII4ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
Cn'YoF Retift CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
October 10, 1990
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND KENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT
The attached Soos Creek Cooperative Planning Agreement has been
signed by King County Executive Tim Hill and awaits action by the
Kent City Council. The Council's Planning Committee has already
reviewed the document and approved it at their October 2, 1990
meeting. Approval by the full council will enable Mayor Kelleher
to sign and thus complete an interlocal process which has taken
over two and one-half years to complete.
FS:mp
1
A COOPERATIVE PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN KING COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF KENT FOR THE SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA
WHEREAS, within their own jurisdictions, King County and the City of Kent each has
responsibility and authority derived from the Washington State Constitution and state
laws to plan for and regulate uses of land and by law must consider the impacts of its
actions on adjacent jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, King County and the City of Kent recognize that planning and land use
decisions can have extra-jurisdictional impacts and that intergovernmental cooperation is
an effective way under existing law to deal with impacts and opportunities which cross
jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, cooperative efforts can increase efficiency of government by minimizing
conflicts and providing more mutually satisfactory land use and planning decisions; and
WHEREAS, King County Comprehensive Plan policies PI-301 and PI-305 encourage
interjurisdictional cooperation and the use of interlocal agreements to implement
solutions to major planning issues; and
WHEREAS, King County and the City of Kent desire to jointly achieve the effective
management of impacts associated with new development, the efficient provision of
needed levels of urban service, the coordinated preparation of land use, functional and
capital improvement plans, and the delineation of appropriate potential annexation
areas; and
WHEREAS, King County is initiating the update of the Soos Creek Community Plan
which is within King County's jurisdiction but is partly within Kent's planning area;
NOW, THEREFORE, KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF KENT AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
2
I. INTRODUCTION
This Soos Creek Community Planning Area Agreement is envisioned as the first in
a series of cooperative planning agreements between King County and Kent.
Subsequent agreements identifying Kent's Municipal Service Area and Potential
Annexation Area will be developed as an outcome of the County's and City's
cooperation in updating the Soos Creek Community Plan. These subsequent
agreements would be intended to implement the updated Soos Creek Community
Plan, once adopted.
II. PURPOSES
The purposes of this agreement are to:
A. Establish a cooperative relationship through which King County and Kent
can develop and maintain compatible land use policies, zoning and
development standards within the Soos Creek planning area; and
B. Provide a means by which King County and Kent will consider each other's
plans, regulations and policies in land use development, capital
improvement project planning and natural resource protection within the
Soos Creek Community Planning Area; and
C. Create a workable system for interjurisdictional communication and
coordination between the County and City throughout the processes of
updating, adopting and, subsequently, implementing the Soos Creek
Community Plan; and
D. Minimize inconsistencies between the Soos Creek Community Plan, the
King County Comprehensive Plan and Kent's Comprehensive Plan; and
E. Increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of planning for the area by
preventing duplication of efforts by the two jurisdictions; and
3
F. Promote a more predictable and certain process and produce more
understandable and long-lasting policies for residents, property owners,
developers and other agencies and jurisdictions; and
G. Increase the visibility of King County's and Kent's planning efforts, making
their decision-making more understandable to the public; and
H. Define the means by which King County will obtain Kent's cooperation in
achieving regional goals for: urban residential and employment densities;
the provision of a full range of housing opportunities, including affordable
housing; the protection of the environment, including natural resources,
rural areas and open space; transportation; economic development; and
historic preservation; and
1. Provide the means for determining Kent's Municipal Service and Potential
Annexation Areas.
III. DEFINITIONS
A. GEOGRAPHIC AREAS:
1. PLANNING AREA is that portion of the Soos Creek Community
Planning Area outside Kent's city limits for which the City prepares
or assists the County in preparing land use policies as shown on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. IMPACT AREA is the area outside Kent's city limits within which new
development is likely to have an impact on the City.
3. MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREA is the area outside Kent's city limits
which is the composite of the City's sewer, water and fire protection
franchise areas, together with any areas for which the City has a
contractual obligation to serve. Municipal Service Area includes
those areas the City currently serves as well as those areas for
which there are plans approved by King County for future service.
4
4. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA is an area outside Kent's city
✓ limits which the County and the city area is logical to consider for
annexation by the City. Such areas are determined by joint effort of
the County's and City's elected officials and staffs. This effort also
involves a public hearing process to solicit the input of the general
public, area residents, property owners and affected local
governments.
B. CODE or PLAN DEVELOPMENT is the preparation or major amendment of
any of these land use regulations or planning documents:
1. LAND USE REGULATIONS: Ordinances which adopt or make major
amendments to regulations controlling the development of land.
2. LAND USE PLANS: Planning documents which express goals,
policies and plans for land use, such as comprehensive or
community plans.
3. FUNCTIONAL AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Plans for the
provision of public facilities and services, such as water, sewer,
transportation and open space plans.
C. PLAN PARTICIPATION is the involvement of the County or City in
developing the other's plans.
D. AGENCY NOTICE is written notification mailed through regular post or
hand delivered from the County to the City, or vice versa, which is given in
a manner consistent with ensuring timely exchange of information in
considering each other's plans and policies.
5
E. REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY is the provision of pertinent
materials for another jurisdiction to review and comment on. King County a
and Kent both understand that the opportunity for review and comment is
within the timeframes the responsible jurisdiction establishes, provided the
responsible jurisdiction makes an effort to provide a reasonable amount of
time. This Agreement is intended to supplement any requirement of the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and applicable City and County
ordinances.
F. STAFF CONSULTATION is a commitment to give the other jurisdiction an
opportunity to ask questions and make comments at the staff level. The
reviewing jurisdiction has the opportunity to request a meeting to get
information and explanation and to indicate the relative compatibility of the
action or plan being considered with its own plans and policies. This
opportunity includes a commitment by the initiating jurisdiction to include in
its pertinent staff report the reviewing jurisdiction's timely submitted written
comments.
IV. KING COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES .
A. Development Permit Review
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO INVOLVE KENT IN THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE
OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW IN ORDER TO INCREASE COUNTY
OFFICIALS' UNDERSTANDING OF POTENTIAL CITY CONCERNS ABOUT
THE PROPOSALS.
6
1. In reviewing the development permits listed in this section in the
PLANNING AREA shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A,
the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD)
shall provide Kent with AGENCY NOTICE, REVIEW AND
COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and the opportunity for STAFF
CONSULTATION before making a threshold determination. BALD
shall invite Kent's staff to participate in a technical screening
meeting which will initially review the permit to determine if additional
information is required before the threshold determination can be
made.
2. All development permits which are not categorically exempt from
threshold determinations and EIS requirements under King
County's environmental procedures are subject to this agreement,
including but not limited to:
a. Zoning reclassifications
_. b. Preliminary subdivisions, including short plats
C. Preliminary planned unit developments
d. Unclassified use and conditional use permits
e. Shoreline substantial development permits
f. Approval of any of the following:
i. more than 20 dwelling units
ii. agricultural buildings of 30,000 square feet or more
iii. school, office, commercial, industrial, recreational,
service and storage buildings of 12,000 square feet or
more
iv. parking lots for more than 40 automobiles
V. filling, grading or excavating of 500 cubic yards or
more.
B. Plan Development
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO INVOLVE KENT IN KING COUNTY'S UPDATE OF
THE SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE
CITY'S CONCURRENCE WITH THE UPDATED PLANS' POLICIES AND
ZONING AND TO OBTAIN THE CITY'S COMMITMENT TO HELPING KING
COUNTY ACHIEVE REGIONAL POLICY GOALS IN THAT PART OF THE
SOOS CREEK PLANNING AREA WHICH IS KENT'S PLANNING AREA.
1. When it undertakes Plan Development in the planning area shown
on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, the King County Planning
and Community Development Division shall provide Kent with
AGENCY NOTICE, REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and
opportunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and PLAN
PARTICIPATION. While updating the Soos Creek Community Plan,
the King County Planning and Community Development Division
shall:
a. provide an opportunity for Kent's staff to serve on the
Technical Resource and Advisory Committee with other
agencies and jurisdictions which have interests in the Soos
Creek planning area;
b. recommend candidates who have been nominated by Kent
for the Citizen Advisory Committee to be appointed by the
King County Council;
c_ work with Kent's staff to propose the issues the update will
address;
d. consider comments from Kent's staff on data, land use
alternatives, the draft Environmental Impact Statement and
capital improvement project recommendations;
e. provide Kent the opportunity to discuss disputed issues in a
good faith attempt to resolve differences before the draft plan
is completed and submitted to the Executive;
8
f. work with Kent to define the boundaries of the City's potential
annexation area and the criteria by which to determine when
annexation of any part of that area is appropriate;
g. encourage Kent to adopt the policies and zoning of the
updated Soos Creek Community Plan for that part of the
City's planning area which is in the Soos Creek planning
area;
2. King County shall provide Kent the following opportunities to
participate in the review of the Executive Proposed Soos Creek
Community Plan:
a. Kent may comment on the Executive Proposed Plan at the
King County Council's first public hearing to introduce that
plan to the general public. Kent will receive notice of that
hearing at least fifteen days before it is held.
b. Kent may comment on proposed policies and area zoning at
the County Council Panel meetings during which the
proposed plan is reviewed. King County Council staff and/or
Planning and Community Development Division staff will
inform Kent staff of the time, place and the agenda before
each meeting.
C. Kent may comment on the Council Panel proposed Soos
Creek Community Plan and Area Zoning when the County
Council holds its final public hearing on the plan.
3. King County shall work with Kent and all other suburban cities to
compare County and City development standards in order to
determine whether or not it is possible to develop one set of urban
development standards that could be ultimately applied in the cities
and the urban areas of unincorporated King County.
9
4. King County shall provide AGENCY NOTICE to the City during the
community planning process when it initiates long-range planning
for capital 'improvement projects such as roads and surface water
management facilities. King County shall also provide Kent*
opportunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and REVIEW AND
COMMENT.
C. Code Development
1. When it undertakes CODE DEVELOPMENT of the codes listed in
this section King County shall provide Kent with AGENCY NOTICE
and REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY.
2. The codes subject to this agreement include:
a. zoning code
b. subdivision and short plats
C. environmental regulations
d. shoreline regulations
e. development standards
D. Municipal Service and Potential Annexation Areas
1. King County shall work with Kent to define the City's POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION.and MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS and to adopt
interlocal agreements between them which define how regional
goals will be jointly achieved within those areas.
2. King County shall support those annexations proposed by Kent that
comply with the adopted interlocal agreement for POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREAS.
3. King County will not support annexations proposed by Kent unless
the City agrees to use its plan, policies, zoning and other regulatory
controls to encourage citywide (including within potential annexation
areas) achievement of King County's density policies.
10
4. King County will not support annexations proposed by Kent that
would prevent the achievement of regional goals for: urban
residential and employment densities; the provision of a full range of
housing opportunities, including affordable housing; the protection
of the environment, including natural resources, rural areas and
open space; transportation; economic development; and historic
preservation.
V. KENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Development Permit Review
STATEMENT OF INTENT: THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO OFFER KING COUNTY THE OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW KENT'S DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IN ORDER TO INCREASE
CITY OFFICIALS' UNDERSTANDING OF POTENTIAL COUNTY
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSALS.
1. When it undertakes review of the development permits listed in this
section within the City, Kent shall provide the King County Planning
and Community Development Division with AGENCY NOTICE,
REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and the opportunity for
STAFF CONSULTATION.
2. All permits which are not categorically exempt from threshold
determinations and EIS requirements under Kent's environmental
procedures are subject to this agreement, including but not limited
to:
a. Zoning reclassifications
b. Preliminary subdivisions, including short plats
C. Preliminary planned unit developments
d. Unclassified use and conditional use permits
e. Shoreline substantial development permits
11
f. Approval of any of the following:
i. more than 20 dwelling units
ii. agricultural buildings of 30,000 square feet or more
iii. school, office, commercial, industrial, recreational,
service and storage buildings of 2,000 square feet or
more
iv. parking lots for more than 40 automobiles
V. filling, grading or excavating of 500 cubic yards or
more.
B. Plan Development
STATEMENT OF INTENT:THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT COOPERATIVE LAND USE
PLANNING BETWEEN KENT AND KING COUNTY WILL RESULT IN
COMPATIBLE PLANS AND AREA ZONING AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
REGIONAL POLICY GOALS.
1. When it undertakes Plan Development, Kent shall provide the King T
County Planning and Community Development Division with
AGENCY NOTICE, REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY, and
opportunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and PLAN
PARTICIPATION.
a. Kent agrees to use its plans, policies, zoning and other
regulatory controls to encourage citywide (including within
potential annexation areas) achievement of King County's
regional density policies as they may affect Kent.
12
b. Kent agrees to use its plans, policies, zoning, and other
regulatory controls to encourage citywide achievement of
regional goals for: urban residential and employment
densities; the provision of a full range of housing
opportunities, including affordable housing; the protection of
the environment, including natural resources, rural areas and
open space; transportation; economic development; and
historic preservation; and to the extent applicable,'
incorporate such goals where such are consistent with the
City's plans and objectives.
2. During the Soos Creek Community Plan's development, Kent shall:
a. advise King County about its plans, policies, zoning and
other regulatory controls so that the Soos Creek Community
Plan and Kent's plans are as compatible as possible;
b. provide staff to serve on the County's Technical Resource
and Advisory Committee for the update of the Soos Creek
Community Plan. Kent's staff is responsible for providing
County staff with information about the City's goals, plans
and policies and for advising County staff about the
compatibility of proposed updated policies with Kent's plans;
C. provide the County data on existing conditions and growth
and development trends within the City upon which the land
use alternatives shall be partly based;
d. work with King County to define the boundaries of the City's
potential annexation area and the criteria by which to
determine when annexation of any part of that area is
appropriate;
e. consider adopting the policies and zoning of the updated
Soos Creek Community Plan for that part of Kent's planning
area which is in the Soos Creek planning area.
13
3. Kent shall work with King County and all other suburban cities to
compare County and City development standards in order to
determine whether or not it is possible to develop one set of urban
development standards that could be ultimately applied in the cities
and the urban areas of unincorporated King County.
4. Kent shall provide AGENCY NOTICE to the County when it initiates
long-range planning for capital improvement projects, such as
roads and surface water management facilities. Kent shall provide
King County opportunities for STAFF CONSULTATION and REVIEW
AND COMMENT.
C. Code Development
1. When it undertakes CODE DEVELOPMENT of the codes listed in
this section Kent shall provide the County with AGENCY NOTICE
and REVIEW AND.COMMENT OPPORTUNITY.
2. The codes subject to this agreement include:
a. zoning code
b. subdivision and short plats
C. environmental regulations
d. shoreline regulations
e. development standards
D. Municipal Service and Potential Annexation Areas
1. Kent shall work with King County to define the City's POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION and MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS and to adopt
interlocal agreements between them which define how regional
goals will be jointly achieved within those areas.
2. Kent agrees that it shall negotiate with King County to adopt a
POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA interlocal agreement as part of _.
the process of reviewing any major annexation proposal.
14
3. Kent agrees that it shall only include within its POTENTIAL
ANNEXATION AREA lands which conform to the following criteria:
a. The area is currently designated by King County
Comprehensive Plan Map as urban. Transitional areas can
be added if redesignated to urban through the adopted Soos
Creek Community Plan.
b. Agricultural districts, as designated on the Comprehensive
Plan Map, shall not be included, unless continued
management of the resource would be maintained or
enhanced, through a legally binding agreement with Kent.
C. Rural Land as designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map
shall not be included.
d. Areas which contain environmentally sensitive or other
features which are addressed by King County protective
policies and/or regulations may be included if Kent's
environmental policies and/or regulations would provide the
same or more protection or if Kent agrees to adopt the more
restrictive policies and/or regulations of the County for the
areas. Environmentally sensitive or other features include but
are not limited to: wetlands, steep slopes, floodways,
landslide areas, coal mine hazard areas, erosion hazards,
shorelines, designated open space, and historic sites on the
County's register.
VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THIS AGREEMENT
The responsibility for administering this agreement shall rest jointly with the King
County Executive and the Mayor of the City of Kent through their respective
designees. Within ten (10) days of the signing of this agreement, the designees
shall inform each other of the name and address to be used in correspondence
regarding this agreement. King County and Kent shall each be responsible for
their own costs incurred pursuant to this agreement unless some other
contractual arrangements are made.
15
VII. DURATION, TERMINATION AND AMENDMENT
This agreement shall become effective on the date of its mutual adoption by the
parties and shall remain in effect until terminated in writing after thirty (30) days
notice pursuant to legislative action of either party. This agreement may be
amended only be express written agreement of both parties pursuant to
legislative action by each.
KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT
Tim Hill Dan Kelleher
King County Executive Mayor, City of Kent
MY OF 16Mk
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
October 2 , 1990 4 :00 pm
Committee Members Present Planning Staff
Jon Johnson, Chair James P. Harris
Christi Houser Fred Satterstrom
Leona Orr Lin Ball
Margaret Porter
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. BALL)
Senior Planner Lin Ball passed out the Roundtable' s Family Violence
Work group's final plan entitled, "The Challenge: Building an
Effective Response to Family Violence" . The second item that was
passed out was the Human Services Roundtable Family Violence
Project state Legislative Agenda for the Roundtable to take to the
legislature to advocate for family violence. The Roundtable at the
September meeting accepted the work which the Family Violence Work
Group has completed, including development of a comprehensive
Family Violence System, and a proposed funding mechanism to put the
system into place. The RT also adopted a Legislative Agenda for
the RT Family Violence Project. The main funding for the System in
1991 would come from the cities ' commitment of a portion of its
Law/Safety/Justice money. Ms. Ball reported that the Law, Safety
and Justice Measure did pass. There is now funding available.
Ms. Ball updated the Commission on the Human Services Housing levy.
Originally in August the County Housing Finance Master Plan was
going to be forward to the county Executive. This has been delayed
due to the Regional Work Group doing some additional work on the
plan. The process and timing has changed in that this Plan will be
forwarded to communities and cities for their review prior to it
going to the County Executive. This way input can be integrated
into the Plan that is forwarded to the County Executive. The Plan
was to be mailed out the week of October 2 . Community forums will
be held around the County in different areas to review the Plan.
The County staff will be coming to the City to talk with us. A
potential housing levy could, at the earliest, be in February but
more likely will be in the Fall. The housing levy would contain a
small portion for housing related services.
It has not been decided at this time how to move forward with a
separate human services levy. The Roundtable has a concern that
service dollars should not be tied to a levy which is temporary; it
needs a permanent funding source.
1
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2, 1990
SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom mentioned this has been the third
time that this agreement has come back to the City for signature
with Tim Hill ' s signature on it. The City of Kent has always
responded quickly to the County. Mr. Satterstrom gave a history of
delays that has occurred in the last few years, which was also
given in the memo in the agenda packet. Mr. Satterstrom passed out
Comparisons between the City and County wording of the Proposed
Soos Creek Cooperate Planning Agreement. The wording changes to
five items were discussed at the meeting.
The recommended action stated in the agenda packet is as follows:
"The Planning Department staff recommends that the City
Council Planning Committee approved the proposed Soos
Creek Cooperative Planning Agreement and place it on the
consent calendar at the next available City Council
meeting. "
Councilmember Christi Houser made a MOTION and Councilmember
Leona Orr SECONDED for this agreement to go on the City Council
Consent Calendar for October 16, 1990 for approval. The MOTION
approved.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT FUNDING (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reported on these six items (SEE
memo included in agenda packet) . According to a formula, Kent is
eligible to receive $62 ,835. However, the City must agree to
perform certain conditions to receive this money. In order to be
eligible to received the projected funds, cities in King County
must agree to work cooperatively to accomplish the objectives of
the Growth Management Act. Listed below are the six conditions
listed in the memo that the City would agree to perform:
1. Designate the King County Planning Directors
as the group that will manage the completion
of work program tasks;
2 . Send a representative to participate in
regional technical forums on critical areas,
urban growth boundaries and regional data
sharing.
2
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2, 1990
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the above two items were mandated by
the Act. Further, Kent would want to coordinate with the County on
these items.
3 . Agree to the preliminary grant funds
distribution formula developed by the Planning
Directors group.
Mr. Satterstrom commented there was a base of $35, 000 and according
to our population a prorated share of all monies available would be
$62,835.
4. Designate King County as the jurisdiction that
will accept grant funds from the Department of
Community Development and disburse them to the
cities.
Mr. Satterstrom stated the Department of Community Development
(DCD) requested the County to accept and disburse the funds to
reduce paperwork.
5. Submit a short written description of a high
priority project which the City intends to
work on in this funding year.
Mr. Satterstrom passed out a memo concerning this description and
proposed changes (SEE explanation on page 5) .
6. Complete the Growth Management Needs
Assessment and return it to the State
Department of Community Development by
January 1, 1991.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the above items are the conditions that
must be agreed to in order to receive the money. The conditions
are delineated in the Work Program (SEE Attachment A in agenda
packet) . According to a September 24, 1990, memo some subtle
changes have been made to the Work Program (SEE "Attachment All
passed out at the meeting) . Mr. Satterstrom discussed the changes
as follows:
1. RESOURCE AND CRITICAL LANDS TECHNICAL FORUM: The City is
agreeing as mandated by the Act to work with the County to
have uniform definitions and a consistent designation process
to identify resource in critical lands.
3
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2, 1990
2 . ' URBAN GROWTH AREAS DESIGNATION (relates to the Soos Creek
Plan) : The City agrees to work with the County in urban
growth designations. Mr. Satterstrom noted on page 3, in
1991, some of the first cities that they intend to work with
respect to urban growth boundaries are the valley cities:
Auburn, Kent and Renton. One of the reasons why is because of
the Soos Creek Plateau Plan. The County has the
responsibility of doing the urban growth areas and designating
the boundaries. In 1992 , other cities will be doing this.
3 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGIONAL GOALS: The City will be working
with King County. The County will be having a stronger role
in reviewing their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom quote
on page 4 in the middle of the Actions section as follows:
"The cities will actively participate in the
Comprehensive Plan Review, through the King
County Suburban Cities Association, and, where
appropriate, through direct involvement and
discussions with the County. At a minimum,
each city will be responsible for identifying
any conflict or inconsistency between their
own plans and policies, and any proposed
regional policies for King County. Cities
should also make suggestions for resolving any
such conflict or inconsistency. "
Mr. Satterstrom stated the burden is on us, The City, to
resolve any of these conflicts. Mr. Satterstrom stated this
is a new task and was not in the original Work Program.
4 . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DATA SHARING GROUP: The City will be
getting together with the County to find some comparing data
collection and tabulation or some common methods of collecting
information.
5. WORK PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUAL KING COUNTY JURISDICTIONS: On
page 5 are some subtle changes. Originally, it was the City' s
understanding that the City would tell the County what the
City was going to be doing; e.g. data collection or working on
a sensitive area ordinance. Once the City told the County
what the City would be doing, the City would get a lump sum of
money and the money would be used to accomplish the task.
However, in the final paragraph, last sentence, changes were
made as follows:
4
Planning Department
City Council Planning Committee
October 2 , 1990
"Milestones and timelines are the two key
words in completing this requirement as they
will be used as the basis for measuring
progress and disbursing funds during this
first year" .
Mr. Satterstrom stated that this is a grant and will be
monitored by the County, and the progress made will be
measured and funds will be disbursed accordingly. The
Planning Department had originally understood this
differently. The County will be performing a more key and
central role not only in disbursing funds but in evaluating
progress.
Councilmember Leona Orr made the MOTION and
Councilmember Christie Houser SECONDED to approve the proposed
Resolution accepting the grant funds to implement the Growth
Management Act of 1990 and to recommend this to full Council
with the inclusion of the revised Attachment A with the
provision that this be treated as grant money so that the
Planning Department has access to the funds before the funds
will become available from actuality from the State. The
MOTION carried.
It was decided to change the meeting time to 4 : 30 p.m. instead of
4 : 00 p.m. and meet in the Court Room at Kent City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 :55 p.m.
5
t Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16 . 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 1977 - MAYOR'S SALARY
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pursuant to Council Resolution 1262 , this
ordinance will raise the Mayor's level of compensation in an
amount sufficient to account for cost of living increases since
the compensation was last raised in 1984 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 1262 ; ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $466.50
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Admin./Mayor's Budget
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember —seconds
for the adoption of Ordinance - q L1?
DISCUSSION• n
ACTION• fi
Council Agenda
1 , Q� Item No. 4A
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S1,11j ect: MAYOR'S SALARY - FISCAL NOTE
C _ ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 10/11/90 at 1527 .
COUNCILMEMBER MANN HAS ASKED THAT THE MAYOR'S SALARY BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT
THE COST OF LIVING CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME THE SALARY WAS ADJUSTED, IN MID
1983 IN CONJUNCTION' WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE 1984 BUDGET. AT THAT TIME
MAYOR'S SALARY WAS RAISED FROM $1, 000 PER MONTH PLUS $150 FOR MEETINGS TO $1,200
PER MONTH PLUS $150 FOR MEETINGS. THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FROM THE PERIOD
JULY 1983 TO JUNE 1990 HAS INCREASED 23 .5%. ADJUSTING THE SALARY BY THE CPI
WOULD COST $311 PER MONTH.
WITH THE INCREASE TAKING EFFECT ON 11/16/90 THE COST TO THE CITY IN 1990 WOULD
BE $465.50 THIS INCREASE WOULD BE COVERED IN THE EXECUTIVE/ADMINISTRATION
BUDGET AS HAVE RECENTLY ENACTED CITY WIDE RECLASSIFICATIONS AND SALARY SURVEYS.
BASED ON EXISTING CITY SALARY ADJUSTMENT PRACTICES, THE IBC RECOMMENDS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SALARY ADJUSTMENT.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, reaffirming
Mayor-Council form of government and providing
for cost of living increase to Mayor Dan
Kelleher.
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Kent, Dan Kelleher
began his service with the City of Kent as a Councilman in 1981
and was elected Mayor of Kent on a part-time basis in November,
1986 and thereafter re-elected in November, 1989 ; serving within a
system of government for a non-charter Code City and a strong
Mayor/Council form of government; and
WHEREAS, throughout the period of public service as
Councilmember and Mayor, the Mayor has, together with
Councilmembers past and present, enhanced public involvement in
achieving many city goals such as protecting Kent farmland;
protecting water quality in streams, creeks, the Green River and
areas of wetland; the closing of landfills; renewing and
revitalizing Kent's downtown; developing reasonable limitations on
new apartment construction while promoting single-family home
construction; developing the funding basis necessary to construct
the 272-277th road project; and providing housing opportunities to
Kent's low income elderly; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to reaffirm its satisfaction
with our present form of government which has been highly
productive and successful ; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor's salary when expressed in real
dollars has decreased steadily since the day he assumed office due
to inflation; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor is the only employee of the City
(including Councilmembers) who has received no Cost of Living
Adjustment to his salary since 1984 ; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1. The Council extends its sincerest thanks and
appreciation to the Mayor for his personal interest, excellence in
performance, hard work and achievements for the benefit of the
Kent community throughout his period of elective office.
Section 2 . The Council reaffirms and expresses its
desire to have a strong Mayor/Council form of government as a
non-charter Code City providing for an effective and efficient
part-time Mayor with a City Administrator and support staff.
Section 3 . The Council directs the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary amending ordinance to raise the Mayor's
salary to a level which would account for the Cost of Living
Adjustment increases which have occurred since the salary was last
set in 1984 .
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this C� _ day of 1990.
C curred in by the May r of the City of Kent, this 3
day of , 1990.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEINt CITY CLERK
2 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
R A. tbBCVf CH,
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. ��6�' passed by the
dCity Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the day of 1990.
(SEAL)
MARIE J S N, CIT CLERK
i
8960-320
- 3 -
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending City Ordinance No. 1977
increasing the base salary of the Mayor.
WHEREAS, City of Kent Ordinance No. 1977 , Section 1,
establishes the Mayor's salary; and
WHEREAS, there has been no recent adjustment in the
Mayor's salary to reflect a cost of living or any other increase
in compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent at a
regular meeting of the City Council, October 2, 1990, passed a
� . resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance to raise the Mayor's Salary to a level which would
account for a cost of living adjustment increase since the salary
was last set in 1984 ; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1977 is hereby
amended as follows:
2 . 02. 010. BASE SALARY. ( (Effeet#ve-en-tke-first-elap-ef
January;-1975) ) ( (t) )The base salary of the Mayor of the City of
Kent, Washington shall be $1, 511. 00 per month, said
compensation reflecting the fact that the position of Mayor of the
City of Kent is not considered to be a full time position.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final
passage as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of , 1990 .
APPROVED the day of , 1990.
PUBLISHED the day of , 1990.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinancel
No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon
indicated.
(SEAL)
MARIE JENSEN, CITY CLERK
8980-320
2 -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: NORMAN ANDERSON REZONE NO. RZ-90-7
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of approval without conditions of a
request by Norman Anderson to rezone approximately 4 .85 acres
from M1, Industrial Park, to GWC, Gateway Commercial. The
property is located on the east side of West Valley Highway,
between S. 238th and Cloudy St. (extended) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Hearing Examiner minutes 9/5/90 and
findings and recommendation.
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner. 9/19/90
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO/_ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember -O`Y� moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept/xem_V9ct;bm=1i+y the findings of the Hearing Examiner, to
adopt/re the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of
approval of the Norman Anderson Rezone No. RZ-90-7 without
conditions and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION• u
ACTION: --
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
crrr of a-4
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: ANDERSON IRZ-90-7
APPLICANT: OM P. GOEL FOR NORMAN ANDERSON/JEROME APPLETON
REOUEST: A request to rezone approximately 4. 85 acres from
M1, Industrial Park, to GWC, Gateway Commercial.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of
West Valley Highway, between S. 238th Street and
Cloudy Street (extended) .
APPLICATION FILED: 6/22/90
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED• 6/29/90
MEETING DATE: 9/5/90
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 9/19/90
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED without conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Carol Proud, Planning Department
Scott Williams, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Norman Anderson
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public
hearing on the date indicated above, and following an unaccompanied
personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area by
the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the
following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by
the Hearing Examiner on this application.
1
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a rezone of a 4.85 acre lot from the
current M1, Industrial Park, zoning designation to a GWC,
Gateway Commercial, zoning designation. The purpose of the
request is to facilitate the development of a project which
would include motel, office, restaurant and retail space.
The proposed uses are not specifically listed as principally
permitted uses in the M1 zoning district but are listed as
principally permitted uses in the GWC zoning district.
2 . The subject property is located on the east side of West
Valley Highway between South 238th Street and Cloudy Street
(extended) .
3 . The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the portion of the
property fronting West Valley Highway as I, Industrial. The
Valley Floor Plan Map designates the site as I, Industrial
Park. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor
Plan also includes specific goals to guide development. The
goals of the City-wide plan include:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. . .
Goal 2 : Assure retail and commercial
developments are in suitable locations.
Policy 1: Encourage planned retial/commercial
business development.
4 . The existing zoning classification of Mi was established in
1977. The zoning to the north and east of the subject
property is M1. The zoning of the property to the north and
south of S. 238th Street is GC, General Commercial. Directly
west of the subject property is an area zoned MHP, Mobile Home
Park. A large area north and south of the subject property
was recently rezoned from MA, Industrial Agriculture, to MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential.
5. Land use immediately surrounding the subject property includes
Park 234 Industrial Park to the north; The Agate Shop adjacent
to the southwest end of the property; Safeguard Mini-Storage
to the east; and West Valley Highway to the west. The Caveman
Restaurant is located across from the southern portion of the
subject property. The property directly across West Valley
Highway from the northwest section of the subject property
was recently rezoned from M1 to GC, General Commercial, in an
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
application approved by the City Council on August 21st (See
Ordinance #2941) . Much of the development on properties
surrounding the subject property has occurred since 1977.
6. A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued
for this application on June 29, 1990. The conditions require
a traffic analysis and/or mitigation of traffic impacts; the
development of biofiltration swales and oil/water separation
of stormwater prior to discharge into the City' s system;
hydroseeding (rather than paving) and separation of future
parking areas from the proposed development by curbing until
such time as the need for additional parking can be
documented; and a pedestrian circulation system linking the
internal pedestrian circulation system with sidewalks along
West Valley Highway and S. 238th Street. No one challenged
these mitigation conditions during the time period for
appeals.
7. No one presented any written or oral testimony in opposition
to this request for a rezone. The applicant and the City both
urged approval of the request without conditions.
FINDINGS
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.
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Kent.
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 in not entirely consistent with the land
use designations in the City-wide Comprehensive Plan or the
Valley Floor Plan. Both comprehensive plans designate
portions of the subject property as I. Industrial. The
proposed rezone would not allow for industrial development.
However, goals and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan do support the proposed rezone and the accompanying
proposal for development of the site and the proposed rezone
is in general conformance with those goals and policies.
Washington State law allows for zoning designations to be
inconsistent with land use designations in comprehensive
plans. Non-conformance with a comprehensive plan does not -
render a rezoning action illegal; only general conformance is
necessary. If the proposed rezone is not radically different
from previously existing plans and surrounding uses, it
usually is found to be conformance with the comprehensive
plan. See, Shelton v. Bellevue, 73 W2d 28 (1973) ; Buell v.
Bremerton, 80 W2d 518 (1972) ; and Cathart v. Snohomish County,
96 W2d 201 (1981) . This interpretation of the law may change
with the implementation of the Growth Management Act (See RCW
36.70A. 120) , but this rezone application is not reviewed under
that law. It is the opinion of the Examiner that the proposed
rezone generally conforms with the City's comprehensive plans.
2 . The proposed rezone and proposed subsequent development would
be compatible with development in the surrounding area. The
proposed restaurant, retail space, office space and motel
would complement the existing restaurants, office space and
retail outlets in the near vicinity and along West Valley
Highway. The proposed motel likely would result in increased
use of existing restaurants in the area and would provide the
possibility of accommodations for visitors to commercial
ventures in the proposed office and retail spaces in the
proposed development.
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
- Anderson
#RZ-90-7
3 . The level of traffic impacts associated with the proposed
development was addressed in the mitigated determination of
nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the proposed rezone. The
MDNS sets forth several conditions designed to mitigate
traffic impacts that may be associated with the proposed
rezone and subsequent development. The proposed rezone will
not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of
the area with impacts that cannot be mitigated.
4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed rezone. The City recently completed a Housing Study
which recommended that areas to the north and south of the
subject property be rezoned from MA, Industrial Agricultural,
to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential. This rezone
has been approved. This rezone will significantly change the
character of future development proposals in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property. It is likely that future
development proposals in areas surrounding the subject
property will be multifamily residential and commercial uses
rather than industrial or manufacturing uses as was envisioned
in 1977 when the subject property received an M1 zoning
designation.
5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Kent. The proposed rezone and subsequent development would
benefit the citizens of Kent by offering additional office and
retail space as well as motel and restaurant choices. The
subject property currently undeveloped and is immediately
adjacent to the West Valley highway. There is no real benefit
to the community by leaving the property undeveloped. The
proposed use appears to best complement the existing
development which surrounds the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposed rezone be APPROVED without
conditions.
The application for a rezone clearly and completely satisfies four
of the five criteria required for approval of a rezone. However,
the application to rezone from MI, Industrial, to GWC, Gateway
Commercial, is not entirely consistent with the comprehensive plans
that cover the subject property. Nevertheless, the proposed rezone
5
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Anderson -
#RZ-90-7
and proposed subsequent development of the subject property appear
to generally conform with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. If the City Council disagrees with the
Examiner's interpretation of the goals and policies of the City's
comprehensive plans, the proposed rezone should not be approved.
Dated this 19th day of September, 1990
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by
the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law,
or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available
which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are
answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written
appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the
decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually,
new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing
before the City Council.
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can
also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for
a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an
appeal is filed.
6
City of Kent - Planning Department
N
Crr
x
m
w
Cr
t-
ao
S 23LITH ST
S 238TH <ST
w
Cr
Ln
JAMES ST Z
APPLICATION NAME: Anderson
NUMBER: RZ-90-7 DATE: September 5, 1990
QEQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
r � ■1.
� III
a �1 i_ ■ �
r1 4 Ar
\ems•
W. A
MOM
_
City of Kent - Planning Department
—y---•--
W�„•WM G.1•NY I _
Mill
I WK
H6NlW'J I Q (nw:i•enG � &%w� i ;
.. - bd •'�V c pj
nil]
�
1
pHr wire
.14
Li
ia.o i
( I
roc tag I'll•; :\,. I N i
+ i
of
M'Mc
�uuc
er \ ,twivGruc
p.PatKou of (a.t�o x)
I1+F wWx inWuuW,. �iGa�i'�w abh.Gw
IA
-- ------------ -F.
n.-iary GMdrnv�vfn�.Aa fv..r
APPLICATION NAME: Anderson
NUMBER: RZ-90-7 DATE: September 5, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
Application site
SITE PLAN Zoning boundary
City limits
cvtYcar Wtttd CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859`-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF JULY 18, 1990
FILE NO: #RZ-90-7 ANDERSON REZONE
APPLICANT: Om P. Goel on behalf of Norman Anderson and
Jerome Appleton
REOUEST: A request to rezone approximately 4.85 acres
from the current zoning of M1, Industrial
Park, to GWC, Gateway Commercial, to allow
construction of a commercial development.
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Williams
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone a 4 .85 acre lot
from the current M1, Industrial Park, zoning to GWC,
Gateway Commercial and construct a 65,800 square
foot commercial development. The proposed
development includes a motel (22 ,800 square feet) ,
office space (15, 000 square feet) , restaurant (3 , 600
square feet) and retail space (24,400 square feet) .
B. Location
The subject property is located on the east side of
West Valley Highway, between South 238th Street and
Cloudy Street (extended) .
C. Size of Property
The rezone site is approximately 4 .85 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
D. Zoninct
Property to the north and east is zoned M1,
Industrial Park. Property to the south and west is
zoned GC, General Commercial. An MHP, Mobile Home
Park, district is located directly west of the
subject property and is occupied by the existing
mobile home park.
A large area north and south of S. 238th Street was
recently rezoned to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, from MA, Industrial Agriculture, and
GC, General Commercial. This was done as part of
the City' s recent Housing Study.
E. Land Use
The subject property is located at the northern end
of the commercial corridor that surrounds West
Valley Highway/Washington Avenue from Willis Street
to James Street. North of the subject property land
uses on either side of West Valley Highway are
predominantly industrial.
Land uses that immediately surround the subject
property are as follows:
North: Park 234 Industrial Park
South: The Agate Shop is located directly
adjacent to the southwest portion of the
site. A portion of the Safeguard Mini-
Storage is located immediately south of
the southeast portion of the subject
property.
East: Safeguard Mini-Storage
West: West Valley Highway; a mobile Home Park is
located across the right-of-way. Across
from the southern portion of the site is
the Caveman Restaurant. Across from the
northwest portion of the site is the site
of the Auotcheck Rezone (#RZ-90-6) (see
Section I (F) , below) .
2
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
F. History
The subject property was annexed in the City of Kent
in 1958 as part of the 40 acre Meeker' s Supplemental
Plat annexation. The property was originally zoned
MA and rezoned to M1, Industrial Park, in 1977 .
An application has been received by the Planning
Department to rezone the property directly west, on
the opposite side of West Valley Highway, from the
current M11 Industrial Park to GC, General
Commercial (#RZ-90-6) . A public hearing for this
proposal was held in front .of the Pro Tem Hearing
Examiner on July 18, 1990. The Pro Tem Hearing
Examiner recommended to the City Council that the
rezone be granted. The City Council is scheduled to
consider the application on August 21, 1990.
A large area north and south of S. 238th Street was
recently rezoned to MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
Residential, from MA, Industrial Agriculture, and
GC, General Commercial. This was done as part of
the City' s recent Housing Study.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(MDNS) (#ENV-90-3) for the rezone proposal was
issued on June 29 , 1990. Mitigation measures and
conditions are included in the file of record.
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Vegetation
The rezone site is developed with a single
family residence and an accessory building.
The majority of the site is unimproved. The
site is relatively level.
The site is mostly covered with grasses. Some
ornamental landscaping exists around the
existing residence.
3
Staff Report
Anderson
IRZ-90-7
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property has access to West Valley
Highway which is classified as a principal
arterial. The street has a public right-of-way
width of 100 feet while the actual width of
paving is 69 feet. The street is improved with
curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The average
daily traffic count on the street is 30, 000
vehicle trips per day.
2 . Water System
There is an existing ten-inch water main in
S. 238th Street to serve the subject property.
There is also a 16-inch water main located in
West Valley Highway available to serve the
site.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
There is an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer
main available on-site.
4 . Storm Water System
A storm water system constructed in accordance
with the Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code
will be required at the time of development.
5. LID' s
No LID's are pending at this 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
4
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
In addition to the above, all persons owning property
which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of
the application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report
where applicable.
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. The proposed rezone
area is served by the Valley Floor sub-area plan.
The following is a review of both plans as they
relate to the subject property.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two
entities, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written
goals, objectives and policies. The Comprehensive
Plan Map designates that portion of the site
fronting as I, Industrial.
5
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OVERALL GOAL: PROMOTE CONTROLLED ECONOMIC GROWTH
WITH ORDERLY PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION.
GOAL 2 : Assure retail and commercial developments
are in suitable locations.
Objective 1: Minimize adverse physical
impacts of strip commercial
development.
Policy 1: Encourage planned retail-
commercial business development.
Policy 4 : Adopt and enforce regulations
which will minimize the adverse
impacts and unsafe conditions
caused by strip development.
Planning Department Comment:
The subject property is located at the north end of
the retail corridor that exists on either side of
West Valley Highway from James Street to Willis
Street. Zoning directly across West Valley Highway
from the southern portion of the subject property is
currently zoned GC, General Commercial. Another
rezone application (,JRZ-90-6) , from M1, Industrial
Park, to GC, General Commercial, across from the
northern portion of the subject property, has been
recommended for approval by the Pro Tem Hearing
Examiner (See Section I (F) , above) .
As a result of the City's Housing Study, a large
portion of land north and south of S. 238th Street
was rezoned to MRG. Residential uses exist across
West Valley Highway from the subject property.
Commercial development with the development
standards in the GWC zoning district is more
appropriate with these uses than the industrial
development allowed under Mi would be. For these
reasons, staff feels that the subject property is
suitable for the proposed rezone.
6
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
The development standards of the GWC district were
designed specifically to reduce the adverse impacts
of strip commercial development. Large setbacks,
earth berms and incentives for locating parking
behind buildings are among the measures taken to
avoid adverse impacts from strip development.
VALLEY FLOOR PLAN
The Valley Floor Plan Map designates the subject
property as I, Industrial Park.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF
TRAVEL.
GOAL 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient
routes and terminal facilities for vehicular traffic
moving within and through Kent.
Obiective 1: Provide adequate traffic ways
for both local and through
traffic, separating the systems
when possible.
Planning Department Comment
Traffic impacts of the proposed project were
addressed through the SEPA process. Conditions were
attached to the project that will mitigate the
impacts of the proposed development.
B. Standards and Criteria for a Rezone Request
The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning
Code, Section 15. 09 . 050) are 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.
1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
7
Staff Report
Anderson
JRZ-90-7
Planninct Department Comment
As previously discussed, the proposed rezone is
consistent with the relevant goals and policies of
both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley
Floor Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zone change
is not consistent with either plan map.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development
of the site would be compatible with
development in the vicinity.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone and subsequent development would
be more compatible with the existing and future
residential uses west of the subject property than
the existing M1 designation would be (see Sections
IV(B) (1) above and IV(B) (4) below) . The proposed
rezone also would be compatible with the other
adjacent land uses (i.e. , commercial and
industrial) .
3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which
cannot be mitigated.
Planning Department Comment
Anticipated impacts to the transportation system
have been addressed by the mitigating measures and
conditions required as a result of SEPA.
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since
the establishment of the current zoning
district to warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
As part of the City's Housing Study, A large area
west of West Valley Highway, north and south of S.
238th Street was rezoned from MA, Industrial
Agriculture, and GC, General Commercial, to MRG,
Garden Density Multifamily Residential. This rezone
significantly changed the character of future
development in the vicinity of the subject property.
8
Staff Report
Anderson
#RZ-90-7
Whereas when the subject property was initially
zoned, the future development across West Valley
Highway was envisioned as being commercial and
industrial development, now development in this area
will be predominantly residential.
As a result of this rezone to MR-, if and when the
existing mobile home park is redeveloped, most
likely the subsequent development will remain
residential.
Therefore, it is staff 's opinion that circumstances
have changed substantially since the establishment
of the existing zoning district on the subject
property to warrant the proposed rezone.
5. 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 proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of
the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor
Plan and meets the standards of other City Codes and
Ordinances. As a result, the proposal will not
adversely affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
V. 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 the Anderson Rezone request.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 24 , 1990
9
City of Kent - Planning Department
N
Q r`
Z
F--
m
Uj
Cr
S
H
tD
S 234TH ST
�.•h`.`tii `i��i i
:titi4 fi:
S 238TH ' ST
w
y
Cr
x
F-
Ln
JAMES ST Z
APPLICATION NAME: Anderson
NUMBER: RZ-90-7 DATE: September 5, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
Application site
VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary
City limits
f � ■1.
�� t r ■
y'
rim
Sol
2
W3
2
_ _ illi � ,
� ' • • [I
A • - •
• a • , DA - . - . - • • �
• • i LUM' 'ffi m VA I a ' . . . . .
City of Kent - Planning Department
------- � ` ----.—_r --------'l
\ Wl.�f YlM •J �••. I.fi�Yl
" I
� MW114.Mf1t Y., • i i
I r,ko.Y 1lfYIfMf � � II ,
;
+f
4t I
J I
j
�Ip ; II 1
51Gll �' I L I I LPU�IJ it
'
1
e I �
?irk
II '
• 11 1
\ �7
IT.JAi i • r 5 4�.\\.``I\ J • II I I
7)
-------------
---------------F
Ij
wr•s� �� iYr
NR j
�Rer-�Y�1
'� V.lwicaM x (sveo 5()
uYnx�..MNI �Y��I abiW.m
nr�iary II.d�Irou Y rwYai..\n^41' w
APPLICATION NAME: Anderson
NUMBER: RZ-90-7 DATE: September 5, 1990
REQUEST: Rezone
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
September 5, 1990
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, September 5, 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.
ANDERSON
#RZ-90-7
A public hearing to consider the request by Om P. Goel, PO Box
1211, Kent, WA 98035, to rezone five acres from M1, Industrial
Park, to GWC, Gateway Commercial. The property is located at the
northeast corner of S. 238th Street and West Valley Highway.
Scott Williams, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff
report. Mr. Williams showed some view foils depicting the 1)
location of the project, and 2) the zoning of the property and the
surrounding area. Mr. Williams stated a Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued on June 29, 1990. Mr. Williams remarked
the staff report encompasses the staff findings concerning the
Comprehensive Plan and the criteria to be reviewed when a rezone is
requested. Mr. Williams stated the staff is recommending approval
with no conditions. Mr. Williams commented the rezone request is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; however,
it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map.
Hearing Examiner Minutes
September 5, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Hunter asked if there was a date for when the Comprehensive
Plan revision would be completed.
Mr. Williams remarked, currently, the timeline for revising the
Comprehensive Plan is approximately one year.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Norm Anderson hoped there would not be a problem with obtaining the
rezone.
There were no further comments.
The hearing was closed at 3 : 12 p.m.
.............
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ' LID 331 - S.E. 240TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Installation of sewer pipe crossings for
future sewer connections was included with the street improve-
ments constructed by this LID. In order to keep the final
assessments as close as possible to the original reduced
preliminary assessment amounts and because these costs can be
recouped through a charge in lieu of assessment at time of
connection to the sewer, it is recommended the cost for making
these crossings ($50, 000) be paid from the unencumbered sewer
funds. Since the hearing in the final assessment roll is
scheduled for November 6, Council action is needed in order to
incorporate changes in the final""assessment notices. fihe Public
Works Committee has reviewed and approved this action, however,
the October 9, Operations Committee meeting was canceled.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpts from October 2 Public Works Committee
meeting, memorandum from Director of Public Works, and IBC
findings
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember U A' L14a�
moves, Councilmember � seconds
that $50, 000 be transferred from the unencumbered sewer funds to
LID 331 to pay for the sewer crossings constructed as part of
the project.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 2 , 1990
PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill
Leona Orr Tim Heydon
Steve Dowell Norm Angelo
Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust
Jim Hansen Al Varney
Carol Morris
L. I.D. 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvements
Wickstrom explained that at the beginning of this project we had
attempted to form two LID's - one for sewer and the other for the
street improvements. The one for sewer failed; however, the street
LID was formed. In conjunction with the street improvement, we
installed sewer crossings so that as properties developed they
would be able to connect to sewer without cutting the road. The
cost for these crossings was approximately $50,000. We had
originally planned to include this cost in the LID; however, the
LID costs have exceeded our original estimates. Thus, since the
cost of the sewer crossings are a legitimate expense of the sewer
utility, it is proposed to pay for this from the unencumbered sewer
fund. This will keep the LID assessments closer to the original
estimate. White asked if we have done this type of thing before.
Wickstrom explained it is not an uncommon practice and we did the
same type of thing on the Kent Kangley improvement project.
Wickstrom added that once the LID is finalized we will be asking
for a charge in lieu of assessment so that when the properties
connect they would reimburse the sewer fund for their appropriate
share of the cost. The Committee unanimously recommended approval
to transfer the $50, 000 from the unencumbered sewer funds.
272nd/277th Corridor
Wickstrom explained that we had previously met with members of King
County Council, King County Executive' s office and King County
Public Works Department regarding this project. They have asked us
to defer finalizing our Environmental Impact Statement until
January to enable them to do some technical analyses as to how our
proposed alignments would fit with the proposed alignments of their
extension of the corridor to Highway 18 . King County also wanted
to receive additional citizen input on their route alignment.
Wickstrom stated he would like formal Council concurrence with this
request. White asked when we are at risk of losing funding for the
corridor. Wickstrom stated that if Initiative 547 is approved then
the gas tax issue is in question and that will jeopardize the
funding. White questioned if Council needs to be looking at their
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 18, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Co ncil
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: LID 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvement
At the onset of this project, two LID' s were attempted; one LID for
the street improvements and the other for sewer improvements. The
Street LID passed after the City reduced the LID assessments by
$240, 000. The Sewer LID, however, failed. As we proceeded with
construction of the street improvements, we did, however, install
sewer pipe crossings in the street for future sewer connections so
that as property in the area developed, there would not be a need
to cut the street to make sewer connections. The cost involved in
making these crossings was approximately $50, 000.
Excluding this cost, the final LID assessments are anticipated to
run 20% over the original reduced assessment amount. If we were to
add these sewer costs as part of the final assessment then the
over-run would be approximately 37%. Since these sewer costs could
be recouped via a charge in-lieu-of assessment therefor (meaning in
order for the property to connect to these crossings they first
must reimburse the City for their respective share of said cost)
and based on the property owners ' concern per the assessment amount
as expressed at the formation of the LID, we recommend that the
sewer fund pick up these sewer costs. The monies therefor would
come from the unencumbered sewer funds.
This matter has been before IBC and a copy of their response is
attached.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
S - ject: LID 331 TRANSFER - FISCAL NOTE
( ,.�ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/26/90 at 1455.
THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING THE TRANSFER OF $50, 000 FROM
THE UNENCUMBERED SEWER FUNDS TO COVER SOME SEWER COST ASSOCIATED WITH LID
3311S STREET IMPROVEMENTS. IT WAS THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT'S ORIGINAL
INTENT TO HAVE A SEWER ASSESSMENT AS A PORTION OF THE LID, BUT THIS WAS
NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WITH THE TRANSFER OF SEWER FUNDS,
PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY A CHARGE IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT
AT THE TIME THEY CONNECT TO THE SEWER LINE.
THE IBC RECOMMENDS THIS FINANCING TECHNIQUE AS A WAY TO PROVIDE THE LEAST
COST LONG TERM FINANCING SOLUTION. PROPERTY ARE HAPPY BY NOT HAVING TO
PAY SEWER ASSESSMENTS UNTIL THEY CONNECT, BUT THE CITY GETS AN IMPROVEMENT
THAT IS MUCH LESS COSTLY TO BUILD AT THE TIME OF THE STREET CONSTRUCTION
AND RECOVERS THE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 16, 1990
J Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: VAN SERVICE TRUCK
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on September 28 with
three bids received. The low bid was submitted by Utility
Equipment Company, Inc. in the amount of $26, 177.41. S
recommend4 that this bid be accepted. Uj H k TF Sp w1 p\) Eta
J U liw\,5
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Operations Manager
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Comm ssion, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL ACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Rec ended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $i
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION':
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
the bid in the amount of $26, 177.41 submitted by Utility
Equipment Company for the Van Service Truck be accepted.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
1
t
CITY OF KEN7'
MEMORANDUM OCi 0 4 1990
ENGINEERfNG DEPT.
DATE: /October 2 , 1990
/
TO: ` Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Work
THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Manager
FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager�c
SUBJECT: Bid for New Van Service Truck
Replacement for #74
On September 28, 1990, bids were received by the City of Kent,
Equipment Rental Division. Three bids were received.
1) Harris Ford Base Bid $36,722 . 00
200th and Highway 99 Sales Tax 2 ,974 . 48
PO Box 867 Total Bid $39, 696. 48
Lynwood, WA 98046
2) Fruehauf Corporation Base Bid $33 ,832 . 00
9426 8th Avenue South Sales Tax 2 , 740.39
Seattle, WA 98108 Total Bid $36, 572 . 39
3) Utility Equipment Co. , Inc. Base Bid $24,215. 92
1303 South 96th Street Sales Tax 1,961.49
Seattle, WA 98108 Total Bid $26, 177 .41
We have read over the bids submitted and found Utility Equipment
specifications to be satisfactory in all details. Since they are
the lowest bid, I recommend we award the bid to them.
Capital outlay for purchase will come part from the Water
Department and part from Equipment Rental .
JS/map
cc: Dianne Sullivan
Attachments (2)
E053CO2
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
r
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE 71
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS ';(,
tr�1 G� U1
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 25, 1990
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser
- Paul Mann
STAFF PRESENT: Ed Chow
Jim Hansen
Roger Lubovich
Tony McCarthy
Kelli O'Donnell
Don Olson
Bill Williamson
The meeting was called to order at 4:40 pm by Chairperson Christi Houser.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending September 14, 1990 in the amount of$2,306,845.29 were approved
for payment.
POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL CONTRACT
Personnel Director Olson handed out back up information regarding the updating of the Policy and
Procedures Manual and requested Assistant City Attorney Williamson to outline the process to date.
Assistant City Attorney Williamson explained that the City is currently updating the City Codes. The
code revisor has noted that a number of items in the code are more appropriately placed in the
policy manual. The consultant revising the code, Municipal Code Corporation, has submitted a
proposal to update the policy and procedures manual including legal and conflict analysis and a
review of federal and state mandates for omissions from the manual.
The City Attorney's office is requesting the Council's consideration for this item in the 1991 budget.
The amount requested was $10,000 which would be sufficient to allow for any contingencies.
Assistant City Attorney Williamson noted that it would be cost effective for the current consultant
to contract this additional update due to their familiarity with the City Codes now being updated.
Finance Director McCarthy concurred, noting that it seemed most logical to incorporate it into an
ending phase of the recodification and the need for an update to the Policy and Procedures Manual
had been previously identified.
Councilman Mann moved that the item be considered for the 1991 budget with a cap of$10,000.
The motion passed with a vote of 2-0 to be placed on the Consent Calendar of the next City Council
meeting.
ORDINANCE FOR LID INTERFUND LOAN
Finance Director McCarthy asked the Committee to recommend to Council an authorization for an
interfund loan resolution to meet federal arbitrage requirements for LID's. After outlining the
history of past practices, he explained that this resolution would also cover LID #'s 329, 331, 333
and 335 which were previously approved by Council and all future LID's. Councilman Mann asked
if the resolution met with McCarthy's approval. 'Finance Director McCarthy noted that the
predetermined date language had been modified to meet his concern of unforeseen delays and he
recommended approval.
It was moved and seconded that the item be put on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed with
a vote of 2-0.
ORDINANCE TO REAFFIRM MAYOR-COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND PROVIDE FOR
COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO MAYOR
Councilman Mann presented a resolution to reaffirm the Mayor-Council form of government and
provide for a cost of living increase for the Mayor. He further requested that this resolution replace
Councilman Johnson's resolution in regard to changing the form of government.
It was moved and seconded to submit this item to Council under Other Business with a unanimous
vote. The motion passed 2-0.
Councilman Mann noted a few changes to be made with a corrected copy being distributed with
minutes of today's meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm by Chairperson Christi Houser.
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, reaffirming Mayor-Council form
of government and providing for cost of living increase
to Mayor Dan Kelleher.
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City of Kent, Dan Kelleher
began his service with the City of Kent as a Councilman in 1981 and
was elected Mayor of Kent on a part-time basis in November, 1986
and thereafter re-elected in November, 1990; serving within a
system of government for a non-charter Code City and a strong
Mayor/Council form of government; and
WHEREAS, throughout the period of public service as
Councilmember and Mayor, the Mayor has taken a leading role in
achieving City goals such as protecting Kent farmland; protecting
water quality in streams, creeks, the Green River and areas of
wetlands; the closing of landfills; renewing and revitalizing
Kent' s downtown; developing reasonable limitations on new apartment
construction while promoting single-family home construction;
developing the funding basis necessary to construct the 272-277th
road project; and providing housing opportunities to Kent's low
income elderly; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to reaffirm its satisfaction
with our present form of government which has been highly
productive and successful; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor' s salary when expressed in real
dollars has decreased steadily since the day he assumed office due
to inflation and;
WHEREAS, the Mayor is the only employee of the City
(including Councilmembers) who has received no Cost of Living
Adjustment to his salary since 1984 ; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Council extends its sincerest thanks and
appreciation to the Mayor for his personal interest, excellence in
performance, hard work and achievements for the benefit of the Kent
community throughout his period of elective office.
Section 2 . The Council reaffirms and expresses its
desire to continue the present Mayor/Council form of government as
a Code City providing for an effective part-time Mayor with
adequate support staff and City Administrator.
Section 3 . The Council directs the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary amending ordinance to raise the Mayor' s
salary to a level which would account for the Cost of Living
Adjustment increases which have occurred since the salary was last
set in 1984 .
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of 1990.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1990.
Dan Kelleher
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
Marie Jensen
City C -k
CITY OF KENT
PARKS COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 19, 1990
Councilmembers Present: Steve Dowell, Chair; Jon Johnson, Jim
White and Christi Houser.
Staff Present: Ed Chow, Helen Wickstrom, Jack Ball, Cheryl Fraser,
Lori Hogan, Patrice Thorell, Robyn Bartelt, Karen
Ford, Steven Szydel, Alana McIalwain and Pam Rumer.
Others Present: Brad Bell, 26034 142 Ave. SE, Kent and Dick
Hensel, 855 4 Ave. N #200, Kent.
EXTENDED FENCING AT COMMONS PLAYFIELD
Mr. Hensel explained to the Committee that the Commons Playfield
has created problems for his apartment complex (851, 855, 861 - 4th
Avenue North) for four and a half years. He has encountered
pedestrian traffic to and from the park, children riding bicycles
in the complex parking lot and participants parking in the parking
lot. Hensel pointed out that tenants ' children are not permitted
to ride bicycles in the parking lot. He also added that he has
w lost tenants due to these problems.
Hensel said that the Parks Department provided him with barricades
to put up before events and this is extremely inconvenient.
Wickstrom also mentioned that Parks Department literature does
inform participants that parking for Commons Playfield events is at
the Metro Park and Ride. Hensel stated that participants still
continue to park at his complex.
Hensel said that the complex is spending $10, 000 to install a
security gate along Fourth Avenue. He requested that the Parks
Department extend the department fence and put a gate at the
complex. Hensel said that he would put a combination lock on the
gate.
Dowell questioned how much it would cost to extend the fencing.
Ball reported that he received three quotes for the 600 feet of
fencing: P K Fence $ 4 , 367. 24
Always Fence $ 4 , 107 .80
Built Rite Fence $ 3 ,729 . 45
Dowell questioned if Ball checked with Bailey' s Fence.
Parks Committee Minutes
September 19, 1990
Page Two
Wickstrom read from the fiscal note prepared by Finance that the
Internal Budget Committee recommends that the fence should not be
a City expense. The IBC feels that it would be bad precedence and
pointed out that other situations on private property are solved
with "No Parking" and "Tow Away" signs.
White questioned where the department will get the funds. Ball
reported that Park Maintenance is reviewing their budget to see if
there are funds available.
Johnson moved to approved extension of the fencing if funding is
available. White seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
White suggested that the Parks and Finance Departments determine if
there is funding available and report back at the next Parks
Committee meeting.
IOOF HALL UPDATE
Wickstrom reported that the Odd Fellows have informally made a
proposal to sell the IOOF Hall to the City for $250, 000. She
pointed out that this item did not make the cut for funding in the
1991 budget, but it is a rare opportunity to make this purchase.
Brad Bell commented that the City has been working on this project
for 30 years and the Parks Department has been aggressively
pursuing this for six months. Bell reminded the Committee that the
Odd Fellows have never agreed to sell to the City before.
Bell said that the City will receive a formal sales agreement soon,
which also involves two leases. The City will either have to buy
out the leases or relocate the tenants. Bell commented that there
is no condemnation clause in the contracts or anything that states
what will happen if the building burns down.
Wickstrom pointed out that the Parks Committee has been encouraging
the Parks Department to pursue this issue. The department would
like some direction now that an offer has been made.
Both Dowell and White questioned why this was brought before the
Parks Committee. They agreed that it should be considered by the
full Council as a City project, as it is part of downtown
revitalization.
Parks Committee Minutes
September 19, 1990
Page Three
Dowell questioned why the funds should come from the Parks
Department budget when it is a capital expense.
White asked that the Parks Department take a look at the 1991
Supplemental Budget to see if there are available funds. He also
asked that staff find out all legal ramifications involved and
determine a more accurate idea of the costs.
Chow requested that the department determine liability involved in
relocation so that the Council will have the full picture.
The Committee told Bell that they are interested in this project
and would like to see the paperwork once it is received.
PETITION FOR IRRIGATION AT PAR-3 AND DRIVING RANGE
Wickstrom explained that the irrigation scored high enough for
funding, but due to Finance' s projections for golf course income,
none of the golf complex' s requests were granted. In answer to
Dowell ' s question, Wickstrom stated that the department does not
understand how Finance arrived at the (800, 000) figure.
Chow pointed out that it was not taken into consideration that
there would be sales tax on the fees charged to golfers.
White mentioned that most of those who signed the petition are not
City of Kent residents. Bartelt stated that those participants saw
the petition as an opportunity to voice their support. She pointed
out that they do pay the same fee to golf.
Bartelt said that the main concern is to install the main
irrigation line under Meeker Street in case the current system at
the Par-3 shuts down. She said that it is a very old system.
Dowell said that he is concerned about the figures for the golf
complex and that he will meet with Tony McCarthy.
Bartelt requested that if Finance' s figures are incorrect, that the
golf complex be allowed to put some of those revenues back into the
complex by funding some of the complex requests.
White requested that someone from Finance and Parks meet and
calculate the figures to the penny, rather than guessing at them.
White moved to look at the $20, 000 request to install the main line
irrigation at the golf complex to see if the money is available.
Johnson seconded the motion.
"' The motion passed unanimously.
Parks Committee Minutes
September 19, 1990
Page Four
Dowell expressed concern that the driving range expansion also did
not make the budget cut. He stated that the driving range is a
money maker and the City will lose revenue if the money is not
spent for that expansion. Dowell suggested that the Council should
take a look at the requests again. He did not feel that Council
had the opportunity to give much input to Tony McCarthy's
presentation because of the time limitation.
RENT MEMORIAL PARR RENTAL HOUSE
Wickstrom said that it would require a lot of work to get the house
in rental condition. She said that the department considered
demolishing the house, but costs for the demolition are high.
Ball informed the Committee that he received two quotes for
demolition: City Transfer $9,500 + tax, plus
hazardous material
inspection and removal
Russ Lloyd Demolition $6, 269.80, plus hazardous
material inspection and
removal
Dowell asked if Park Maintenance staff could do the demolition.
Ball responded that it would require excessive manpower and labor
costs, and there would be no place to dump the debris.
Dowell questioned why the City doesn't sell it. Wickstrom said
that it is an option. She stated that we would need to subdivide
the lot so that the portion with the house on it could be sold.
The Committee instructed staff to pursue subdividing the property
and selling the front portion which is zoned commercial. Steve
Dowell recommended that the house be boarded up. Wickstrom stated
that the department is attempting to make the house look lived in
and that if it were boarded up, vandals would know it is empty.
Maintenance staff keep the lawn mowed.
PRIORI-TEE CARDS
Bartelt asked to defer this issue until the next Parks Committee
meeting. Staff are still writing the policy for the cards, as
directed by City Administration and the Internal Budget Committee.
PARRS COMMITTEE MEETING
September 19, 1990
Attendance
Name Address/Department Phone No.
1. Ac�C PA�� H�c. 3 3 `t 5
2 . G
3 . VA QET! Ra PAi?1C M-re-. G334S' Z
5. he
6.
7 . -
s . 6LL 3`I
9 . 5ik 11A"j -5-7,wi5,L o 2
10.
12 .
13 .
14 .
15 .
16.
17 .
18 .
19 .
20.
21.
22 .
23 .
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. p
-----------------------------------------
Subject: FENCING AT COMMONS PLAYFIELD - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/13/90 at 0835 .
IN AN EFFORT TO RESOLVE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINTS ABOUT PARTICIPANT PARKING IN
APARTMENT PARKING LOTS AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS PROPOSING
TO EXTEND THE FENCE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE COMMONS PLAYFIELD BY 600 FEET.
BASED ON TELEPHONE QUOTES RECEIVED BY THE PARK DEPARTMENT, THE COST OF THE
FENCE WILL BE ABOUT $4, 200. THE PARK DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT A GATE WILL BE PUT
IN THE FENCE WITH A KEY MAINTAINED BY THE APARTMENT MANAGERS SO THAT THE FENCE
CAN BE LOCKED DURING CITY EVENTS.
THE IBC FEELS THAT THE FENCE SHOULD NOT BE A CITY EXPENSE SINCE IT WOULD BE
BAD PRECEDENT FOR OTHER FENCING REQUESTS. PARTICULAR PROBLEMS EXIST WITH
HAVING A GATE THAT ALLOWS INDIVIDUAL ACCESS BUT NO PUBLIC ACCESS. SIMILIAR
PRIVATE PROPERTY ISSUES ARE SOLVED WITH NO PARKING AND TOWING SIGNS THAT ARE
ENFORCED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Sul-ject: IOOF MALL - FISCAL NOTE
C., -,ttor: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 06/14/90 at 1609 .
THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS PROPOSING THE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION OF THE
IOOF BUILDING. THE INITIAL PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY DEVELOPMENT
COSTS BUT ONE POSSIBILITY MENTIONED WOULD BE USE OF A PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY FOR RETAIL SHOPS ALONG A MALL CONNECTING GOWE STREET WITH MEEKER
STREET. $250, 000 IS BEING REQUESTED FOR ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION. NONE
IS REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPOSAL ADDRESSES COUNCIL TARGET ISSUES RELATED TO "RENEW AND
REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN" , "DEVELOP PARK SYSTEM" AND "PROMOTE CITY PRIDE AND
IMAGE" . IT ALSO IS SUPPORTED IN CONCEPT BY AN ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
PLAN DONE IN THE 19601S, BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN INCLUDED IN ANY RECENT DOWNTOWN
PLANS AND THEREFORE IS NOT PART OF THE 1990-1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THE IBC DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME BUT RECOMMENDS THE
INCLUSION OF THIS PROJECT AS A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR 1991. THEY
ALSO RECOMMEND THE PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES WITH APPROXIMATE
COSTS SO THAT AN ENTIRE PROJECT CAN BE EVALUATED. ONE ALTERNATIVE MAY BE
ACQUISITION IN PHASE ONE WITH DEMOLITION AND DEVELOPMENT IN PHASE TWO. IN THE
INTERIM LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH EXISTING TENANTS COULD BE WORKED OUT.
IF THE PARK DEPARTMENT PREPARES A REQUEST FOR 1991 FUNDING, THE REQUEST WILL BE
INCLUDED FOR EVALUATION BY THE COUNCIL AT THEIR AUGUST 9TH BUDGET WORK SESSION.
IF THE COUNCIL RATES IT HIGH, THE ACQUISITION CAN BE MADE IN LATE 1990 OR IN
E LY 1991 AS DECIDED. INCLUDING IT IN THE RATING PROCESS INSURES ITS
IAPORTANCE WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER CIP REQUESTS.
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN HPDesk print.
----------------------------------------- W IUD u
Subject: IOOF MALL UPDATE - FISCAL NOTE
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/13/90 at 0949 .
ON JUNE 14TH THE IBC WROTE A FISCAL NOTE ON THE IBe-MkIffi. A COPY OF THAT
NOTE IS ATTACHED. THE NOTE RECOMMENDED DEFERRAL OF THE REQUEST FOR FUNDING
UNTIL EVALUATED IN THE 1991 BUDGET PROCESS. THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND
DEMOLITION COST WAS ESTIMATED TO BE $250, 000. THE 1991 BUDGET REQUEST ASKED
FOR $310, 000 WITH AN ADDITIONAL $200, 000 BEING REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
1992 .
THE IBC IS NOT RECOMMENDING ACQUISITION BASED ON THE COUNCIL'S 1991 BUDGET
PRIORITIES. ON A PRIORITY SCALE THE COUNCIL GAVE THE REQUEST A COMPOSITE
3 .00 RATING WITH AN AVAILABLE FUNDING CUTOFF AT THE 3 .43 LEVEL.
W
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. D 1�un�� lt1�Y1�
----------------------------------------- UU W
S»bject: IRRIGATION @ PAR-3 & DRIVING RANGE - FISCAL NOTE
C ator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/14/90 at 0803 .
THE PARK DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED A PETITION FROM THE PAR 3 MEN'S AND LADIES '
CLUBS TO SUPPORT ALLOCATING FUNDS TO INSTALL IRRIGATION AT THE PAR-3 GOLF
COURSE AND DRIVING RANGE. THE COST FOR THIS SYSTEM WAS ESTIMATED AS A 1991
BUDGET REQUEST AT $174 , 000.
THOUGH THIS REQUEST RECEIVED A RATING THAT COULD HAVE FUNDED IT WITH CIP
DOLLARS, THE COUNCIL DIRECTION IN THE PAST HAS BEEN TO FUND THIS TYPE OF
REQUEST WITH GOLF DOLLARS. WITH CURRENT PROJECTIONS IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT
THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND CAN FUND ANY MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. PRESENT
PROJECTIONS SHOW THAT ADDITIONAL LOANS MAY NEED TO BE MADE TO FUND CURRENT
OPERATIONS IF ADDITIONAL REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS OR EXPENDITURE CUTS AREN'T MADE.
IT SHOULD BE ALSO NOTED THAT MANY WHO SIGNED THE PETITION DID NOT HAVE A
KENT ZIP CODE. TO FUND THE REQUEST WITH CITY TAX DOLLARS WOULD MEAN THAT
CITY TAXPAYERS COULD BE FUNDING A PROGRAM FOR NO CITY RESIDENTS. THE IBC
RECOMMENDS DENIAL AT THIS TIME PENDING AVAILABLE GOLF ENTERPRISE RESOURSES.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 2 , 1990
PRESENT: Jim White Gary Gill
Leona Orr Tim Heydon
Steve Dowell Norm Angelo
Don Wickstrom Mr. and Mrs. Rust
Jim Hansen . Al Varney
Carol Morris
L. I. D. 331 - S.E. 240th Street Improvements
Wickstrom explained that at the beginning of this project we had
attempted to form two LID' s - one for sewer and the other for the
street improvements. The one for sewer failed; however, the street
LID was formed. In conjunction with the street improvement, we
installed sewer crossings so that as properties developed they
would be able to connect to sewer without cutting the road. The
cost for these crossings was approximately $50, 000. We had
originally planned to include this cost in the LID; however, the
LID costs have exceeded our original estimates. Thus, since the
cost of the sewer crossings are a legitimate expense of the sewer
utility, it is proposed to pay for this from the unencumbered sewer
fund. This will keep the LID assessments closer to the original
estimate. White asked if we have done this type of thing before.
Wickstrom explained it is not an uncommon practice and we did the
same type of thing on the Kent Kangley improvement project.
Wickstrom added that once the LID is finalized we will be asking
for a charge in lieu of assessment so that when the properties
connect they would reimburse the sewer fund for their appropriate
share of the cost. The Committee unanimously recommended approval
to transfer the $50, 000 from the unencumbered sewer funds.
272nd/277th Corridor
Wickstrom explained that we had previously met with members of King
County Council, King County Executive' s office and King County
Public Works Department regarding this project. They have asked us
to defer finalizing our Environmental Impact Statement until
January to enable them to do some technical analyses as to how our
proposed alignments would fit with the proposed alignments of their
extension of the corridor to Highway 18 . King County also wanted
to receive additional citizen input on their route alignment.
Wickstrom stated he would like formal Council concurrence with this
request. White asked when we are at risk of losing funding for the
corridor. Wickstrom stated that if Initiative 547 is approved then
the gas tax issue is in question and that will jeopardize the
funding. White questioned if Council needs to be looking at their
Public Works Committee
October 2 , 1990
Page 2
priorities and possibly thinking about the 192nd/196th Corridor.
White asked what would happen if the City determined not to build
the corridors. Wickstrom explained there were no other solutions.
The minor improvements to the existing system have been completed
and we still have intersections and roads at or exceeding capacity.
We know the 272nd/277th corridor provides a lot of benefit to our
East Hill area and to the Valley area along the 516 corridor, much
more relief than the 192nd/196th corridor would provide initially.
The Committee unanimously recommended the City defer the completion
of their EIS on the 272nd/277th corridor until January.
Street Utility
Wickstrom stated the growth management act requires. concurrence of
the transportation system with the land use plan in order to allow
continued development. White asked if development could be shut
down unless the City improves its transportation system to comply
with its comprehensive plan. Wickstrom stated that we have two to
three years before the City' s transportation system has to be in
concurrence with the land use plan. There are no other
intersection improvements available that will improve our service
level so the corridor projects become increasingly important. They
all have long lead times thus we need to establish financial
commitments to get them into the "six year window" so that
development can continue to occur. Wickstrom stated he was
presenting this information in further support of the street
utility. A decision on the street utility needs to be made
shortly. Perhaps Council may want to wait until after November to
see if Initiative 547 is enacted. If it is, the street utility
authority is replaced so there would be nothing on which to act.
If it fails, we will need to act on the utility to give us some
lead time so we can confirm these projects will be implemented in
the six year window. White asked if development would be shut down
until we get our intersections back to a D- service level.
Wickstrom stated the service level issue will have to be agreed
upon by the County and adjacent cities. Growth management states
the transportation improvement either has to be built in
concurrence with the development or the financial structure
committed within a six year financing scheme. The only funding
structure we do not have a handle on is the street utility. We
have the gas tax, grant funding, LID commitments, and the Vehicle
Registration fee recently approved by the County. The final
element is the formation of the street utility. TIB has already
given us formal approval on the 277th Corridor, west leg of the
196th corridor which ties WVH to Orillia Road and the middle
section of the 196th corridor which ties EVH to WVH. There was
Public Works Committee
October 2, 1990
Page 3
some discussion of the regional transportation review agency that
is established under the growth management act. White asked how a
street utility worked. Wickstrom explained the utility sends out
a monthly bill. The maximum bill for a single family residence is
$2 .00 per month. Commercial pays a maximum of $2 .00 per employee.
Wickstrom continued the City' s street utility is looking at
charging $1.52 per residence/employee. Boeing is apparently
supportive of the street utility concept. White commented that
Wickstrom should come back to the Committee with a draft action
plan after the November election and we know the status of
Initiative 547.
Arterial Classification
King County has requested reclassification of the 272nd/277th
corridor. Currently it is not classified under the federal system.
In order to receive TIB funds the route has to be classified
according to the Federal system. The County is proposing to
classify it as a principal arterial from I-5 to 132nd and a minor
arterial east of 132nd. White asked if this classification had any
effect on the access. If we do not concur with this
reclassification, we would not be eligible for grant money for the
project. Orr asked if it would affect the speed limits. Wickstrom
explained this purpose is to make the project eligible for funding.
The Committee unanimously recommended concurrence with the
reclassification.
Alternate Fuel Source
Heydon reported there are three alternate fuel sources being used
in the Seattle area. Metro had a five year study using methanol as
an alternate fuel to diesel. Metro is not planning to complete
their study as they have had poor reliability with the methanol
engines. Pierce County Transit is trying natural gas on some of
their busses and Washington Natural Gas and Holmes Electric are
trying it on some of their vehicles. Propane and natural gas
require a rather bulky tank and fueling techniques are quite
different from gasoline. There is also a reduction in power.
Heydon stated the City converted several vehicles to propane during
the last gas crisis. We are still set up to convert vehicles to
propane if needed. Conversion of a vehicle to propane is about
$1, 000 to $1, 400. Heydon stated it would be his recommendation
that if the situation worsens we could convert vehicles to propane.
Orr asked about the safety of propane. Heydon stated there does
have to be training on the proper refueling techniques and these
have to be adhered to. Norm Angelo supported this. Angelo stated
Public Works Committee
October 2 , 1990
Page 4
he has to be concerned about readily available fuel supplies for
his vehicles responding to emergency situations. He continued it
would be very critical not to transfer to an alternate fuel until
there is a plentiful supply. Wickstrom stated the last time we
converted just those vehicles that were in the top 10% of fuel
usage. Some of these were converted to diesel because of the
greater MPG offered. White . summarized that it is staff
recommendation to stay where we are unless there is further rise in
price. Heydon stated he was more concerned about availability than
price. Dowell stated that in order to address Councilman Mann' s
concern we should take some action. The Committee recommended we
continue with our present fuel source.
Utility Charges
Hansen stated he had been contacted by the owner of a duplex
concerned about the manner in which he was charged for his utility
service. After discussion, the matter was referred to the Public
Works Director for action.
Proposed LID 218th Street Improvement
Mrs. Rust questioned the amount of the preliminary assessment on
her property. Wickstrom explained the assessment is based on the
zoning of the land and it highest potential use and not the actual
use. The Rust' s 4 acres are zoned M-1 even though they use it as
residential. Mr. and Mrs. Rust asked if the Council members would
be at the public meeting on the 18th regarding this LID. Mrs. Rust
had questions about the LID covenants signed by other property
owners in the area and about the Trammell Crow development using
218th. Mr. and Mrs. Rust were encouraged to attend the public
meeting on the 18th at which the staff would be able to respond to
all their questions.
Pedestrian Crosswalk on S. Central
Mr. Varney was present to discuss the possibility of a crosswalk
on S . Central in the vicinity of S. 259th. Wickstrom commented we
know there is a signal warranted at S. 259th. Crosswalks alone are
more dangerous than none since pedestrians perceive they are safe
in a crosswalk. Wickstrom indicated the cost for this signal would
be $150, 000. Wickstrom added we had made a 1991 budget request
for funds for signal improvements but it fell below the cut. It
was suggested that Mr. Varney attend the Council meeting tonight
and bring it before the Council . Wickstrom stated there is
unallocated gas tax money available. White asked Wickstrom to
Public Works Committee
October 2, 1990
Page 5
determine where this falls in the hazardous intersections. White
asked how long it would take to get a signal installed. Wickstrom
stated it would take approximately one year due mostly to the fact
that we are very short staffed in the Traffic division.