The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 09/17/1991 City of Kent City Council Meeting Agenda CITY OF Mayor Dan Kelleher Council Members Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White September 17, 1991 Office of the City Clerk CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 17 , 1991 p�r�ra6gm Summary Agenda MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President Steve Dowell Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White City of Kent Council Chambers Office of the City Clerk 7 : 00 p.m. NOTE: An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ✓1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ✓A. Proclamation - Walk for Health Day ✓B. Proclamation - Citizenship Day/Constitution Week ✓2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS vlI 1992 Budget JB! 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program ✓C Kent 57 Appeal Multifamily Design Review 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR ✓,A. Minutes B. Bills ✓C. Foster Industrial Park - Resolution ✓D. Mobile Home Park Code Amendments 1E1 Drinking Driver Task Force - Ordinance t �, Vehicle Monitoring System Upgrade ✓G. Correction of Recorded Plat - Walker's Acres - Ordinance " ('('' ✓H. Cantebury Final Plat IA. Eastwood Final Plat � 4 . OTHER BUSINESS J5. BIDS `/6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS REPORTS V8 . 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 - Walk for Health Day } J B. Proclamation - Citizenship Day/Constitution Week Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 )' Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: 1992 BUDGET 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Tonight's meeting has been set to receive final public input prior to preparation of the 1992 preliminary budget to be presented on October 15. At the Council workshop prior to the meeting, the Council received a preview of the Mayor's proposal to balance the budget. The Finance Director will summarize the workshop presentation prior to receiving input. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS : OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: w CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• _ ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A V ,CARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print. ----------------------------------- Subject: 1992 BUDGET BALANCING PROPOSAL C 3tor: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 09/11/91 at 1200. THE ATTACHED PACKET SHOWS THE MAYOR'S PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION FOR BALANCING THE 1992 BUDGET. THE PACKET IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A SNEAK PREVIEW OF THE 1992 PRELIMINARY BUDGET WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR OFFICIAL PRESENTATION ON OCTOBER 15TH. THE BUDGET BALANCING ASSUMES A SALES TAX FORECAST THAT CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF 1991. SALES TAX FOR 1992 IS PROJECTED TO GROW AT 4% ABOVE THE DETERIORATED 1991 AMOUNT. THIS FORECAST PRODUCES A HOLE IN THE 1992 BUDGET OF $5, 370, 184 . THIS WHOLE IS MADE DEEPER WHEN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MEDICAL FUND ARE INCREASED AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MEDICAL INSURANCE BROKER AND AN INCREASED LIABILITY INSURANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH IS ADDED TO THE FORECAST. THESE PRODUCE AN OUT OF BALANCE CONDITION OF $5, 934 ,483 . THIS HOLE IS PROPOSED TO BE PLUGGED BY: REDUCING THE GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY TO $500, 000 2, 300, 000 AFTER ADDING APPROXIMATELY $800, 000 FOR UTILITY TAX ACCRUAL USING UNEMPLOYMENT AND CIP TRANSFERS 11075 , 851 (SEE ATTACHED FOR USE OF CIP FUNDS) INCREASING DEPARTMENTAL REVENUES 514 , 000 (SEE LISTING ATTACHED) CUTTING DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET EXCEPT POSITIONS 867 , 646 (ONE TIME ONLY, 30% PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, EXTENDING VEHICLE LIVES, DEPARTMENT PROPOSED CUTS) ESTABLISHING A SALARY CREDIT TO BE ALLOCATED TO 1, 177 , 116 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS TO BE OFFSET WITH VACANT POSITIONS 5, 934 , 483 1992 1993 PERMANENT ADJUSTMENTS (INCLUDES FREEZE) 2 , 558 , 632 21558 , 632 CIP (PERMANENT OR ONE TIME) 278 , 851 11285, 805 ONE TIME ONLY TRANSFERS 3 , 097, 000 21090 , 046 (1) 5,934 , 483 5, 934 ,483 (1) POTENTIAL SOURCES TO COVER 1993 ONE TIME ONLY TRANSFERS IF NEEDED: IMPROVEMENT IN THE 1993 REVENUE FORECAST INCREASING THE HIRING FREEZE LEVEL ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENTAL PERMANENT CUTS RESIDUALS FROM TRUST FUNDS AFTER ACTUARIAL STUDIES REFUND FROM GOLF FOR AMOUNT TRANSFERRED IN 1992 506,954 USE REST OF GENERAL FUND FUND AND CIP CONTINGENCIES 950, 000 CITY OF KENT 1992 COUNCIL BUDGET CALENDAR COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2/28 Current Financial Status and Outlook COUNCIL REGULAR 4/2 Review 1992 Budget & CIP Calendar/Process Preliminary 1992 and beyond Financial Forecast COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/7 1st Quarter Financial Report Update 1992 Budget Process COUNCIL COMMITTEES 6/4 - 7/16 Review Departmental programs, goals and 1992 Budget Objectives DEPARTMENTS MEET WITH ADMINISTRATION (Council invited) 7/15 - 7/30 Review 1992 budget request COUNCIL REGULAR 7/16 Public Hearing on 1992-1997 CIP Proposed Public Use Hearing on 1992 Budget priorities COUNCIL REGULAR Adopt 1992-1997 CIP COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. ) 8/8 2nd Quarter Financial Report Updated Financial Forecast Departmental Presentations of 1992 Budget Cuts Council Prioritizes 1992 Budget Cuts COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND MEETING B/ZD Results of Council Prioritization of Budget Cuts Proposed Public Use Hearing on Budget Receive Council Balancing Instructions I � COUNCIL WORKSHOP 9/17 • Budget update on implementing 1992 Budget Objectives COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/15 Review 3rd Quarter Financial Report Overview of 1992 Preliminary Budget COUNCIL WORKSHOPS 10/15 - 11/12 Review 1992 Preliminary Budget COUNCIL REGULAR 11/5 Public Hearing on 1992 Budget COUNCIL REGULAR 11/19 Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance COUNCIL REGULAR 12/3 Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1991 i " 7 1 Kent City Council Meeting � Date September 17 , 1991 Category Public Hearings J' 1. SUBJECT: 1992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider adoption of the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as recommended by the City Council's Planning Committee. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, the proposed 1992 CDBG Program Summary, project descriptions, City Council Planning Committee minutes of September 3 , and Human Services minutes of June 27, 1991 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee and Human Services Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $225 , 180. 00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• y, CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember v'A- t-�'f' seconds approve/Amwty the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as recommended by the Human Services Commission and City Council Planning Committee. DISCUSSION: i ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 2P CITY OF �,ALU2 0P CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM September 1.0, 1991 MEMO TO: gqMAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: 'ALICE SHOBE, PLANNER SUBJECT: 1992 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Attached please find a copy of the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the City of Kent proposed by the City Council ' s Planning Committee. The total proposed program is estimated at $225 , 180 for expenditures January 1 through December 31, 1992 . The Human Services Commission reviewed the CDBG human service applications. Their recommendation for funding was presented before the Council Planning Committee on September 3 as part of staff ' s proposed program. The Planning Committee reviewed the proposed program and recommended approval as presented. The 1992 CDBG proposed program has not changed significantly from the 1991 program. We have limited our program planning and administration funds to $916 in order to maximize funding available for human service and capital projects and we have continued primary support to the City' s Home Repair Services Program. The Minor Home Repair Assistant position has been changed to permanent part-time (24 hours a week) to allow for increased emphasis on the minor repair portion of the Home Repair Services Program. The total funds available for the 1992 program is an estimate based on the Federal Entitlement. In order to address potential entitlement changes resulting from the federal budget adoption later this fall, the Planning Committee recommends a contingency plan for the program. Please note one project has been designated to receive additional funds if the entitlement increases, and another project has been designated for reduced funding should the entitlement decrease. The adopted 1992 CDBG program must be forwarded to King County by October 4 , 1991. Recommended Action 1. Adopt the 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program, including the contingency plan for estimated entitlement change, as recommended by the Planning Committee. AS/kr:92pgrm.cc cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director PROPOSED 1992 CITY OF KENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AMOUNT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE: $225 , 180 LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES FOR ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN SERVICES: 1992 Human services Ceiling $35, 743 1992 Planning and Administration Ceiling $916 Recommended Project Type Funding Level 1. Program Planning & Administration Admin. $916 2 . City of Kent Housing Repair Service Program Housing Rehab $142 , 021 3 . SKCMSC Transitional/ Emergency Housing Rehabilitation* Housing Rehab $19 , 000 4 . King Co. Hsg. Authority/ YWCA South King Co. Domestic Violence Project** Acquisition $27 , 500 5. Kent Community Clinic Health Services Human Services $13 , 300 6 . Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle- King County Human Services $4 , 443 'r",, r 7 . YWCA Emergency Housing Program Human Services $18 , 000 TOTAL $225, 180 t X 'Applications not recommended for funding: Community Health Centers of King County Remodeling Project ($8 , 500 requested) ; Children' s Therapy Center Handicap Ramp ($10, 000 requested) ; Pregnancy Aid ,- i'yt , 1Shelter Rehabilitation ($30, 000 requested) . *If the CDBG entitlement is reduced, funding allocated to South King County Multi-Service Center Kent Rehabilitation Project Phase III shall be reduced the full amount. **If the CDBG entitlement is increased, funding allocated to King County Housing Authority/YWCA South King County Domestic Violence Project shall be increased the full amount. ALS/kr:92projec.lst PROPOSED 1992 CITY OF KENT CDBG PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS 1. PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION This small allocation will be used to pay for minor costs associated with operating the CDBG program including: training, communications, and supplies. 2 . CITY OF KENT HOUSING REPAIR SERVICE PROGRAM Kent CDBG funds have financed a housing repair program for the last sixteen years. Funds are used to perform both minor and major repairs on needy owner-occupied housing located within City of Kent limits. Where appropriate, homeowners participate in the work through a self-help arrangement. All beneficiaries are screened to ensure income eligibility requirements are met. For the last three summers an exterior house painting program has been included in the Home Repair Service Program. A total of 25 houses have been painted. 3 . SOUTH KING COUNTY MULTI-SERVICE CENTER (SKCMSC) EMERGENCY/TRANSITIONAL HOUSING REHABILITATION - PHASE III South King County Multi-Service Center (SKCMSC) provides emergency and transitional housing in the City of Kent for homeless people. The proposed funds will pay a portion of rehabilitation costs for three homes located in Kent. The rehabilitation includes structural repairs and interior improvements not previously completed in Phase I or Phase II of the rehabilitation project. 4 . KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY/YWCA SOUTH KING COUNTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT The King County Housing Authority is acquiring land in Kent for construction of fourteen units of transitional housing for victims of domestic violence and their families. The YWCA of Seattle/King County will operate this program. The proposed funds will pay a portion of the acquisition cost and will act as a match to Housing Opportunity Funds (HOF) obligated by King County to the project. 5. KENT COMMUNITY CLINIC HEALTH SERVICES The Kent Community Clinic provides access to primary health care services including general medical, dental, obstetric, and gynecological care to low and moderate income residents of Kent and the Greater Kent area. Proposed 1992 CDBG funds will be used to pay approximately eighteen (18) percent of the salary of a physician responsible for delivering comprehensive medical care. The Kent Clinic has been supported with CDBG funds since 1983 . All CDBG funds will be used to provide primary medical care to low and moderate income residents of the City of Kent. 6 . EMERGENCY FEEDING PROGRAM OF SEATTLE-KING COUNTY The Emergency Feeding Program of Seattle-King County has served King County since 1977 and began serving Kent residents in 1986 . This is the first year they have requested funding from the City of Kent. In the 1992 program year, proposed CDBG funds will provide food in emergency situations to low income Kent residents. Persons in need will obtain emergency food packs, provided by the Emergency Feeding Program, at two local churches, DAWN, Pregnancy Aid, or Catholic Community Services of South King County. 7 . YWCA EMERGENCY HOUSING PROGRAM The Emergency Housing Program provides emergency shelter to families and children without housing and lacking the resources to pay for housing. The Shelter service consists of 14-21 days of shelter; information and referral in obtaining needed services; crisis intervention; assistance in obtaining jobs, permanent housing and medical care; transportation assistance; child care referrals and vouchers; and emergency food, hygiene and household supplies. The proposed CDBG funds will be used to extend an existing lease on three apartment units for twelve months to provide emergency shelter for families in crisis. ALS/kr:92projec.lst r-- KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION JUNE 27 , 1991 3 : 00 PM Commission Members Present Planning Staff Present Marvin Eckfeldt, Chairman Lin Ball Dee Moschel, Vice Chairwoman Sharon Clamp Jean Archer Rachel McCurdy Peter Duggan Peg Mazen Susan Ramos Judy Woods, Council President Commission Members Absent Peter Mourer Alla Mironyuk OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MAY 23 1991 MINUTES Jean Archer MOVED and Peg Mazen SECONDED to approve the minutes of the May 23 , 1991 meeting as written. Motion carried. d NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION & FINAL DECISIONS ON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY FUNDING LEVELS Peg Mazen MOVED and Jean Archer SECONDED a motion to recommend to the City Council General Fund allocations totaling $311,497 and Block Grant allocations totaling $35,743 as follows: General Fund Catholic Community Services Cold Weather Shelter - $17 , 000 Catholic Community Services Emergency Assistance Program - $24, 000 Catholic Community Services Family & Individual Counseling - $7, 500 Child & Family Resource and Referral - $3 , 000 Children' s Home Society - $14 , 077 Children Is Therapy Center - $13 , 320 DAWN - General Operating Funds - $47, 000 DAWN - Emergency Shelter - $5, 000 KENT HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 1991 MEETING PAGE 2 Food Bank - $16, 000 Kent Community Health Center - Primary Health Care - $33 , 500 Kent Youth & Family Services Family & Sexual Abuse Counseling - $40, 000 Kent Youth & Family Services - Kent Meridian Drop In Center - $11, 000 King County Sexual Assault Resource Center - $21, 700 Pregnancy Aid - $4, 000 South King County Multi-Service Center - Emergency Service - $27, 000 Van-Go - $4,400 Washington Women' s Employment & Education - $10, 0o0 Valley Cities Mental Health - $13 , 000 Block Grant Kent Community Health Center - $13 , 300 YWCA - Emergency Housing Program - $18, 000 Emergency Feeding Program - $4, 443 These amounts represent the full one percent allocation as set by the Kent City Council. There was no discussion. Motion carried. Chairman Eckfeldt commented the application process went very well and thanked the staff for coordinating the effort. He stated that the subgroups also worked well. Chairman Eckfeldt asked Commissioners to direct comments to Lin Ball or Rachel McCurdy on anything that needs to be identified for next year's process. Peg Mazen suggested clarifying exactly what financial information we want from agencies on the budget pages. Marvin Eckfeldt stated we need the entire budget for the program being funded, and salaries of all persons working in or giving support to that program. This should be clarified in the instruction sheet. Lin Ball stated that from a staff standpoint she would like to lengthen the amount of time for review and analysis. Chairman Eckfeldt agreed to add one extra week between the time applications are picked up by Commissioners and the first full Commission meeting. CITY OF gi4n CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE VvT&' Se September 3, 1991 4 : 45 PM Committee Members Present City Attorney's Office Christie Houser Roger Lubovich Jon Johnson, Chair Carol Morris Leona Orr Planning Staff Guests Laurie Anderson Paul Morford Lin Ball Sharon Clamp Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom Alice Shobe GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (L. Anderson) Senior Planner Lauri Anderson reported an extension has been received from the State of Washington for the designation and regulation of resource lands and critical areas. The new deadline is March 1, 1992 . A hearing will be held before the Planning Commission in November. The public participation program is moving forward. Within the next month the City Council and other decision makers will be invited to a workshop to exchange ideas and obtain feedback on how this process will occur. The mid-level managers group has completed assignments of all the tasks required by the Growth Management Act. The departments have taken on various responsibilities for those tasks. At their next meeting the mid-level managers will set a timeline for task completion. Then the proposal will be ready for presentation to the Mayor and the Council. The Impact Fee Committee has ended its first phase in determining overall policy -direction for the impact fee ordinances . They will be looking at sample ordinances and ordinances for each of the four impact fee areas: transportation, parks, fire, and schools. 1992 PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) (A. Shobe) Planner Alice Shobe reported that the 1992 proposed Community Development Block Grant entitlement is estimated to be $225 , 180 . CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3 , 1991 PAGE 2 The 1992 CDBG program has not changed significantly from 1991 . Program planning and administration funds have been limited to $916, a decrease from 1991, in order to maximize funding available, and primary support to the City ' s Home Repair Services Program is being continued. Ms . Shobe briefly described each program and the recommended funding levels. The Human Services Commission recommended funding human services projects presented in staff ' s proposal . Ms. Shobe also explained the contingency plan which King County has requested be adopted to address potential entitlement changes resulting from the federal budget adoption. Councilmember Orr MOVED and Councilmember Houser SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of the Block Grant Program as presented. Motion carried. EXTENSION OF UTILITY SERVICES RESOLUTION (F Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that Resolution 1275 , dealing with a moratorium on the extension of water and sewer services outside the boundaries of Kent for purposes of development, has been amended in the new proposed resolution included in the council packet. The new resolution adds three limiting circumstances under which water and sewer services would be extended outside of the City limits if all three conditions are met. Senior Planner Lauri Anderson presented a map of the zoning information the Committee requested on this issue. Mr. Satterstrom stated the Public Works Committee recommended the amended resolution be placed on tonight ' s City Council agenda without a recommendation. Councilmember Orr added that since the Public Works Committee could not agree on the proposed amendment, she suggested the matter be brought to the Planning Committee for discussion. At today ' s Public Works Committee meeting, they discussed other ways to limit water and sewer extensions. They are concerned because of the Sea Tac issue which has come up. Council- member Orr' s concern is if the Council approves each individual application based on the criteria in the amended resolution, then applications for water and sewer service will be granted with no potential for annexation. Chair Johnson suggested adding wording to Section C of the amended resolution. Strike all wording after "further" and add, "no application shall be approved nor permit issued for water and sewer service until the area is actually annexed to the City" . Mr. Johnson' s concern is that someone could submit a 10 percent annexation application and receive approval . Applicants could then � Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: KENT 57 (CE-91-3) APPEAL 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an appeal by the Casey Group Architects of a denial made by the Hearing Examiner for Application No. CE-91-3 , Kent 57, a conditional use permit to construct a 57-unit apartment complex in a CC, Community Commercial , zoning district. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, staff report, letter to Ted Hunter from the Casey Group Architects, notice of appeal , Hearing Examiner minutes dated April 3 , 1991, findings and recommendations, notice of request for reconsideration, verbatim minutes, and determination of non-significance report 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO )� YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ _ SOURCE OF FUNDS: V OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: 'CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember k f ' moves, Councilmember seconds to approve/deny the appeal made by the Casey Group Architects on Kent 57 (CE-91-3) on, a denial by the Hearing Examiner of an application for a conditional use permit to construct the 57-unit apartment complex. DISCUSSION: ACTION Council Age pa Item No. 2C'A CITY OF )Q�� CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM cry®z<c¢� September 17, 1991 MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: "KENT 57" APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Background Paul Casey of Casey Group Architects is the applicant for an apartment complex development proposal called the "Kent 57 Apartments. " The subject property is located at the southeast corner or 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street and is currently zoned CC, Community Commercial. A conditional use permit, as outlined in Section 15. 04 . 100 (D) of the Kent Zoning Code, is required for apartments in a CC zone. Environmental Review On January 11, 1991 a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued for the Kent 57 Apartments proposal, #ENV-90-103 . A revised DNS for this project was issued January 23 , 1991. Mitigating conditions address storm water detention and discharge, traffic mitigation, street improvements, pedestrian circulation systems, and dust reduction. Conditional use Permit Review and Hearing Examiner Decision Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 was heard by the Hearing Examiner on April 3 , 1991. Staff recommended approval, of the proposed application with conditions regarding comparable multifamily zoning classification, open space, notification to the Kent School District, lOt-line revision, and pedestrian circulation. In a decision issued April 17 , 1991 the Hearing Examiner denied Kent 57, #CE-91-3 conditional use application. (See page 6 and 7 of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Hearing Examiner for decision rationale) . In a letter dated May 1, 1991 the applicant, Paul Casey, requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner ' s decision. The request included a revised proposal addressing some of the concerns outlined in the Examiner' s Decision document. specifically, the proposal was scaled down to 53 apartment units; the number of large units (2 and 3 bedrooms) which would attract families with children were reduced; and the Kent School District was contacted for information regarding impact of the development. MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS September 17 , 1991 Page 2 In a Decision of Request for Reconsideration dated June 5, 1991 the Hearing Examiner granted the reconsideration and affirmed his original denial of the application. Please see pages 2 - 4 of the Decision of Request for Reconsideration for the Hearing Examiner' s rationale. On June 19, 1991 a Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s decision was submitted on behalf of the applicant by Robert W. Bryan. Copies of all referenced documents and verbatim minutes from the hearing on April 31 1991 are attached to this memo. JPH/mp:ALS:\cup\kent57.cc Attachments cc: Carol Proud, Senior Planner Alice Shobe, Planner 1 J LO JUN Ci i Y OF KENT 3 CITY CLERK - -;, 4 5 CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF KENT 6 In Re: ) 7 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE ) PERMIT BY THE CASEY GROUP ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 8 ARCHITECTS ) 9 FILE NO. KENT 57 #CE-91-3 ) 10 ) 11 TO: City Clerk for City of Kent AND 12 TO: City Council for City of Kent 13 NOTICE 14 Please take notice that applicant, The Casey Group Architects, 15 by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby appeals to the City 16 Council for reversal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner 17 denying an application for a conditional use permit, File No. 18 Kent 57 #CE-91-3, to allow development of 53 apartment units at a 19 site on the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 236th 20 Street, in an area zoned "Community Commercial" (CC) under the Kent 21 Zoning code (Chapter 15) . 22 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 Hearing on this application for conditional use permit was 24 held before Hearing Examiner Theodore P. Hunter on April 3, 1991. 25 The application requested a conditional use permit to develop 57 26 apartment units (later revised to 53 units -- see below) . Kent 27 Zoning Code §15 . 04 . 100 (D) (2) provides that Conditionally Permitted 28 Uses in a Community Commercial District (CC) include "Apartments S1,i-ve5rnpRuun PETRIE&CRUZGS NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 26MCA.mbi.Cente, 701 Fi{1,Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-7088 9 i�,• �,,n -4tMi fio4-I"40 1 (either by themselves or in conjunction with commercial uses) , and 2 building supply uses . " On April 17 , 1991, the Staff Report of the 3 Planning Department for the City of Kent recommended approval of 4 the application with conditions . 5 The Examiner issued his Findings, Conclusions and Decision on 6 April 17, 1991, denying the application. The Examiner invited 7 reconsideration of the denial if the applicant addressed three 8 concerns identified in the Examiner's decisions . 9 The applicant prepared a revised site plan and, on May 11 10 1991, submitted a request for reconsideration. The revised plan 11 includes, inter alia, a reduction of the number of apartment units 12 from 57 to 53, changes in the unit mix to eliminate all three- 13 bedroom units and to increase the number of one-bedroom units to a 14 majority (29) in order to reduce potential child density, an 15 increase in contiguous open green space to 28 .7%, an additional 16 park area and play court, and features to minimize visual and audio 17 impacts from the development. 18 The Examiner determined that reconsideration was appropriate, 19 by Notice issued May 15, 1991. On June 5, 1991, the Examiner 20 issued his final decision, denying the application for conditional 21 use permit. He recognized that the applicant had made a commendable 22 effort to revise the proposed development, but denied the 23 application because the development would potentially add 13 24 children to the Kent School District (approximately one child per 25 grade) and because two nearby residents opposed granting of the 26 permit on reconsideration. The Examiner also indicated that "the 27 City Council has clearly expressed an intent to limit the 28 development of multifamily housing in the City of Kent" and that "a SYLVFSrr_p Ruun 1�GTR1L&Chl:u.v NOTICE OF APPEAL — 2 2600 Columbia Center 701 FiEtb Avenue 5,,ttl,,rVasbington 98104-7088 Tl 11o1lm.nr.7(1(i 613-1R10 1 conditional use should not be authorized without some indication of 2 community support. " For these reasons, the Examiner believed that 3 the aplication does not satisfy one of the criteria set forth in 4 Kent Zoning Code § 15 . 09 . 030 (D) ( "4 . The other performance 5 characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of 6 other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. " ) 7 DECISIONAL ERRORS 8 In accordance with City of Kent Resolution #896 , section 7, 9 the City Council may reverse or remand the Hearing Examiner's 10 recommendation if: 11 (a) there has been substantial error; 12 (b) the proceedings were materially affected by 13 irregularites in procedure; or 14 (c) the recommendation was unsupported by material and 15 substantial evidence in view of the entire record as 16 submitted; or 17 (d) the recommendation is in conflict with the City's 18 Comprehensive Plan; or 19 (e) insufficient evidence was presented as to impact on 20 surrounding area. 21 The applicant submits that the record supports affirmative 22 findings under items (a) , (b) , (c) , and (e) above from Section 7 of 23 the Resolution. 24 Specifically, errors justifying modification of the Examiner's 25 recommendation, in order to approve with conditions in accordance 26 with the Planning Department's report, include the following: 27 1. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding 28 that the proposed use is incompatible with other uses in the '4 ives'ri:r.I'uuuPi JR11:&CuuUZEN NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 2600 CJ.A,ia Center 701(-filth Avenue Scathe,Taehigt m 98104-7088 "T-I I _. �% /,'I 1en I surrounding area. The minimal potential impact on school population 2 (one child per grade) is outweighed by the desirable aspects of the 3 development and by the project's similarity to other uses adjacent 4 to the site. 5 2 . It was error to determine that the potential addition 6 of one child per grade alone renders the development incompatible 7 with other uses in the surrounding are when apartments are a 8 residential use which is a permissible conditional use in a CC zone 9 under the zoning code; 10 3 . The City Council has expressed no intent to eliminate 11 multifamily development at the site in question, since the site is 12 located in a CC zone which allows apartments as a conditional use. 13 The site and the surrounding CC zone were not rezoned by the City 14 in response to the Area Housing Studies, and apartment development 15 was retained as a conditional use in this zone after implementation 16 of all changes in response to the Area Housing Studies . Those 17 comprehensive Studies were conducted by the City Planning 18 Department, resulted in adoption of certain zoning changes, and 19 subsequently the Planning Department recommended approval of the 20 present application. 21 3 . The Examiner relied on the Area Housing Studies and 22 the intent of the City Council, in denying the application. 23 Evidence of neither was in the record before the Examiner. The 24 Examiner did invite the Council to correct the Examiner if the 25 applicant chose to appeal, and the applicant has so chosen. The 26 record contains no evidence that the Council expressed an intent to 27 change permissible uses in this CC zone. The applicant requests the 28 Council to consider, clarify, and correct the Examiner's sYLV I: RUUD PtI RIC&C:RI!7GN NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4 2600 C-I-mbia Centel 701 Fifth Avenge ,.rr 98104-70t�8 I interpretation. The applicant further requests the Council to 2 supplement the record with the Area Housing Studies and testimony 3 from the Planning Department regarding those studies and whether 4 resulting changes affected the site in question, if the Council 5 believes such evidence affects or supports the Examiner's decision. 6 3 . The Examiner's requirement that the applicant obtain 7 testimony from the community in support of the proposed development 8 is not a requirement of the zoning code and is an improper basis 9 for denial of the application. Furthermore, the Examiner first 10 raised this new requirement in his final decision on 11 reconsideration, when the applicant no longer had an opportunity to 12 gather such evidence. If the Council believes that the Examiner's 13 new requirement is appropriate and permissible under the zoning 14 code, the Council should at a minimum remand to the Examiner for 15 further hearing. 16 4 . Opposition to the revised site plan from the community 17 did not constitute substantial evidence to support the Examiner's 18 recommendation, since only two community members opposed the 19 revised application, and such opposition presented no evidence of 20 new factors supporting denial under the criteria set forth in the 21 zoning code for approval of a conditional use permit 22 (§15 . 09 . 030(D) ) . The testimony of two individuals failed to 23 outweigh the substantial investigation of the proposed development 24 by the Planning Department which resulted in an approval 25 recommendation. It is error to deny a permissible conditional use 26 on the basis of opposition testimony which fails to demonstrate 27 substantial evidence, in view of the entire record, supporting 28 denial under the specific criteria of the zoning code. SYI VESTER RUUD I'M RIE&CRI17-EN NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 z6(X)C„,umLi.Ce„te, 701 R41,Avenue Scattje,WIJ,mgtun 98104-7088 1"1 ..L..... ("I �"o 1 CONCLUSION 2 On the basis of the entire record herein, the applicable law, 3 and the above-referenced decisional errors as will be more fully 4 discussed at a hearing before the Council on this matter, the 5 applicant hereby requests the Council to reverse the decision of 6 the Examiner and approve the permit application, or, if -necessary, 7 to remand for further hearing. 8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 1991 9 10 SYLVESTER RUUD PETRIE & CRUZEN 11 12 By ROBERT W. BRYAN 13 WSBN 16953 Attorneys for Appellant/Applicant 14 15 854\001: bn8.10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SYLVESTER RUUD PLIRIE&CRUZEN NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6 2600 Cnlmnbie Center 701 Fikk Avenue :cattle,W�kh gtun 98104-7088 CITY OF O\LI!2LSV CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 4?VYNC I IN RE: ) DECISION OF REQUEST KENT 57 ) FOR RECONSIDERATION 4CE-91-3 ) REQUEST: A Request for Reconsideration of a Denial of an Application for a Conditional Use Permit. DECISION: Reconsideration Granted. Information Reviewed. Initial Decision Affirmed. Conditional Use Denied. WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Paul Casey, The Casey Group Architects. Dr. George T. Daniel , Kent Schools Superintendent Luella Evelyn White Carol Cooper INTRODUCTION A public hearing on the application for a conditional use permit was held on April 3 , 1991. A decision on that application was issued on April 17 , 1991. The Examiner denied the request for a conditional use permit based on failure to meet the criteria established by the City Council for the granting of a conditional use permit. The Examiner found that the proposed use would have a significant negative impact on surrounding residential properties and on the public schools . In his decision, the Examiner suggested that the applicant' s proposal may be appropriate for a conditional use if specific concerns raised at the public hearing were addressed. These concerns included: 1 . The need for a more clearly defined park on the site including specific descriptions of park equipment and designation of at least 25 percent of the subject property as an open space area that is contiguous and accessible by all residents of the site; 2 . The need to re-design the proposed development for primarily one bedroom apartments rather than two and three bedroom apartments to reduce the possibility of a significantly higher number of children in the area ; 1 Decision of Request for Reconsideration Kent 57 WCE-91-3 3 . The need for an assessment from the Kent School District as to the number of children expected from the proposed development and the resulting impact on schools and; 4 . The need for an agreement with the School District on the proposed pedestrian circulation and transportation plans. The applicant filed this Request for Reconsideration on May 1, 1991, in response to the specific concerns raised at the public hearing. The Request was filed within the time period allowed by ordinance. The Examiner determined that the applicant' s Request for Reconsideration should be granted because of new information supplied by the applicant and the Kent School District. The Examiner circulated the Request on May 15th to those persons who appeared at the public hearing with instructions to respond by May 22nd with any comments on the Request. The Examiner has reviewed this information and issues the following Decision on the Request. DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION The applicant has made a good faith effort to address the concerns of the surrounding residents and the community at large in the reconfiguration of the proposal for an apartment house in a commercial zone. See, Exhibit 1 to Request for Reconsideration. The number of apartment units has been reduced from 57 to 53 with eleven two and three bedroom units eliminated in order to reduce the potential number of school-aged children in the area. Twenty-nine of the 53 units (or 550 of the units) proposed are now one bedroom units. The amount of contiguous open space has been increased to 28 . 7 percent of the site. The type of recreational facilities has been specified to include a sport court with basketball goal, a play lot with play equipment, an open lawn area and a fenced spa area with trellis structure. Finally, the applicant has contacted the Kent School District in an effort to ascertain the impact the proposed project might have on the Kent Schools. See, Exhibit 2 to Request for Reconsideration. The applicant is quite specific in the re-design of the proposed apartment complex identified on the Site Plan dated April 30, 1991 (attached to Request for Reconsideration Exhibit 1) . various design elements address concerns raised by residents around the site at the public hearing. For example, the drive at the southern boundary parallels a parking and driveway strip on the adjacent property in order to provide the maximum buffer between buildings. Decks and patios are located away from the southern boundary in an 2 Decision of Request for Reconsideration Kent 57 #CE-91-3 effort to reduce visual and auditory impacts on surrounding residents. The proposed play areas are situated away from surrounding residential properties in order to reduce noise impacts. One hundred parking spots are provided on the site for the 53 apartment units which should eliminate the need for any roadway parking. Other design elements address the concerns of the Kent School District. For example, 11 two and three bedroom units have been eliminated. This reduces the number of potential school- age children from 21 . 6 to 13 . Pedestrian improvements would be made and S .E. 236th Street would become a through street thereby eliminating an existing problematic dead-end turn around for school buses. However, even with the reduction of the number of apartment units, the Kent School District concludes that "school facilities needed to accommodate the proposed growth that this development represents are simply not available. " See, Exhibit 2 to Request for Reconsideration, page 2 . The Kent School District suggests that any approved application should be subject to impact fees prior to final approval . The School District does not indicate what level of impact fee it believes would be appropriate. Two residents of the Olympic Skyline Condominiums also responded negatively to the Request for Reconsideration. Both live in units on the south side of the Olympic Skyline complex - the side closest to the proposed development. Both continue to state objections to the proposed development. Ms. White states that the area she lives in is already overdeveloped and suggests that, even with the revisions made by the applicant, the problems associated with a new development remain. Ms. Cooper states that the real issues are school overcrowding and City policies against increased multi- family housing. She states that the proposed revisions fail to adequately address these two issues. Ms . Cooper also states that the proposed extension of S. 236th to 102nd means that Fred Meyer traffic will take a short-cut off 104th to avoid the congestion at 104th and 240th which means increased traffic in the neighborhood. No other comments were received on the Request for Reconsideration. After careful consideration of the Request for Reconsideration and all comments received on it, the Examiner concludes that the initial Decision on the application for a conditional use permit should remain undisturbed. While the applicant undertook a commendable effort to revise the proposed development to be responsive to community concerns, the comments received on the Request for Reconsideration from the Kent School District and the 3 Decision of Request for Reconsideration Kent 57 #CE-91-3 surrounding residents continue to indicate the incompatibility of the proposed development with existing developments in the area and affirm the negative impact on schools noted in the Findings of the Examiner in the initial Decision. It is recognized by the Examiner that certain commercial developments allowed in the zoning district may have a greater impact on the residents surrounding the site than this proposed development. However, the applicant has had ample opportunity to contact the surrounding residents to find support for the project. It is significant that no one appeared at the public hearing or on this Request for Reconsideration in support of the proposed development other than the applicant and a realtor who stands to gain from approval of the application. As the Examiner noted in his initial Decision, the City Council has clearly expressed an intent to limit the development of multifamily housing in the City of Kent. Specific areas are zoned expressly for multifamily housing. The subject property is not one of those areas. The development of multifamily housing as a conditional use in a commercial zone should not be authorized without some indication of community support. There is no evidence of community support for this application. The residents surrounding the site and the Kent School District are opposed to construction of apartments on the site. The application must be denied for the reasons stated in the April 17th Decision. The decision of denial is affirmed on reconsideration. Dated this 5th day of June, 1991 . THEODDORE PAUL HUNTER. Land Use 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 . 4 City of Kent - Planning Department SE°0 226T y sE 3 223TH SE 229TH 3T 3E 3 23 D 3£ MW PL 292HO 9T o � m z v In m la w 23-ITH FL In y cc i y¢ i o p ¢ N H S O w 2A1Nr 1 ti 3T 3 _ 9 249HD T SE-2q4TH-5T— s APPLICATION NAME: Kent 57 Apartments NUMBER: CE-91-3 DATE: April 3, 1991 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LEGEND r; ? Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary City limits 1-3 COI Q�� ! . . -- �� i��r`,vMiNT, �� ._'�_ � \ ♦ `wl � + lrM=Pon SAM IF MGM 00 wail W IL Er 1 • -a..i oil ( Cif! ��1_KI: �,, -,� ,» _ �, ,�. k.>I JI C i E'spil City of Kent - Planning Department S.E. 236 th STREET _ 4 / 21 C4iOC L�n'J IC K MGY I4/Jl f [4WGL.Wf'Lc pi YC��CIS firCs 'FRPJT YA.Yp I I ear r s. / wxmirw. :x.n rw o. SITE PLAN _ J� 8 zo w x i v " �vpNMm1 m ^vats [Y6T tlNcc.lcPeo �I � 5M FECI d HLaN4r.CY M n j_ wVYC�.�O ie O U CCiIw W r ( •__ _ �I y I I10 � M w WueW HO ttFV SUKK„- s iw eJ �� I � -iJ -1 ��o Ph•.4(e'.�5.h.n Le'I I[G UWw.0�Eri. t _— — 't 2 Je NCa ne. t k•,i I _ T. .0 ..�r�- LL Cf 5T 4-11 O $ � � � � •o�u —� y nz �. � c mx -} �Lx uT uYe Iv�x.+,+e..r I r+.�o.. I x ^>rr,.ro..,o.rz..,n •_ f.�i+:.i I c �g 1 — I L I I fl � •, vlsi *,.� zoe oJ•,, .....ter.C. �o-oa � :�..c an..n•,..L...� APPLICATION NAME: Kent 57 Apartments NUMBER: CE-91-3 DATE: April 3, 1991 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LEGEND Application site SITE PLAN Zoning boundary City limits I _ . _ _ . � � ' ," .i I 't .. _ il �:: !- � Lltt.. ,..c'1 t.6c ,, i.;._. _-C , ;. _ �.'ti'. " . . ii -.. _ iiif! �-:! - - I .,. �' i:. _ _. : .1 .:r. 1 t i 11 '. :+ � 1 i � .. .. .:. ..(i � � 1-.. 1. i . I Jj!_. .. il:. .. ..tiil _ iv _ ;I,ii -(! t ._ _ � _ _.. i` . ._`I � i" Ci .� _ .'f . . . . _ i.. .. , , ; - - '. . :_ , .:. � ., ; - _ __ _ " .. � ; I ._ .. .. i- �� r�.�-� �_ '�- :.. � :: .l � � _ .� . ._ _ _ ._ i i,_ -,� - � � _. _ ..r� .. �. _ ... .. _ r ,..� " : _ . . -,. ,_ . _ .: .:.,._ � ,. i i ._ .,_� ._ r _ I ,i_� Tit.�. ; .: .� .._�_ ,: : .. �. ;- �, -.;� - ; L i. ; 1. �- i .. _ �.-.. ... r ,-- ; The Casey GrOU �,k��y EXHIBIT 1 Architects 1�01116 36th Ave. Ct. SW, Suite 109, Tacoma, WA 98499 (206) 584-5207 FAX: 581-9720 [��C� TH 1, • _.1..r. _1. .. I I�I•. I r 1.'i I _ • i ._ _ .._ _ .. t r .. 1 ._ ., i � i -: • _ i � � �. i � _. i � � � ! i _ 1 i _ � _,. It� � _ _ '. , _' "... . . 1 . . 90 102M) AVENUE 4 fSfiwgFF r „ f>i.r Jnn..°.. •SIpE TMO ON fL NNNG STPEEt' 00-00 45 IN ]f e _ xn a5.6oi� i A�. d I a rn I `{, mlmlm I E U1 I.ua4u- I To 11� 3 m m mi I 1g Hi FI �s t d m n d max- a 0 34 � � 1 R - N 00-00 Is o i T m Se. o ae _ Y O — .1 1 gg - ze.e4 ..a 'sloe rAPa' 1y 4a �ep 4OY� UO ' Fe�� y 3 a£ � � F 3 F a .l i'. � _ 11 11.. -� �\• ✓ , L.> } n " D - } k R Y n .a e dh a s- R F3 s F. S f" a � 4- s" %v II ij t5�j?-�� h i'� 11v f�f'x'T4{�-• a r- d �� 7 Pl,Ncl N,I wnv - - KENT 53 APARTMENTS I*''W"Iry '•� KENT, W45NINGIGN I.:IIi•.I��v - lelle]ETN IVENIR S.W.SmiL•109 T.COW.Wk p w I]OCISM-SiOr entjch_oo_.1 �D istrict EXHIBIT 2 56 Street, Kent,Washington 98031 (206) 852-9550 12033 SE 2 -------_ DODO NIA 11991 PLANNING DEPARTMENT May It 1991 CITY OF KENT Alice L. Shobe Department city of Kent Planning 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 tments (File Re: Kent 57 ( 53) Apar # CE-91-3) Dear Ms . Shobe: This letter is in response to the Hearing Examiner's request for review of the proposed multi-family development located th on the southeast corner of 102nd Arimarily concerned venue SE and SE with Street. Kent School District is primarily and transportation overcrowding of school facilities , issues and the recreational requirements of children. This letter is not intended to imply that the Kent School District is opposed to growth. provisions is nofd to firmly the Growth respond to and conform with ha manner which best serves the Management Act (ESHB 2929) students and taxpayers of the Kent School District. According to the applicant, Mr. Paul Casey, this proposal has been reduced to 53 units and our ill include cludion fa25 unirs ts with two bedrooms or more. Using ex ect the similar projects , we would conservatively p following student yield from this development: Elementary = 8 Junior High = 3 Senior High = 2 Review of pedestrian circulation and transportation components will be requested from our Transportation Department. ance with the Growth Management Act, the Board of In conformance Kent School District recommends the Directors an following: 1) g: urge you to consider the fact that the Kent iWe school District does not haystudentcpopulatient pion2and to accommodate the existing generated by ion that is certain to the populat be some phase of the 10 ,000-12 ,000 units currently planning or construction in the District. ��i City of Kent Planning epirement#CE 92-3 Kent 57 (53) Apartments May 11 1991 Program capacity and enrollment for 1990-91 are: PROGRAM OCTOBER 1 OVER rnvACITY ENROLLMENT UND R ELEMENTARY ( K-6 ) 11 , 519 12 ,413 894 JUNIOR HIGH ( 7-9 ) 4 ,604 4 ,572 (�) SENIOR HIGH (10-12) 4 ,021 20 , 144 21 4 .094 g50 Even though Kent School District voters have approved an aggressive school construction program, we do not foresee having adequate school capacity for several more years. 2) In future years, when schools, transportation and other public services are adequate, the Growth Management Act provides for payment of impact fees for new construction or improvement to facilities . Any approved application should be subject to impact fees prior to final approval . The provisions of the Growth Management Act require us to inform you that school facilities needed to accommodate the proposed growth that this development represents are simply not available. Hopefully, a time will come when a sensible rate of growth can be re-established in our community such that the safety, welfare and basic education needs of children can be accommodated. Please contact Fred Highwith or Gyour questions orrcomments. Planning Department at 859-7295 , Sincerely, Dr. Orge T. Daniel Superintendent GTD/FH/GE/dfh c: Theodore Paul Hunter, Hearing gtExaminer Paul Casey, Y I CITY OF A,\L!D�� CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 IN RE: ) NOTICE OF REQUEST KENT 57 ) FOR RECONSIDERATION #CE-91-3 ) THE ATTACHED REQUEST for Reconsideration has been received in the above referenced case from . The Casey Group Architects , 10116 36th Avenue Court SW #109 , Tacoma, WA 98499 . The Request contains new information that was not considered at the public hearing. The . Examiner, therefore, has determined that reconsideration is appropriate in this matter. Anyone who 'spoke at the hearing or submitted written testimony who wishes to respond to the Request for Reconsideration must do so in writing by 4 : 30 p.m. on May 22 , 1991. The written response should be sent to the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Kent Planning Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, . WA 98032 . The Hearing Examiner will issue a final decision on the Request for Reconsideration on June 5 , 1991. Dated this 15th day of May, 1991 . FOR THEODORE P. HUNTER Hearing Examiner 11 w r I r / r The Case Group i Y . y Jx Architects , FJ tia ; r 1 ®�8®: 10116 36th Ave. Ct. SW, Suite 109,:Tacoma, WA 98499 (206) 584 5207 • FAX 581 9720 iy I I t' -I 1 I �[ • � � ilr MAY �` °r ; May ' 1 , 199.1 Theodore HLAnter ' ` 1° `fl .I P1ANN1tlGQEPARTAIENTr;,�lti Hearing Examiner C/O Kent Planning Dept . � ; . •r7rJr �S{<+,r}' i Attn : ' Alice : Shobe I 1 ys( I �j 220 .4th Ave . S . Kent ,, Wa'. 980s2-5895 r f<i „Our.,Job #91077 Dear. Ihr : Hunter•; ,.. As the• applicant , ;iwe request a reconsideration fortir�l the `conditionals°use' permit to develop, ; 53 apartment ' ; units -in a"' it " Commer"cf;a1% I zone :" ' This reconsideration is ;based on a.. redes`igny. `ofi rthe ` site, `eri general! concerns and conditions 1 ' 3; page. 7'.; ofi,;the?W1Heari'n'g Ex`am1fner ' Finding's, Conclusions and Decision" ; dated 4/17/,91' ',,`..The :'is'sues?'Fi'ave been addressed. asol ows :" 1 . The • minimum : 25 ' ercent contiguous open ' '1 'l ?' 'p g p green area . "requested has . been exceeded with a proposed 28 . 7'.. percent rlAdditionarly ;_'; a ; park .area • :has been provided within the,1site ;.',containing ;Kent Park Department approved ;play equipment .:suchl :as'Swings ;'. slide`s; jungle: •jim., monkey; bars , , etc . An additional paved :and`..fenced play ,court, with basketball' •hoop is also providedJon•;site' . is +v 2 . All six 3r -' bedroom, units and five ;of 3the ,2 bed room`,;unrts have ; been:: =eliminated to:': red ice the' i`mpact!-`' of additional; chi Idren :in the area . •: ' Greater than. half„of rthe units 'are:,.-now,, . ' one bedroom , as requested t I ,. An assessment from Kent School District; rrs `currentIY, being • d to determ . impact on schools: ;.Verbaprepare l' correspondence with ' the! 'district thus far ':has','.,'shown that `the school ` district is prepared to address': :your.:' 3ssues . a The redesigned site has met the intent of •:thei'ant'icipated `.school district needs by providing pedestrian ` sidewa1ks adjacent>. to the project' frontag'es , and school, bus'� acces's ;by...the opening„of : 236th between 102nd & 104th . The distr.i.ct is .`;, very concerned ; that noi, bus turn - a - ' round ' exis,ts at the '1'02nd dead ; "end • ' currently' provided . The =6th e>; tension' ' wil'L remove`• ::this concern . The intent of the .revised site plan is to reflE, t, the `'concerns of the'' surrounding residents and the community at large The subsequent,: paragraphs will , ei<plain in greater detail the, measures- which .have' .been taken ' to accomplish this goal . . +I 3 I The 'specific: concerns mentioned b+ noise .and traf.fizc, `'inadequate sidewal,l sCandrslaents include,. increased with parking on:` the iroadways c' Onea:as eca to `. P, ' Y+ areas , and problems ; trafifi.ic is .that,' ifi ,the''si'tei were 'developed a'ccord�ng're+tor�ts9concr.Las.e ' 11 zoning , . there is gr eater, potential .of trafficr;load ekceed;ing,,ttiat that,,, `t,he.: proposed multi _- fiami,ly'sdevelopment!;,' , stated by +Ken,t` ;Engineering iin nth , I- ..I previous hearing With:, our •elimination :,'+'ofi four,Uni`ts and s the 'rediacti'on .+ of 23and .3 .bedroom 'unite; the'' traffiic load for the revised 'site 'will' be ', even lower than originally anticipated �0'i�r� Is The building configuration within the site C driveway buffer for' adjacent Provildes a . parking and . boundary o propertaes . Theidrive, ;+.at the southern parall _ ls;'° 'a', .; parking and' ':'driveway strip r on the adjacent Property , which ' provides a desirable :'distance betweer73!buildings f adjacent two sites . Also,-: the decks:. and ,' patios"; whrcti ' have.r,r .the' greatest Potential of. producing ,noise ; have been situated . away `.from' tFie Soti,thern boundary , Both ofi-' ;these measures have been` incur ror + ` reduced visual and audio impacts. 'P� ated to ofifi,e'' : Pedestrian . sidewalks around , into and withinithe , silte .are more 'than : adequate ' to — . provide.,'.. circulation land access) +to � altl ';'buildirigs'.,,' and.; ' `amenities. . A ' ' paved.'.sport co�irt, a ';p1aY lot ;,wilth +:park r` equipmant , '. --i numerous open grass `areas have been ,incorporated witfi'in the. site Theme amenities will` Provide : ample, space -for';.the childrenrofi , the 'project deterring the' ' need •for 'them to seek ,facilities' outside 'the : site ,,% 't I only will these,. play... areas provide .recreation ,'Ifor .,children residenot' in this project ;. but'+.wil1 likely attract ne ghborhoodE '';ehiPdren', :' _ng.provide some relief ,to . the over crowded :city, 'parks IThe.:. proposed. `' 1'a areas ; have been siauated on the 'site' `,to' be `'`separated .from ;;iadjapent r housing ' projects,'r once; again .to consider educed,` no se ' l.impacts f The final 'con tern of. the;' local residents., is :'that ;,4of f roadways . It is,:' not ,anticipated that",this: .11, : parking, onr.the ,; cars': to the. existin project wiPl 'add, .addit I.ionai , ' parkin 9 ' Parking. on r.oadway.iI .,Iprotilemr The -off 1 st;i�'eet; g .provided` within, the 'site' exceeds City ; of Kerj.tregul'ations. It is expected that by,:exceeding theser'regulations ; suffiicient, parking`;is" provided to accomodate .:the expected .residents of':--' ' r!pr.6ject } I '° ! i 4 l' • . I 1 - 1 , r ,ri • ; 1 i,�r{,'1.21`Ii Yr � =t .�ij•1i �2t�S' r% 1 t ' 1l II�111 I 1Y rj1- 'rn.' there has itjeen correspondence�istcu'8sede .•' ' -,J3eyond " the . local residents , act `Asipt ev,iolisly school district to' mihas1`elimgna'ted`, lelevenunits', the •;, revised design i+�'nd reduced the„total, unit;dertssyrYon reducing increased the one bedroom ratio, res ons'e to ;,5 , 1 the site by flour units - All of .which; ls'opelilg Pr area\( 'that; is +, reent potential child.' . density , and_'. increasing , < e? & bed :units, contiguous. •. _The. previous designr "would` add ( 6 Xrh(.M. _) 21 . 6 children"' to 'atie district; per the', schpbl dY=strict calculations (25) �2 bed uni'tst The . `proposed redesign . 'would add only C 6 X F_ ,"r er the'4rschool children . Full '. frontage improvements , ,<are ,provided p uirernents , and S .E,, .236th :streettl�ould ' become.:a ' th toend district require' roblem >Jof a dead a: solution . to the existing p frx « street, providing va'ith,1';:the school+,;� district: where�ier working their l=Je' have been draftin a. $letter, ' to state2k, street . resently 1e and .they are P :°„€^y��.,ati�'D`'� ,t , �' ,ly''"91ii1 possible , conclusions . , q z aNm . ' I I r \t .., r , ,7� 3�;•L t/Pit yw r re The • :',Hearing Examiner has tico clteldea found ineSect ono15091o30d� lof complies to the;,stand'ards an the, Kent Zoning Code - -and listed?'oh . page 3wotht�theComultii:onst fiamily;; e)tcept . for the ISSUe ; of compatitili:ty "' ' d'iscussedt,h�'ve developments that '.already• exist in ;the '.area Previouslyna been the proposed:•' ce solutions/responses to the 'j'cavaylablefrecreat'ion'al school — aged children ) , and'„'the residents (especially . residential a,de elopments, ,t facilities , impact,. on surrounding ' p�Zr' : school district . fhe' devlopment ,;to . the west; holds�, approximateFy 19 and '. ' the one. to the':' south about= 23 �'`�Ri�t'al.-,.-per owingreo` r21;, units' per. .acre , corn et - tle w .th ,lthesez, project Would be very. P r„ , , proposed p est' that with� the , above mentioned units per . acre We would su99 multi the .project would be compatible w Lth; �he� surro�in in4 , improvements , '^ family developments -* 1 F SJ T ' - .. '1: - 1 r..4%fir a11•}�{�r^ �' '4� t n r,r'r ' � ' r•f L 1 : 1 1 J y L o j l I Although the site to the' �aest was ' .in to rezoned to sin limit multi .- fiamiIy deve.Topment ' : 91erfamily Use with the. not subsequentlYi'leliminate.r multr the.. K.ent " use :in the CC:. fami•1 'y . develo Y ' Counci2 ';did'' . advanta e . ofi Zone Thus, the `applicant prnent}ti (as a condLtional', 9 the Propert• desires 'to;. : take .reaonab7e..r It: is`'.`Our . hope / ,' within• ' tlie: aIIowances ofiatjie ,: :: that ;fiuhl: fair. con sideration ` curren't'':code. :: Plan 'and documentation . in order will be, far_. this 91ven to . the revised. project to aPProve :the cononal use Thank v ' I r, permi t YOU fior : :your,. further questions or concerns . consideration and please call with • anY. Sincerely , M 1 T Case Group Ar Fii tects r f aul J Casey A. I ♦ y' 1 t i I `• ' r 1 ` 1 2ti1 lit/,� 'i1 ( 11 I I F � f t i , b r is CC. Owners Fanning Investments 5 n Lov ` Brio elessl: 1 :I 1 CITY Of ��uV CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION VI[ (206) 859-3390 FILE NO: KENT 57 #CE-91-3 APPLICANT: THE CASEY GROUP ARCHITECTS REQUEST: A request for a conditional use permit to construct a 57 unit apartment complex. LOCATION: The site is located on the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street. APPLICATION FILED: 1/25/91 DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: 1/11/91 MEETING DATE: 4/3/91 DECISION ISSUED: 4/17/91 DECISION: DENIED STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department Carol Proud, Planning Department Alice Shobe, Planning Department Gary Gill, Public Works Department Helen Wickstrom, Parks Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Paul Casey, Casey Architect Group Other Carol Cooper Luella E. White George Theel Jeanette Hiscox Brian Loveless WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Penny Sanders 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. Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 FINDINGS 1. The applicant requests a conditional use permit to develop 57 apartment units in a CC, Community Commercial, zone on approximately 2 . 5 acres of property located on the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street. 2 . The site is presently vacant and covered with natural vegetation such as blackberry bushes and scotch broom. The site is bordered on the south by an existing apartment complex in a MRM, Multifamily, zone, to the west by a newly developed multifamily project in a R1-5 . 0, Single-Family, zone, to the north by a public right-of-way for SE 236th Street, and to the east by a developed CC, Community Commercial, zone. 3 . The zoning on the property to the west of the subject property was changed by the City Council in March 1990 from MRM to R1-5 . 0, Single-Family Residential (minimum lot size of 5, 000 square feet) . 5. The highest volume of traffic generated by the proposed development would be 38 PM peak hour trips. 6. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for this proposal on January 11, 1991 and revised January 23, 1991 with conditions related to treatment and detention of storm water runoff; contributions to improvement of the South 224th/228th Street Corridor project; improvements to SE 236th Street right-of-way including, if necessary, deeding property to the City to accommodate a 35 foot return radii at the intersection of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street; extension and improvement of 102nd Avenue SE to the north property line of the subject property; incorporation of a pedestrian circulation system into the project design; control of dust during construction activities; and submittal of a detailed topographic survey. No one appealed this MDNS . 7 . The proposed apartment complex includes 21 one bedroom units, 29 two bedroom units, 6 three bedroom units and one manager 's apartment. Since the apartment units have not been designated as specialty housing serving seniors or other population groups unlikely to have school age children, and since the majority of the housing units are two and three bedroom units, it is likely that the project as proposed will. result in an increase in the number of children in the area. 2 Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 8 . Residents in multifamily developments near the subject property who testified at the public hearing are unanimously opposed to additional multifamily developments in the area. The concerns of these residents include increased noise and traffic, inadequate sidewalks and play areas, and problems with parking on the roadways. 9 . No public parks exist that are reasonably accessible to the site. Play areas for children at multifamily developments near the proposed site are heavily used by both resident and non-resident children. Hard sport courts throughout the East Hill area presently have more interested users than can be accommodated. There are no current plans for city park developments in the immediate vicinity of the site. 10. The Examiner takes official notice that the Kent East Hill elementary school is currently over-capacity. 11. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the site as C, Commercial, and the East-Hill Comprehensive Plan designates the site as CR, Commercial Retail. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan also includes as a "Housing Element" goal to "guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. " CONCLUSIONS 1 . A conditional use may only be allowed if all standards and criteria for granting a . conditional use permit are followed. These standards and criteria are found in Section 15 . 09 . 030 (D) of the Kent Zoning Code. The Hearing Examiner must find that: a. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. b. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. d. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. 3 Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 e. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. f. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. g. The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions of this code. h. any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. 2 . Based on the Findings of Fact detailed above, the Examiner concludes that the proposed use meets many of the standards and criteria for approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed use will not be detrimental to other uses that may exist in a Community Commercial zone; the size of the site is adequate for the proposed use; the traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity; and the proposed use would comply with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provisions for multi- family developments found in the MRM sections of the zoning code. 3 . Based on the Findings of Fact detailed above, the Examiner concludes that the proposed use does not meet all standards and criteria for approval of a conditional use permit. The performance characteristics of the multifamily development proposed by the applicapt would not be compatible with the multifamily developments that already exist in the area. Considerations appropriate to this particular case include the impact of additional residents (especially school-aged children) on available recreational facilities, on existing residents in surrounding residential developments and on the school district. These considerations are appropriate because of recent City policies expressed in City Council rezone decisions affecting the area surrounding the subject property and in the Housing Element goals of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. See, State ex rel . Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. Auburn, 82 Wn. 2d 321 (1973) . 4 . Even though the applicant proposes some recreational areas on the site, and even though the aggregate area proposed exceeds 25% of the area of the site, the on site recreational facilities will not be sufficient to accommodate the expected residents. The possibility that residents of the proposed development will 4 Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 include school-aged children is high. These children and other residents will seek recreational opportunities at other sites in the neighborhood. since no public parks exist in the area, it is likely that the residents will intrude upon other properties in the area for recreational activities . Even if physical intrusion does not occur, the buffering devices in the proposal will only partially mitigate the noise of increased residents in the area. In addition to the applicant' s proposal for 57 additional apartment units, there is an apartment development under construction to the west of the proposed site. It is unknown at this time what the actual impacts of that development will be on existing residents in the vicinity. Parking requirements, recreational areas or other potential conditions applied to any conditional use permit may need to be revised to take into account the impacts of this development. 5 . It is also not known for certain what impacts additional children might have on the Kent School District. However, the Examiner has taken official notice of the need for additional elementary schools to accommodate new students, and concludes that the impact of the proposed development on the school nearest the site (East Hill Elementary) will likely be significant. Impacts on public facilities are appropriately considered when an applicant requests a conditional use permit. See, Gerla v. Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 883 (1975) , 85 Wn. 2d 1011 (1975) , pet. for rev. denied. 6 . The Kent City Council has indicated its desire to reduce the amount of multi-family development in the City. This is particularly true of the area where this proposed development would be located. Following the completion of the "Area Housing Studies" , in March 1990 the City Council rezoned the property to the west of the subject property from MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, to R1 . 50, Single Family Residential . This action clearly indicates the intent of the Council to limit the residential density of the area impacted by this proposal. The reason a multi-family facility is now under construction in a single-family zone is because the right to build it had vested prior to the rezone. 7 . The subject property could be developed with commercial uses consistent with its Community Commercial zoning designation. The purpose of a community commercial district is to "provide areas for limited commercial activities that serve several residential neighborhoods. " Section 15 . 04 . 100 of the Kent Zoning Code. Permitted uses include retail establishments, restaurants, banks, nurseries and greenhouses, recreational facilities, municipal buildings and other uses of the same general character 5 Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 of those listed uses. Although the property has no direct access to 104th Avenue SE where it would be most visible to passerby in automobiles, it could be developed with permitted uses such as an office building, bank or recreational facility that does not depend on high visibility to motorists for success. This type of commercial activity on the site would likely have its greatest impacts during normal business hours when residential use of the surrounding properties is likely to be low. Any impacts from increased traffic and other human activity due to commercial uses would be less likely to add to the problems of parking, noise and outdoor recreational activity that now exist in the neighborhood. DECISION The request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 57 unit apartment development in a CC zone is DENIED as proposed. The proposed development would likely have a significant negative impact on surrounding residential development and on the public schools. There also may be positive impacts to the surrounding resident from the proposed development. This could include improved traffic circulation patterns and improved sidewalks. However, residents who testified at the public hearing clearly stated that any possible benefits are far outweighed by the negative impacts on the enjoyment of their residences. These residents have some right to rely on the stability of the zoning designations in the area. While apartments are permitted as a conditional use in the Community Commercial zone, conversion of this zone to multifamily use should not occur without some degree of acceptance by surrounding residents. The City Council has also recently indicated an intent to limit the residential density of the area impacted by the proposed development. While multifamily residential development of the subject property may be best for the applicant/owner of the property, the Examiner concludes that approval of a conditional use permit authorizing such development would not be in the best interest of the community surrounding the subject property and would not be consistent with the intent of the City Council to limit multifamily development in that area. In order to best carry out the policies of the Council, the Examiner must deny the request for multifamily housing. Philips v. Brier, 24 Wn. App. 615 (1979) ; State ex rel . Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. V. Auburn, supra, at 326 . If the Examiner has misinterpreted the intent of the City Council, the Council can correct the Examiner if the applicant chooses to appeal. 6 Findings and Decision Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Some type of residential development may be appropriate for the subject property. The request for a conditional use permit should be reconsidered only if: 1. There is a more clearly defined park on the site including specific descriptions of park equipment and designation of at least 25 percent of the parcel as an open green area that is contiguous and accessible by all residents on the site; 2 . The proposed development is re-designed for primarily one-bedroom apartments rather than two and three bedroom apartments to reduce the possibility of a significantly higher number of children in the area. 3 . An assessment from Kent School District as to number of children expected from the proposed development and the resulting impact on schools is received and agreement with the School District on the existing or . proposed pedestrian circulation and transportation components is reached. A revision of the applicant ' s proposal to reflect the concerns of the surrounding residents could help mitigate adverse impacts on the community immediately surrounding the subject property and on the community at large. Dated this 17th day of April, 1991 . THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner Section 15. 09 . 030 G: Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the conditional use permit shall become invalid. 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 7 Findings and Decision Kent 57 JCE-91-3 not available at the -time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98032 . Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. 8 City of Kent - Planning Department m 228T V in a like 9E y� sE 9 2a28 9E 228TH 9T ti 9E 8 D 292HO 8T 9E 292ND PL In NJ In S2 la a 297TH PL In cc a c N J `. JAd1F5 2419T 9 _ 9 243RD V BE 2q4TH IT APPLICATION NAME: Kent 57 Apartments NUMBER: CE-91-3 DATE: April 3, 1991 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LEGEND Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary n�nnn� City limits r7ME --- 1- Irf AM IE IC I ��_ • ��,v,�ti, lop �C F .1 r 1 �'� lJl:�r� r��L 111 i ■ !:'I Mkod �- ��■C�f� 'J�.:�lei L '.�� 11 1'1� ll�� — Ir'� '_s `�: Nil Eummal Hearing Examiner Minutes April 3 , 1991 Mr. Hunter asked about the business history of the site. Mr. Molner indicated that business has decreased by 20 percent from the previous year. There was no further testimony. The hearing closed at 3 : 40 p.m. KENT 57 #CE-91-3 A public hearing to consider the request by The Casey Group Architects, 10116 36th Avenue Court SW, #109 , Tacoma, WA 98499, for a conditional use permit to construct a 57-unit apartment complex in a CC, Community Commercial, zoning district. The project site is located at the southeast corner of 1.02nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street. Alice Shobe, reiterated the request. Ms. Shobe showed view foils depicting 1) the location of the property, and 2) zoning of the property and surrounding property. Ms . Shobe gave a brief history of the area. A revised Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on January 23 , 1991 with conditions. Ms. Shobe commented the Comprehensive Plan designates the site as C, Commercial and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan designates the site as CR, Community Retail. Ms. Shobe expounded on the open space requirements of the Zoning Code. Ms. Shobe stated the request is consistent with MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning standards and requirements. Ms. Shobe commented the staff is recommending approval with conditions. Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment. Paul Casey, The Casey Architects, felt the project was appropriately sited because it is not a viable commercial site since there isn 't direct access to 104th. The project has been developed to MRM standards . Furthermore, the property is being developed to transition area standards which are: increased setbacks, landscaping, and building setbacks. Mr. Casey commented seven more parking stalls are being provided; this would provide an average of 1. 9 stalls per unit. Mr. Casey pointed out location of a proposed swimming pool as well as two possible locations for a tot lot; the tot lot would be about 500 square feet in size. 4 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 3 , 1991 Mr. Casey commented he felt the project exceeded the requirement for "open green space" already. Mr. Hunter asked if any one else would like to comment on this application. Mr. Hunter stated he received a letter protesting the development from Penny Sanders. Carol Cooper, 10125 SE 235th #C303 , Kent, WA 98031, stated the development would be next door to this project. Ms. Cooper asked how 236th would be developed; she felt it couldn't be extended to meet with 102nd--there is no natural intersection there. Ms. Cooper maintained there would be even more traffic congestion if 236th was developed and there would be more traffic in the area. Ms. Cooper commented there was lack of playgrounds in the area for children. Luella White, 10005 SE 235th #A201, Kent, WA 98031 , mentioned the traffic congestion in the area. Ms. White commented the schools are quite crowded and did not feel there would be space available in the schools for additional children . Ms . White stated she was against the proposal . George Theel, 23830 102nd Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031, felt that the addition of the 57 units plus the other apartments being constructed in the area, would severely impact the area. Mr. Theel stated traffic is very congested. Mr. Theel felt that since there could be as many as 62 children in the units, there aren 't enough play areas available. Jeanette Hiscox, 23846 102nd Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031, commented there were too many apartment complexes being built in the area. Brian Loveless , commented the property is a poor prospect for commercial uses because it does not directly front on 104th and it has apartments/condominiums around it. Mr. Loveless said because of the surrounding uses about the only feasible use for it would be apartments. Helen Wickstrom, Parks Department, talked about the shortage of open space areas and parks in the vicinity. Ms. Wickstrom commented on the recreational needs of the people in the vicinity. Mr. Hunter asked if the City had any rebuttal comments . Ms. Shobe gave a brief explanation of contiguous open space. 5 Hearing Examiner Minutes April 3 , 1991 Gary Gill, Public Works Department, talked about the traffic impacts in the area. Mr. Casey talked about the 236th Street extension and showed its location on a view foil . Mr. Casey stated the building height would be less than 35 feet from the grade to the roof. Mr. Casey pointed out the possible location of the tot lot, which would be about 500 square feet in size. There was no further testimony. The hearing closed at 4 : 50 p.m. 6 CITY OF L"L� CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE LAND USE EXAMINER V-�kwcg0,, (206) 859-3390 PLEASE NOTE: This verbatim transcript was prepared by the City Planning Department for use by the City Council in hearing the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. It is intended as an aid to the Council in reviewing the record of the Hearing Examiner. It is not an officially certified transcription. The audio tapes of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner are also available to the Council and the parties to the appeal. These tapes should be reviewed if there is any uncertainty about the transcription prepared for the Council's review on appeal. The unofficial transcript should not be relied upon for decision making by the Council if there is any uncertainty about the record before the Hearing Examiner. If the matter under review is further appealed to Superior Court, an officially certified transcript will be prepared in response to the Court's decision. KENT 57 #CE-91-3 A public hearing to consider the request by The Casey Group Architects, 10116 36th Avenue Court SW, #109, Tacoma, WA 98499, for a conditional use permit to construct a 57-unit apartment complex in a CC, Community Commercial, zoning district. The project site is located at the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street. VERBATIM MINUTES Ted Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you give? Alice Shobe: I do. Again, my name is Alice Shobe. I 'm a planner in the Planning Department. As stated we have a proposal called the Kent 57 apartment complex for 57 units. It's located on the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th, represented by the shaded area here. This site is zoned CC, again, represented by the shaded area and as you can see there' s Community Commercial which is what the CC stands for. . .both the north and east of the site. MRM, Multifamily Medium Density is located to the south and R1-5. 0 which is residential, minimum lot size 5, 000 square feet to the west. I would like to clarify that in this area, here, a new apartment complex is being built right now. It was built under MRM zoning and downzoned prior to the applications being received and approved. So, the zoning doesn't reflect what's actually existing out thee which is a fairly large apartment complex. Section 1 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes 15. 04 . 100 D 2 required a conditional use permit for multifamily zoning in a CC zone which is way we are here tonight. . .today. The site is currently vacant with insignificant natural vegetation including blackberry bushes and scotch broom. There' s quite a significant history of conditional use permit applications in this area for multifamily residences; only one was denied because the site was not large enough for significant buffering. The property immediately south of the proposed site was rezoned from CC to MRM in 1976. A DNS, Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on January 11, 1911, with a revised DNS issued on January 23 . Conditions regarding storm water discharge, biofiltration, traffic mitigation, road improvement standards, full street improvements and sidewalks. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is C, Commercial. The East Hill Plan is CR, Community Retail. I just would like to comment briefly on something in the East Hill Plan which addresses the need for open space and active and passive recreation. Its in my staff report in more depth but I wanted to comment at this time that the Parks Department forwarded a recommendation that a minimum half-acre of this site be designated to a tot lot and Helen Wickstrom from the Parks Department is here if you would like to receive more testimony based on that recommendation. The Planning Department commented that the intent of the MRM landscaping section, which I might add that this proposal came in consistent with MRM zoning, states that 25 percent of the site should be designated to open green area. As stated, the applicant came in and approached staff months ago and asked how we would handle a situation like this and we gave him the guideline of the MRM zoning, Multifamily Transition Area guidelines and the MRM guidelines outlined in the landscaping section as well. And he. . .the proposal basically came in consistent with those guidelines. The proposal meets all the standards and criteria which must be met in order to obtain a conditional use permit. Staff, therefore, recommends approval with five conditions. Briefly, the first one is just stating that it should be consistent with MRM density regulations. Number 2 is that the site should comply with the 25 percent designated to open green area and kind of mixing it with the Parks Department' s recommendation was that this open green area should be contiguous. In addition, there has been quite a lot of controversy with the Kent School District regarding overcrowding so we just wanted to assure that the Kent School District is given as much notification as possible so they can work out the school children occupancy load. A lot line adjustment should be completed to remove interior lines so this is one site. And the site should incorporate a pedestrian circulation system or sidewalks to assure that it is easily accessible to the residents living within the site. Do you have any questions? 2 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Ted Hunter: Well, some of the conditions that you just referenced, I 'm wondering of their consistency with or did they just reiterate some of the environmental conditions that were applied at the time of the issuance of the Determination of Nonsignificance or do you see these as supplementing? Shobe: They actually supplement. The conditions that were issued under the DNS more specifically related to road improvements. Let see if I wrote them down here. Hunter: Although I was curious. . . it seems to me that your condition number 5, recommendation to incorporate pedestrian circulation system sidewalks into the development, connecting parking to all buildings, and access to both 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th, does seem to be the same as the environmental condition. Shobe: That was an oversight that it was put in both. So, you are correct. Hunter: O.k. , so you. . .there has not been any problems with compliance or any resistance to the environmental conditions applied at the time of the DNS. Shobe: Well, the site plans that we currently have do not show compliance with that regulation although I 've talked with the architect and he has stated a willingness to assure that is done. Hunter• O.k. Shobe: I don't anticipate that there will be any problems. Hunter: O.k. So, that condition number 5 then is a duplication. . . Shobe: Should be stricken. Hunter: It's really unnecessary, o.k. Shobe: One comment that I would like to make, too, that I failed to make that this actually may help a little bit was that I did state that this property located just to the west is at MRM density. The property to the south is at MRM density as well. And, I toured around the general vicinity and there are quite a significant number of properties at a MRM density or MRD density within the area; therefore, substantiating further staff's recommendation that MRM was an appropriate choice by the applicant for a density standard. 3 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: O.k. , what were your other choices that you considered in choosing the MRM? Shobe: As far as density? Hunter: Well, when you looked at the density standards and specifically complying with the sections cited in your conditions. Was there any other thing under consideration? Shobe: What was. . .what primarily came out of consideration was. . .or came up was the need for open space and by building up, the applicant could both have a density in which, I 'm told, its most feasible from an economic point as well as to have the open space. So, in discussing it with my Planning Department supervisors it was felt that open space was very critical as well as speaking with Helen Wickstrom from the Parks Department in that we can kind of get the best of both worlds. Hunter• O.k. Shobe: We never considered a lower density recommendation. Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your testimony. Shobe: Do you want me to leave these? Hunter: O.k. Is there a representative of the applicant here? Yes, sir? Paul Casey: O.k. My name is Paul Casey of Casey Architects. Hunter: O.k. , Mr. Casey, and do you swear, affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you give? Casey: I do. Hunter: Please proceed. Casey: I want to start out and state that we, as a group, have enjoyed working with the Kent Planning Department and their openness and willingness to help us through the fairly extensive land use code. We feel that this project is appropriately sited within this commercial zone because it is not really a viable commercial space because we don't have direct access off of 104th which is the primary street adjacent or within a half block of the property. We have developed, as already noted, to MRM standards. We have also decided to develop our property within the transition 4 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes area standards which addresses additional setbacks, increased landscaping, increased building separation as some high points. At the suggestion of the Planning Department we have also planned, I think, approximately seven additional parking stalls at their request and we feel as. . .as. . .as a project development team that that' s appropriate for additional parking for the tenants as well. Hunter: Why is that appropriate? Case : Ideally with, well, historically, apartments have grown in size over the last few years. You know, five. . .ten years ago, one and two bedrooms were predominant, now you see quite a few two and three bedroom projects. Plus, it is very rare that a family will have less than two cars and, ideally, as developers and architects, we try to get as close as we can to two stalls per units and we are very close to that now. We're about 1. 9, I think, as an average, on this project. Hunter: What about access to mass transit? We have these policies and goals about reducing traffic and accessing mass transit and we keep providing more parking spaces. Do you have any feelings about that. I don't know if its relevant to this application, although it is in way because we have additional parking spaces. Case : I don't have anything. . .ground breaking to say that hasn't already been said in the papers, but I don't think mass transit is completely viable until the cars become too expensive to operate. It's just very hard to get the American public out of their car. Hunter: O.k. I appreciate your testimony. Casey: o.k. Hunter: What about the conditions that are recommended here by the City do have. . . Casey: Essentially we are in agreement with everything that the Planning Department said with the exception of the open green area. And, we understand the direction that they are heading. . .that they are looking for more tot lots or more contiguous play area. We went back and looked at the Zoning Code and under the definition of open green area, that says landscaped areas and areas of natural vegetation and they request a minimum of 25 percent of the lot area. According to our calculations we have approximately 43 percent of the lot area in planting of some sort. Either grass, shrubby or trees or that type of thing. So, based on the pure Zoning Code concept, we're. . . .we feel we are well within the 5 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes guidelines. We also appreciate the Park' s comment in regard to having additional play area for the children but we feel that a half acre tot lot would be excessive for the project of our size. I did a quick calculations and a half acre is approximately 22, 000 square feet and if you put that into dimensions that's approximately 150 square foot box or a square that you put on the ground and this size of project just can't support that type of open space. The comment did open our eyes and realize that we do need to provide some sort of tot lot. I do have a colored site plan which I can illustrate. Hunter: We can use this as illustration purposes, not as an exhibit, o.k. Casey: O.k. , that' s fine. Everybody see, I think, pretty well. We have a play area or not a play area, a recreation area by the recreation building. And, we, at this point, are regarding it as optional but we are willing to at development of a swimming pool, outdoor paved areas for that type of use. We are also willing to look at the incorporation of a tot lot. And, we have three areas on the site, we can look at. There' s one area behind the recreation building. There's another area which would be. . .which is right behind the three bedroom units with building 4, that we could develop the tot lot and there ' s also an area between Buildings 1 and 2 that we could develop a tot lot in this area. Hunter: Can you reference how this, what you're referring to in illustration here is different from the site plan or is it identical to the site plan that was attached to the City' s report. O.k. Casey: This is identical. We colored this just because it is a littler easier to look at in a larger room. Hunter• Great. Casey: The size of the tot lot that we have found successful is in the range of five to six hundred square foot. In that space you can get a nice big toy type of structure that's suitable for kids up to 10 - 12 years old. So, in response to the Parks comment, we are willing to look at a tot lot of that size and that type of structure. Hunter: O.k. , so what you're taking issue is, I 'm trying to pin- point which. . . .which condition we're looking at. We looking at 25 percent of the total area. 6 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Casey: Yeah. It's. . . it was a little confusing to me. I 'm not convinced that its clear in here, the Planning Department has used this 25 percent criteria of open green area as a justification for the Parks Department comment. But, under the definition of open green area, that is cited here, we far exceed that already. Hunter: Well, that's where I 'm trying to go is where we get into the tot lot concept. Where's that. . .where do you see that as currently. . . Casey: That's on Parks Department comment on page 9, second paragraph. Hunter: Where it reads, "the existing site plan does not reveal any open space for recreation, there are no public parks. The complex of this size should provide a minimal half acre tot lot or other open space" . Casey: Right. Hunter: For children. What we are focusing on is a conditional use, is which specific conditions would be attached. And, I see a recommendation here from the City that includes a recommendation of 25 percent of the total parcel to open green area. . . Casey: O.k. , and we do that. Hunter: And it should be accessible by all residents living within the apartment complex. Casey: No, the only thing that they do say is that its contiguous; contiguous meaning its all interlinked which it is not at this point. Hunter: O.k. , and your testimony is that, that's excessive or not possible. Casey: It's not possible within our development at this point. And, my point is that with projects of similar size that we have been doing we typically have a swimming pool type of facility or an outdoor spa with ample lounge space around and we also have been doing tot lots or sport courts, that type of thing, for children to use. Hunter: Well then, perhaps, let me return that again with that as background, I 'm more clearly focused on what we are trying to do. What specifically would you in your planning capacity as site 7 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes design planner here, architect, end up with for this site. Are we looking at the recreational complex, the "big toy" facility? What. . .what fits best? Casey: I think for this type of project, both are desirable. And one of my comments is that the Parks Department comment kind of opened our eyes and we realized that we really didn't provide a tot lot and that' s something we are willing to do. Hunter: O.k. , your current submittal, the one that we are considering for purpose of conditional use consideration, does have a pool area indicated. Casey: Right, and at this point, is regarded as optional. If we don't develop a pool, we might look at an outdoor spa or develop a sport court in that area. Hunter: Um. .hum. Casey: But some sort of recreation. But, in addition to what we have already indicated on the plan, we are willing to look at an additional tot lot. Hunter: O.k. , so, I think what we need to do is get very specific about that. Your illustration, you've moved around several different areas. Casey: O.k. , we can be specific and pick a location if that' s suitable at this point or we can work with the Planning Department. . . Hunter: We are at the point of looking at conditional uses and what conditions would be attached. I have a recommendation from the City of 25 percent, you are indicating that it would be something less in contiguous area but at least there would be facilities provided. Casey: Right. That. . . .that's correct. We have the open green area now but its not contiguous or all interlinked because of the design of the project. And we don't think that even if we reconfigured the project, if we had a contiguous open green area of 25 percent that we would have a better product. Hunter: O.k. , but you are willing to commit to recreational space would include a lot or child play, a tot lot and you had a size associated with that in a preferred location. 8 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Casey: Yeah, I 'd think in looking at the location it would be most preferable to have it behind Building 4 and have a tot lot in the range of five hundred square feet. Hunter: And behind would be, in the direction of. . . Casey: To the, o.k. , to the west. Hunter: To the west. Casey: There's approximately a 30 foot wide space in that area. Building #4 has three-bedroom units which potentially would have the greatest number of children in it and its a suitable location for parental observation and that type of thing. Hunter: What's the approximate square footage of that. Casey: I would say 500 square feet. Hunter: And what other facilities do you see as. . . . Casey: In the location of the pool, that is shown now, that is regarded as optional, we' ll either develop a pool or a sport court or an outside jacuzzi/spa. Hunter: And that again is approximately, square footage. . . Casey: The pool area is roughly about a 1200 square foot right now. If we develop a sport court it would be approximately 20 x 30. Hunter: O.k. , is there anything else that you would see as meeting recreational needs. Casey: That would be our position at this point. Hunter: O.k. O.k. , any other comments about the application or the City's recommendations? Casey: None at all. Hunter: So the other conditions that are recommended, you are in agreement with them. Casey: That 's correct. Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much for your testimony. 9 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Case • Thank you. Hunter: Are there others here with the applicant who would want to testify. O.k. , we do have some others then of residents surrounding the site who would like to testify. O.k. , we' ll take that testimony now. I do want to indicate that we also received a letter from Penny Sanders, I believe it is, that submitted a written statement just prior to the hearing today that indicates that she would want to protest the construction of the proposed apartment complex. The area is already overdeveloped with multifamily complexes. So that also will be made a part of the file. And, if anyone wants to look at this exhibit and respond to it, its available for that. So, others to testify. How many would like to testify on this application. I see three, possibly four individuals. O.k. , why don't we start here on my right, this lady right in front, we' ll begin with you and go across the way with you three and then if the gentleman wants to testify after that we' ll take his testimony. Voice: (Made a comment) Hunter: Yes, yes, you step up to the microphone and that way we make sure that we have all the comments on. . .on record. And, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you give. Carol Cooper: I do, but I actually don't have testimony. I just have some concerns that I would like to bring up. Hunter: O.k. , if you could state your name first, make sure that we have that on record. Cooper: My name is Carol Cooper and I live at Olympic Skyline condominiums which is adjacent to this proposed development. Hunter• O.k. Cooper: The first concern I have is the development of 236th. I haven't been to one of these meetings before, can I ask a question to. . . Hunter: Yes, what we will do, and we' ll be a less formal. We don't want to be intimidating, we want your comments. Your comments are testimony, that' s what we are doing with this hearing is trying to gather a sense of how the surrounding residents feel about the proposal. If you have specific questions, direct them to 10 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes me and then we ' ll decide who appropriately should answer those questions. Cooper: O.k. , like I said my first concern is the development of S. 236th. I don't see in the plans how they are going to develop it. It looks like they can't extend 236th to meet with 102nd, there's no natural intersection there because our fence line is right in the middle. Hunter: O.k. , so what are the plans for 236th, where will it go. Cooper: Yeah, yeah. Hundred and Second Street apartments have just put their second entrance into their complex and its about ten feet from our fence, so anyone coming down 236th and intersecting with 102nd could easily sideswipe a car that' s trying to take a left of 102nd to go into the complex, so I just don't see how traffic could be routed through there adequately. The other concern is that if that area is developed, 236th Street is developed, its going to divert traffic off of 104th, because that is really congested right there at 104th and James. So people will just take, turn there and go down 236th intersects with 102nd, that's going to be a very busy area right at our back gate which is where our playground is. The other concern I have about the develop of the street is, a couple of years we had problems with the dumping. . .there' s a stream that runs along side there; actually, its more of a drainage. We had to do a lot of whining with the City to get a fence put in there and have 236th actually blocked off because people were driving in there and dumping their garbage into that creek and whenever it rained that garbage would end up blocking up the culvert and then that would back up and flow over out property and its washed out our landscaping on several occasions. Actually, the City has right of way so we just call them up and they are required to come in and fix our landscaping but that's a concern. The other concern beyond the street development was addressed already and that was about the playground. There' s so many apartment complexes going into that area and nobody takes into consideration the fact there are children living there and they have nowhere to play. Are you going to make them play on 102nd? Right now we have a huge playground and its being used by all the complexes in our area. So we are struck with the maintenance of our own equipment. So I really do support the City's condition that 25 percent be set aside. My other concern was for visitor parking. I know 102nd Street doesn't seem to have adequate parking so I know they are going to be using 102nd Street as their overflow parking. So, if 236th is developed we are going to have some problems with flow of traffic. And, my last concern. . . it looked like its a three. . .three-story apartment 11 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes complex and if so that will block my view of Mt. Rainier. Well, those are my only comments although I didn't get a notice as it says back on August 15 that everybody was notified of a public hearing. The notice I got last week was the first notice I 've ever received. Hunter: Oh, what's the August 15, what are you referencing to? Cooper• Page 6 . Hunter: I believe this is the first public hearing on the application, so you didn't miss anything. Cooper: But it says all persons owning property were notified of an application. Shobe: Sorry, that' s a computer glitch, that date was the last time. . . .my last staff report. Sorry, that's my fault, it should have been dated for today, today's hearing. I apologize. Hunter: Yes, there was not an August 15th, 1990, hearing. I'm glad you noted that and we should make note of an error and we will correct the Planning Department report that that hearing date refers to today. . . .should refer to today, April 3 , 1991. So you did not miss any hearings, this is the first opportunity. And, I understand your concerns then to be about 236th, what happens with that and 102nd, the concern about the playground use. Cooper: Or just being sure that they develop 25 percent, only develop 75 percent of their property. Hunter: Yes, parking on 102nd, if there' s any consideration about what might be done on that for overflow parking will it spill on 102nd, the height of the proposed development. Cooper: Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you for your concerns. Now, I think we will take additional concerns or testimony and then we will direct these questions to the appropriate people. Yes, ma'am. Luella Evelyn Wright: My name is Luella Evelyn Wright and. . . Hunter: O.k. , Ms. White, before you testify we will need to. . . . Wright• O.k. 12 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that you're about to give? Wright• I do. Hunter: O.k. , and your name again is? White: Luella Evelyn White. Hunter: Luella White. White: And I also live at Big Skyline condominiums. I am also an educator in the Kent School District. If anyone has taken a close travel down James Street and around that area, they will realize that the present detriment to children is very great. There's no transportation to speak of in that area. Buses come through on very narrow roads to take children to and from school. I frankly do not see how the school district at this present time or in the near future can take any more children into the present location of its school. And, one of your goals is to assure a decent home and suitable living environment for families. There is not suitable living environment for families now, never mind adding 57 more units in that same area. When streets and travel and transportation and money for schools area available, I think some of us that live in that area could see some of this present onslaught of growth. You mentioned the fire station, it is not that close. . .they have built a new fire station relatively close to our area and how well it is staffed I really don't know. I 'm not sure that's not another consideration that certainly should be taken. . .made a concern. The pedestrian movement in that area is not great, people, there are no streets, on my streets, there are no streets behind me, when I attempt to drive on 236th and come around the corner the street on 102nd narrows and so there's only just about room for about two cars to pass if they are extremely careful of one another. These are other things that are not mentioned in the. . .this report. The recreation has already been noted. The purposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental uses legally existing. I think all the legalese has already been taken care of. Most of us understand that. And, you do. . .deal with number and exiting but as a person living there and as a person in the area for a good number of years. I just feel that the growth is too much at this time. I 'm not sure that it's to considering the number or rental signs I see in the area for the next five or six years. Places are not renting as developers thought they would and I don't see that with the recession on the rise, at least I see more families in our school district that the parents have lost jobs and they can speak all they want of growth 13 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes of Boeing, etc. but the reality is that the poverty in this area has grown on the past ten years. My concerns are people concerns. They have nothing to do with the height, the breadth, the width and property that is being developed and I feel as a citizen of this area, that the people concerns are being put aside in favor of more developers and as a citizen of this area, I really am against this proposal on this site. Hunter: Thank you for your testimony, Ms. White. O.k. , did you wish to testify next or, this individual here, o.k. George Theel: My name is George Theel and I am the president of the condo association directly west and adjacent to this proposed project. I represent 24 people in their right now. Hunter: And it's George. . . Theel: Theel, T-H-E-E-L. Hunter: T-H-E-E-L. O.k. , and do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth in the testimony that you give. Theel: I do. I think that, number one, the addition of these 57 units in addition to the 96 units across the street, in addition to another 50 units adjacent to those is going to impact this area. It's just too much. . .too much. As far as the. . . . I think its congested, the traffic congestion right now is the people come up James and turn left on 102nd and go up S. 239th to Benson, you get a traffic congestion there. You also get the reverse congestion, people coming down Benson, turning down SE 239th and then over to James. In our complex we have 24 units and we, when we built, I developed the unit and built it, we were required to have two parking spaces per unit. And, some of the people in there now have children and there's two and three cars in some of the units and the extra, additional parking is out on James Street, pardon me, on 102nd. We have our access to our mail boxes there which there's several times that we don't get our mail because the cars are parking in front of the mail boxes, and even though we have signs up that say no parking on this site. The 96 units across the street from us, they have one access off of 102nd to their units going west. I don't see any other access to those units, it must be off of 100th, coming up the other way unless it would be at the end of their complex which is 236th. And, I. . . it wasn't clear to me whether or not this. they are going to have access to Benson off of 236th or not; if not, then there's going to be a tremendous congestive parking and travel area in there. I think the number of children we see coming from the units directly north of us, I don't 14 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes know, I imagine its your units, there's a number of children that use 102nd to go down there. Now, if we have 21 more bedroom units, you could figure, what, 75 percent of those will probably have one child. They have 29 bedroom units which people when they rent a two-bedroom unit they usually have another child or two childs. So, then the three-bedroom units, maybe another 12 or 15 children in that area, in that complex alone there would be probably 62 children and then across the street we have 96 units and just taking a rough estimate, going to the extreme, the high extreme, the lower extreme and then taking an average of that, probably have a total of 200 children that are going to be invaded into Kent East Hill elementary school and this is just. . . it just sounds totally out of reason. I think the complex or that the addition of this complex, plus those next to it, are just totally out of reason. The area is saturated as it is now, totally saturated. I think that their. . .their plans for the green space and all those areas and the tot's play ground which they say adjacent to unit number 4 , would be backing up right next to our unit there where we will be plague with the noise and all that congestion in there. There' s an alley that goes up directly east of this complex which is proposed which is the back of the units that are there, the South China Cafe, the Moonraker and those places, that could possibly be developed into a street or something where they could have access off of that. But, having another access off of 102nd Avenue, I think that all of a sudden you would have the people in arms wanting to have a traffic light at the corner of 102nd and SE 239th. That's. . .that' s about all I have to say other than I. . . in talking to, well, the people actually came to me, in our complex, and they are just 100 percent totally against it, they just can't stand that additional congestion of people and traffic into the area. Hunter: Is that against any. . .any apartment, multifamily development of the area? Theel: Family development, yes, that seems to be the biggest thing. If it was light commercial which it was when we bought in there. We were hoping that they would be able to develop it and the people who develop it in here say they didn't have access in there to develop the project, how are they going to get access in to their units other than forcing it off of 102nd. So its. . .we just totally 100 percent against any multifamily development in that area and we can take whatever further action is necessary to assure this. Hunter: O.k. , thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to testify. Yes, this woman here and then you, sir. And do you 15 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes swear, affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, in the testimony that you give. Jeanette Hiscocks: Yes, thank you. My name is Jeanette Hiscocks and I 'm a condominium owner at Caravell North, in the same complex as Mr. Theel. I bought my condominium last April, just a year ago and when I moved in there, one of the reasons I choose it was because it was on a deadend street. I went on vacation in July and came back to see 96 apartments going up across the street which I was minorly concerned about, I mean that's a lot of additional traffic and children. And so, I was very concerned when I got hands on this. I understand that taxes increase when you do any road improvements and it looks like there are a lot of road improvements going in. I was surprised at the amount of my property taxes when I received them last month and I can see that if the road continues to improve that they are going to continue to go up which I certainly can't afford. My other concern besides traffic is that I understand that the Kent School District is full. Their schools are overflowing and as Mr. Theel stated that would bring in a lot of additional children. And, I enjoy my peace and quiet. I love children as long as they belong to someone else in another state and I appreciate what Mr. Casey, the business that Mr. Casey is in and I understand that. But, its hearings like this that allow us to speak how we feel. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you. Yes, sir. Do you swear, affirm to tell the truth, the testimony that you give? Brian Loveless: Yes, I do. My name is Brian Loveless. I 'm a realtor involved in this, as far as the sale for the current owners of that property. One thing, I think, that we need to make very clear here. . .with the current zoning of Community Commercial, its totally inappropriate for the piece of property. Kent's own signage laws, there is no signs allowed on either Benson or 240th for any kind of commercial development that got put in there. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as a commercial site and I believe multifamily is the only reasonable alternative. My sellers bought this property quite a while ago as an investment. At that time, I don't believe there was signage laws enacted by Kent that would prohibit any kind of signage for this property. As it stands now, your signage is limited to the amount of road frontage you have on those arterials. This project does not have any road frontage on any existing arterials in the area. I just want to make sure that that' s made real clear to you. I 'm the one who marketed this property, and helped the sellers marketed it and really it was our only alternative was multifamily development. It just doesn't make any sense as a commercial site and I also feel 16 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes and, obviously, I 'm sure, you are going keep this in mind, the density is no more greater than any of the other properties in the surrounding area. And, at least, of the existing projects that have been recently constructed. I guess those are the points I needed to make. Hunter: You stated. . .you're involved in the transaction of the property. Loveless: I 'm the realtor. I work with the sellers, I 'm technically I work for the sellers in this transaction who are both out of state and I 'm really their only representation here today. Hunter: The sale is conditioned upon obtaining a conditional use permit. Loveless: Yes. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Yes ma'am, in the back. Come forward. Helen Wickstrom: I 'm Helen Wickstrom, Kent Parks Department. Hunter: O.k. And, you swear, affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that you give? Wickstrom: Yes, I do. I was greatly concerned when I saw the plans come across my desk for this development. When I looked at 57 units and if there was an average of even one child per unit there could be 50 up to 100 children added to this with no outdoor area. There's a critical shortage of parks in the east hill area. This only compounds the problem. Our Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan states that there should be a five to ten acre neighborhood park to serve each one square mile area. As far as I know, there are no parks within this one mile area with the exception of perhaps something at Turnkey, King County, I 'm not aware exactly of what that is. But, there's no City parks within one mile of this area. The City Comp Plan also states that through neighborhood planning, which is what you have a chance to do here, with this development that there be an adequate level of community and public services available for the residential areas. The East Hill Plan states, as it is in your packet, that open space and passive. . .for passive and active recreation areas shall be by whatever means. And one means is by requiring the developer to provide adequate open space within the development. Thank you. 17 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: I 'm sorry you sat down so quickly, I was just catching up with your testimony. It was presented crispy and in short enough span that it just took me a minute to. . . for it to sink in but you heard testimony from the applicant, I guess, counter-proposals in a way. Wickstrom: Yes, I did. Hunter: And, I wondered about your reaction to those, whether that would provide the type of recreation. . . Wickstrom: My first reaction is that it would. But, in looking at five hundred square feet, I do not feel that is adequate for this area after listening to the testimony of the other folks and the other multifamily around the area. One five hundred square foot tot lot, I don't think will do it. I would consider, if he pointed out two particular areas that it could be in, perhaps a small tot lot in each of those areas, because with that many units, I feel that that would be necessary. If we go with that, I would like to recommend that the condition be that the development they do put in for a tot lot meet the King County safety standards for tot lots. I do have those standards in my office and would be, you know, glad to provide a copy. He mentioned a "big toy" type of complex. We've just taken out, as a Park Department, several of these wood structures that became unsafe. They rotted off at the base, and so we're currently using only steel or a metal type, pipe line is one of the type of play equipment that we are using and we would recommend that they meet those standards. Hunter: O.k. , when you look at the need for recreational space, particularly for children, which you've heard is the same testimony and I 've heard, that there's apparently children are now using existing private facilities. Do we have any public facilities planned? Wickstrom: There are no public facilities, City facilities in that area. And that's one of the areas that through our Comprehensive Planning process that we're doing this year, through our CIP process, we're going to be recommending a neighborhood park for each one square mile area to meet our own guidelines but, at this time, there are none in that area. Hunter: How long might it be. There 's a lot of uncertainties about that. But, would there be anything available in the next, say, six months or. . . Wickstrom: No, no, I doubt very much. . . 18 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: This is long-range. Wickstrom: This is long-range. We're doing a Six-Year Plan. It's up to the City Council to approve that plan and they will be looking at request from all City departments. So, it' s going to be, you know, a lot of big wish-lists and very little money to do it with. Hunter: What about the applicant. . .the applicant had a proposal, optional proposal for some pool area, does that help meet any recreational needs at all. Wickstrom: I saw that on there and when it said open space with option of pool, that's what brought it to my attention that it wouldn't leave any open space if the pool was built. I think, to market their complex and with the adults that are in there, a pool is a good idea. They also mentioned a hard court surface and that's a. . .there's a very big need for hard court surface. We've put in one in a development, Seven Oaks development, and a half- court basketball court, and its just tremendously popular. People are coming from all over to us that, that very small area. They like the outdoor basketball. Hunter: O.k. , thank you very much. O.k. , other testimony from. . .anyone else from the public that wanted to testify. O.k. Then additional responses. I think we will take City responses first, since we started on that path and get, maybe, Alice Shobe can help direct responses. We have a number of questions and concerns that were raised, I think they focused on traffic areas, school crowding are two of the big ones. Shobe: I wanted to comment that the Kent School District was informed of this proposed development months ago and I spoke directly with Gwen Escher at the school district and we spoke about it and I encouraged her to attend this meeting. I received no written comments or further verbal comments over the telephone. I just wanted to make that part of the record. The other thing that I wanted to clarify was a little bit. . .because it was a bit confusing of where staffs rationale came for recommending 25 percent of contiguous area for open space. It was basically. . .Mr. Casey was correct in pointing out the definition of open space and that his site does meet it based on the definition of open space in the Zoning Code. However, we took the intent of open space mixed with the Parks Department comment and just used the 25 percent as a number together. So, it was basically a mixture of the two, its not something that is outright required by the Zoning Code under the MRM landscaping, so we basically beefed 19 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes up the intent. I guess that's the way I can say it. I would like to address all of the road improvement type questions to Gary Gill our City Engineer who is present now. I think those were the only issues that I can address directly. I see Carol reaching for the microphone. Carol Proud: I could go after Gary, that's o.k. Hunter: O.k. Let' s turn to the traffic concerns and in particular, I think, a number of the concerns that were raised, perhaps, were looked at during the environmental review process and this is always awkward in these proceedings. We do have in the file and its referenced in the staff report, conditions that were developed at the time of the review as to whether an environmental impact statement should be prepared. It was determined in this situation that an environmental impact statement was not necessary, if, certain conditions were complied with and that's a process that: —that your City goes through in any application to see if its a major action that affects the environment such than an EIS should be prepared. It was determined on this one that an EIS was not necessary but during that process several conditions were applied that addressed some of the concerns raised. So, I think, perhaps Mr. Gill will speak to some of those and other traffic considerations that have been raised. Mr. Gill, do you swear, affirm to tell the truth in testimony that you give. Gary Gill: I do. My name is Gary Gill, City Engineer. The first issue that I would like to address was our assessment of the traffic impacts that would be created by this development on that specific site. When we looked at this as a multifamily development it obviously has different characteristics of traffic generation compared to what may occur if it was developed as a commercial site. But, in looking at the Institute for Traffic Engineers trip generation figures, under our assessment the impact from a multifamily development would actually be less than what would occur if .it was developed as a commercial site. There would a much greater impact on the traffic situation in this was developed as a community commercial or retail type of commercial establishment. Hunter: That depends a lot on the specific commercial proposal. Gill: Right, we are looking at generalities and obviously, it's different types of traffic because it is going to be generated during time periods. You're not going to have the children, the needs for the pedestrian needs which you may have with multifamily complex. So that was paramount in some of the decisions or some of the recommendations that we made with regard to street and other 20 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes improvements as part of this project. We felt it was imperative that 236th Street be extended along the northern portion of the site to link it into the Benson Highway to improve the alternative access capabilities from this site we did not want to have to funnel all the traffic down 102nd to 240th or 239th. We felt that if it was tied into the Benson Highway on 236th Street that it gives the drivers or the owners or renters of this site some alternative means for getting in and out of the development. Granted there's a lot of traffic problems in the area, however, if you give people alternative ways--they will usually try to pick the one, either the safest or the quickest means of getting out of their specific site. We also required that sidewalks be included as part of the improvements that are going to be made when both 102nd Avenue is completed and 236th Street is improved. So we want to make sure that there are safe places for people to walk, both trying to get to the shopping centers over in the Benson area as well as going south to the Fred Meyer, East Hill Elementary School area as well. Now, I wasn't here during some of the testimonies, so I 'm not sure if I 'm. . .there's probably some areas that I may not comment on. Hunter: There was some concern raised about any possible intersection with 102nd and 236th, what. . .what the sight distance would be, how that turning radius would be managed, those sort of things. Gill: Those are the details we would get into when we look at the actual design. . .preliminary design that comes into our department. But, those are critical factors that we take into consideration as far as what is an adequate radius for the curb returns, whether or not a signal may be required in the future, those are things that we will have to look at. But, at this point in time, its kind of premature to say yes there will be a signal needed in the future. But, we do take those into consideration when we review and approve the design documents for the roadway improvements themselves. Hunter: This is the sort of thing addressed in the environmental review. This is on the mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. There's a condition #5 that reads, "If necessary, deed to the City the property needed to accommodate a 35 foot curb return radii at the intersection of 102nd SE and SE 236th. " That issued is looked at during that review process. Gill: That's correct. And, that' s only the intersection that the subject property owners have control over, so since they are doing the roadway improvements in that particular area in order to accommodate that 35 foot radius it may require a small additional 21 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes bit of right of way off the corner of that piece in order to put the radius in there. When you get over to the radius at 104th and 236th, we're dealing with separate property owners so we don't have. . .they don't have control over the ownership of that so that would be something the City would look at in conjunction with any future road improvements over there. We did required that as they improve those remaining portions that are off their site, that we have a minimum 24-feet. . . 24-foot wide roadway with a five-foot gravel shoulder so at least there's enough room for somebody to walk along the shoulder of the road until they get to the sidewalk improvements on the Benson Highway. Hunter: What about the parking on 102nd, you've heard that there currently is parking that' s interfering with traffic flow, is there anything that can be done about that. Gill: That's probably ties a little bit into some of the problems that we've had with some of the condominium complexes which, I believe, the Planning Department has changed their ordinance requiring the parking pads outside of closed garage structures so they don't use the garage for storage and then not have available parking spaces for the occupants of the units. But, that obviously doesn't take care of the past sites that have already been developed so I 'm not aware of the specific problems up there. The only, one alternative is to start posting no parking in the area which would probably agitate the residents even more. But we would. . .there is a real serious problem up there, they should bring it to our attention, we can take a look at it through the Traffic Division and see if there are any solutions that we could recommend. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Are there responses to the concerns raised. Voice: I still don't understand how these roads are going to intersect. Hunter: Question about the intersection of 236th and how it meets 102nd? Voice: One Hundred Second deadends right into that property. Gill: O.k. , its a T-intersection or a 90 degree intersection essentially is what it is. So, it' ll just curve to the east, there won't be an intersection essentially. Voice: The site plan has that intersection. . . . 22 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: Its referenced on the site plan and, I think, is shown on it. That's the last page of the Planning Department's report. You can see the proposal for a new road and a new curb and gutter along the top of the site plan. Voice: Anyone going into the entrance at 102nd is going to be hit by somebody coming along 236th. Hunter: Well, we've heard your testimony. What we are trying to do is getting responses to concerns raised. I think the question and concern was how does the intersection work. We've heard the testimony on the concern with the impact. Gill: Well, the site plan itself doesn't really show what would happen over on the opposite side of the street and probably after they finish their survey and we determine what's feasible to be constructed because of the constraints with the creek on the north side there, this may be a curb and guttered section that curves around the roadway and essentially defines the driving path for motorists going each direction. Then we' ll have to look at this access point to make sure that there' s safe sight distance, and there's no problems that could be presented from that. Hunter: O.k. O.k. , thank you, Mr. Gill, for the traffic spots. The other responses we had, we had other questions raised or any other testimony from City people present. Carol Proud, Planning Department, has a comment. Carol Proud: I 'm Carol Proud with the Planning Department. Hunter: And you, swear, affirm to tell the truth in the testimony you give. Proud: I do. I just wanted to reiterate with the realtor gentleman said about that particular site that it is a difficult site from commercial standpoint to develop. The Zoning Code does not allow off-premise signs ' or off-premise signage up on 104th or on the Benson or on James Street. So anybody who did develop that particular site would only be allowed signage on 236th or 102nd and they wouldn't have any signage at all on 104th. Hunter: Unless a variance was granted or some access. . .other access to the site location. Proud: Right. Right. 23 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Hunter: O.k. We've taken testimony from all concerned. We have given the City an opportunity to respond. I want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised so we will turn now to Mr. Casey. Casey: I 've made out rough notes on the questions asked and I will try to go over everything and if I miss something just please ask. The extension of 236th Street up to 104th, its our understanding that that' s at our project's development cost. So, it is, a cost of development and that's something the developer is willing to bear and is already been part of the environmental review. The extension of 236th to 104th, I think, will actually facilitate and improve access for fire, school buses especially, police and the. . . in my mind the development of this project will actually improve the vehicular circulation in concept. Regarding the height of the buildings we are operating within the Code definitions for the City of Kent and we will be, I believe, less than 35 feet from grade to the mid-point of the gabeled roof. We, let' s see, regarding the additional tot lot, the developer is willing to place another tot lot between buildings 1 and 2, in this area, right in here of a similar size and regarding the safety and type of construction we would enjoy talking to the Parks Department regarding type of structures because its our sincere interest to design a project that will provide a long-life, longevity for the developer. So, we are open to that and are excited to talk to them about that. Back to the open space idea we do have additional open space that is suitable for play outside of these tot lots. We, in general, like to keep landscaping such as shrubbery and ground cover close to the buildings and tight to the buildings and keep as much open grass area as possible. So, even beyond these tot lots we have additional play area and that will part of our, I think, 43 percent open green area that we are providing. Hunter: O.k. What are we. . .we're looking now, you've. . . I guess I want to track a little bit what square footage you're talking about. So, you've. . .mentioned a second site that could be improved for children's recreation. Casey: Right, and that was at the request of the lady from the Parks Department. Hunter: O.k. , and that's roughly located where? Casey: Between buildings 1 and 2 , in this area right here. Hunter: And square footage is approximately? 24 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 ICE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Casey: It would be again in the range of five to six hundred square feet. Hunter: O.k. O.k. Casey: Oh, and then one addition comment regarding garages. We are not providing any enclosed garage for this project. We do have covered carports that are often reserved for an individual tenant but it is reserved for parking and not for storage because it is just open. Hunter: O.k. Case Are there any other comments that I can make regarding previous questions? Hunter: I still want to make sure that I 'm tracking on this, on the open space idea. You know, if, if this application were to be approved we're looking at a recommendation from the City of that 25 percent and I hear you kind of getting a little bit closer but where it is? Casey: Well, the 25 percent of the site area, we're, I think two and a half acres, so that's. . .my math isn't real good but probably in the range of about a third of an acre in pure recreation. We have, from my previous comments, in excess of 25 percent open area but it's just not contiguous, it's just not all interlinked because we have separation of drives and buildings. Hunter: O.k. , and probably the larger concern is, if this were approved, there are, of course, there would be additional children, would these two sites be adequate to provide for their recreational needs. I have sensed. . . . Casey: From our history, yes. Even if you were assuming one child per apartment on average; one bedrooms would probably have very few children and the three bedrooms would have two to three children, you're looking at 50 to 60 children at a maximum and not all of those are of age to play in a tot lot or that type of thing. Other kids would be enjoying the swimming pool function or would be more into sports at their own high school, for instance. So we feel that the two tot lots would be adequate to serve the recreational needs of the children. Hunter: And, the sport court, the additional facility there, located. . .north of, in the corner? 25 City of Kent - Hearing Examiner Kent 57 #CE-91-3 Verbatim Minutes Casey: It would be, I have a little difficulty in a place for the sport court. We do have some room to the eastern side of the recreation building, but it' s only about 20 feet wide. We could tuck a court right up adjacent to that building as an option and, frankly, the pool is going to be a more expensive solution if we decide to build a pool over a sport court. And, we are interested in marketing this project or having some flexibility in marketing that we can attract renters to this project because we have to work within the market place. What's expected for a project of this size and quality. There was also some concern regarding the tot lot behind building 4 and being close to the apartment project to the south of us. If I remember the site right, there is a retaining wall at our southern boundary line, that drops down to a driveway immediately adjacent to our lot so there's. . .some additional buffering beyond our own project already provided by the adjacent property in terms of the retaining wall and in terms of the driveway. Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your response. Casey: Thank you. Hunter: You've responded to a number of concerns raised. Is there additional testimony in this application. I see no responses to that. The job is then. . .my job. . .based on the testimony today is to look at the criteria provided in the Kent City Codes and make a determination as to whether this proposal as explained and somewhat modified today meets those criteria and should be granted or whether it does not meet the criteria and should be denied. So, we will issue a decision then within two weeks of today's date. Thank you for coming and we will close the record. 26 ` CITY OF KENT Q _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 � nccr. STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF APRIL 31 1991 FILE NO: KENT 57 APARTMENTS #CE-91-3 APPLICANT: THE CASEY GROUP ARCHITECTS REOUEST: Pursuant to Section 15. 04 . 100 (D2) of the City of Kent Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is requested to construct a 57 unit apartment complex at the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th St. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Shobe, Planner STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions . I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The proposed project is to build 57 apartment units with related on-site parking and landscaped areas. B. Location The site is located on the southeast corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th St. C. Size of Property The site is approximately 2 . 5 acres. D. Zoning CC, Community Commercial . 1 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 E. Land Use The site is currently vacant with insignificant natural vegetation including blackberry bushes and cytisus (scotch broom) . F. History 1. Site History The site is bordered on two sides by multifamily developments and on two sides by commercially zoned property. To the west of the proposed site is newly developed multifamily housing zoned R1-5. 01 Single Family Residential. This site was rezoned in March 1990 by City Council Action following completion of the "Area Housing Studies" . However, the multifamily project was vested under MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning prior to final approval of the rezone. To the south of the proposed site is an existing apartment complex zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. To the north of the site is a public right of way designated at SE 236th Street. 2 . Area History This site was included in a 30 acre area of land that was annexed into the City of Kent on December 1, 1962 , under Ordinance 1161. The area to the east of the proposed project, along 104th Avenue SE has developed into a significant retail area. This area has a history of multifamily requests for parcels originally zoned for commercial uses: #CE-79-11 Gradwohl Development: A conditional use permit was approved to allow construction of a five unit apartment building in a CC zone. The site is located south of 236th St. and west of 104th Avenue SE. The site is located in close proximity to other commercial developments. #CE-81-1 Gradwohl Development II: A conditional use permit was denied for a five unit town house project in a CC zone. The site was located further west of 104th Avenue SE than the site approved for multifamily 2 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 units in #CE-79-11. The Hearing Examiner concluded that this proposal should be denied because the proposed site was almost completely surrounded by vacant land zoned CC. It was felt that the lot size of 10, 000 square feet allowed limited opportunity for appropriate buffering and screening from likely future commercial developments which would surround the site. #RZ-76-4 Fred Sodenkamp Jr. : A request to rezone property zoned CC to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. The rezone property is located immediately south of the proposed project on 102nd Avenue SE. The application was approved. II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Final Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) #ENV-90-103 was issued on January 11, 1991 and a revised DNS was issued on January 23 , 1991 with the following conditions: 1. Obtain a pollution discharge permit from the Kent Public Works Department. A requirement of this permit will be to provide treatment of storm water runoff prior to discharge into the nearest City system. 2 . Provide biofiltration of storm water runoff prior to discharge into the nearest City storm system. A minimum 200 foot long biofiltration swale with maximum 3 to 1 side slopes is required. Wetponds, filter strips, or other alternatives shall comply with the latest edition of the King County Surface Water Design Manual . Biofiltration systems shall not constitute part of the required landscaping. On site detention shall be required in accordance with Kent standards. 3 . Execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South 224th/228th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $40,888 based upon 38 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the South 224th/228th Street Corridor. 3 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the construction of the above mentioned corridor project which will provide additional capacity from traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. 4 . Provide improvements for those portions of SE 236th Street right of way easterly of the subject property as necessary to provide a minimum 24 foot asphalt paved roadway with five foot gravel shoulders and adequate drainage facilities. 5 . If necessary, deed to the City the property needed to accommodate a 35 foot curb return radii at the intersection of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th St. 6. Extend 102nd Avenue SE to the north property line of the subject property. The minimum improvements shall include curb and gutter (both sides) , sidewalks (east side only) , street lighting (east side only) , with asphalt pavement 32 feet in width, storm drainage facilities, underground utilities (including water) , hydrants, and related appurtenances. Street identification signs shall also be provided. Cement concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the east side of 102nd Avenue SE for the entire property frontage of 102nd Avenue SE. 7. Some of the improvements mentioned in number 3 above may have been completed by a new development located on the west side of 102 Avenue . SE. For that portion of the improvements which lie easterly of the center line of 102nd Avenue SE this development may therefore be subject to latecomers fees. 8 . All above described improvements must be complete prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed project. 9. Incorporate a pedestrian circulation system (sidewalks) into the development connecting parking to all buildings and access to both 102nd Ave. SE and SE 236th Street. 10. Dust generated during construction activities shall be controlled by wetting those dust sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before they leave 4 :t Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 the site, and installing and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track-out is also a major dust source. Any evidence of track-out can trigger violations and fines from Ecology or the local air agency. 11. Submit a detailed topographic survey prepared by a Washington State Licensed land surveyor of the SE 236th Street right of way from 102nd Avenue SE easterly to 104th Avenue SE. The survey shall clearly show the limits of the existing paved roadway as well as the drainage course that parallels SE 236th Street on the north. Based on this survey and as determined by the Public Works Director, the developer shall either construct SE 236th Street to the same standards as 102nd Avenue SE for the entire property frontage thereon or construct a minimum roadway section of 24 feet in width of asphalt pavement with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the south side only, a five foot gravel shoulder on the north side, storm drainage, street light, and other related street improvements. B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Hydrology The site slopes approximately 10 percent to the west and there is no significant vegetation remaining on site. Upon site inspection it was determined that the site does not have significant wetland characteristics to warrant further study. 2 . Vegetation The site is predominately covered with blackberry bushes and cytisus (scotch broom. ) C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to 102nd Avenue SE which is classified as a local arterial. This street has a public right-of-way width of sixty (60) feet. The actual road will be built in conjunction with this project and the apartment complex to the west of the proposed site. Asphalt pavement will be a minimum of 5 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 32 feet. The street will be improved with curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, and storm drainage facilities. A widening strip will not be required to be deeded to the City. New left turn lanes will not be required. The average daily traffic count on the street is 2 , 000 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has stated that SE 236th Street may be vacated. Therefore, access to SE 236th is unknown at this time. 2 . Water System An existing eight (8) inch water main line runs along 102nd Avenue SE and is available to serve the subject property. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing fifteen (15) inch sanitary sewer is available to serve the subject property. 4 . Storm Water System During the SEPA process it was determined that a storm water drainage system will be necessary. Such system was a condition of the SEPA determination. 5. LIDs There are no existing LIDS at this time. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and persons were notified of this conditional use permit application: City Administrator City Attorney Chief of Police Fire Chief Director of Public Works Building Official Parks and Recreation Director 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 August 15, 1990 public hearing. Staff comments have been included in the report where appropriate. 6 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 VI . 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 intention 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 following is review of each of the above plans as they relate to the proposed development. CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as C, Commercial. HOUSING ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT. GOAL II: Guide new residential development into areas where the needed services and facilities are available, and in a manner which is compatible with existing residential neighborhoods. Planning Department Comment The project site is zoned Commercial, however the site would have no direct access to 104th Avenue SE where the majority of the commercial/retail uses are located. Because of the substantial multifamily development surrounding the proposed site, commercial development desirability is significantly reduced. (See Area History section above. ) Commercial 7 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 property is valued for its vehicle access and signage opportunities. The city of Kent has had a number of off premise sign violations associated with commercial/retail business located in "visually" inaccessible areas. Therefore, a multifamily development will be compatible with the existing residential developments in the immediate area. Fire Department Comment The Fire Station located closest to the proposed site has only one full time truck company. Until staffing for a paid engine is obtained it will be difficult to move closer to the Fire Master Plan goal of an average response time of four (4) minutes. The effect of adding residential units is cumulative and contributes to the increased demand for resources which are not currently available at optimal levels. CIRCULATION ELEMENT OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL. GOAL 2 : Assure safe, convenient pedestrian movement within and throughout Kent. Planning Department Comment: In order to assure pedestrian safety a comprehnsive sidewalk system must be incorporated into the proposed site plan. Specifically, sidewalks must connect each residential building to the parking and recreation areas. The internal pedestrian circulation system should be connected to the required sidewalks along public streets. EAST HILL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The East Hill Plan Map designates the proposed site as CR, Community Retail. GOAL 4 : Adequate land and facilities to provide recreational opportunities for those living and working in the East Hill area. Objective 3 : Provide open space or vegetative buffers throughout the community as urban or suburban development occurs. 8 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 Policy 1: Open space for passive and active recreation shall be acquired by whatever means available. Parks Department Comment The existing site plan does not reveal any open space for recreation on site. There are no public parks easily accessible to this site for the residents to utilize. A complex of this size should also provide a minimal half acre tot lot or other open space for children. Planning Department Comment The proposed project is located in a CC, Community Commercial, zone which does not have landscape requirements appropriate for residential uses. Section 15. 07 . 060 (E2) of the Zoning Code, which addresses landscape requirements for MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zones, requires that open green area occupy a minimum of twenty-five . (25) percent of the area of the lot. It is appropriate to apply the MRM landscaping standards to the proposed site. The submitted site plan does not meet this standard. B. Standards and Criteria for a Conditional Use Reauest The following standards and criteria shall be used by the Hearing Examiner to evaluate a request for conditional use. Such condition use shall only be granted after the Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine if it complies with the standards and criteria listed below. The standards are provided for in the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15. 09 . 030 D. A conditional use permit shall only be granted if such a finding is made. The staff has responded to these criteria and made the following findings: 1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the zoning district. Planning Department Comment The existing apartment complexes to the south and west are of like density to the proposed apartment complex. Appropriate landscape buffering will exist between the apartment complex and existing retail on 104th Avenue SE. 9 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 2 . The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use. Planning Department Comment The minimum lot size in a CC zone is 10, 000 square feet; the proposed site is two and a half (2 . 5) acres. The proposed project is consistent with a MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, zoning. MRM zoning requires 81500 square feet for the first two dwelling units and 1, 600 square feet for each additional unit. Using these calculations 96, 500 square feet would be the minimum requirement. The site consists of 108 , 900 square feet. 3 . The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation system in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment Traffic mitigation was addressed through the SEPA process. The Public Works Department has determined that SE 236th Street must not be vacated as initially proposed by the applicant. Rather, SE 236th Street will be improved and connected to 102nd Avenue SE. The access provided by SE 236th will further reduce any additional traffic congestion created by this project. 4 . The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity. Planning Department Comment The density proposed is in general conformance with the existing multifamily apartment complex to the south of the proposed site. Modulation has been incorporated into the design of the buildings in order to reduce the perceived "bulk" of the apartment complex. 5 . Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual or auditory effects. 10 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 Planning Department Comment The development standards listed in Section 15 . 04 . 100 for the Community Commercial zone were designed for commercial uses. Because the proposed project is residential, the development standards for landscaping and buffering outlined in Section 15 . 07 . 060 (E) , MRM landscaping regulations and Section 15. 08 . 215, Multifamily Transition Areas of the Zoning Code are more appropriate. The proposed site plan shows ten (10) percent of the parking lot as landscaping as required under Section 15 . 07 . 040_(A) of the Zoning Code. 6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to function effectively. Planning Department Comment Like residential uses to the south and west immediately abut the proposed site. Retail and commercial uses, which the residential use support, are to the north and east. 7 . The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other applicable provision of this code. Planning Department Comment The proposed density for this multifamily development is 23 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, density limitations. The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with Section 15 . 08 . 215, Multifamily Transition Areas and Section 15. 04 . 050, Medium Density Multifamily of the Kent Zoning Code. The proposed complex will have 21 one bedroom apartments, 29 two bedroom apartments, 6 three bedroom units, and one manager' s unit. Section 15. 05. 040 of the Zoning Code .requires 1.8 parking stalls per unit. Precedent has shown that large apartment complexes within the City of Kent have not supplied sufficient parking stalls for residents. The applicant has responded by providing 1. 8 parking stall per one (1) one bedroom apartment and 2 . 0 parking stalls for each two (2) and three (3) bedroom apartment. 11 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 8. Any other similar considerations that may be appropriate to a particular case. Planning Department Comment The proposed project is likely to create an impact on the school district serving the site because the apartment units have not been designated as specialty housing serving seniors or another population unlikely to have children attending public schools. The school districts serving the City of Kent have increased difficulty in meeting demand created by new multifamily developments. It is imperative that the school district serving the site has maximum lead time in preparing for increased student population. VII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for granting a conditional use permit, the City staff recommends APPROVAL with the following conditions: 1. The site shall comply with all sections of the Zoning Code pertinent to multifamily residential uses of similar density of the project; i.e. specifically, Sections 15. 04 . 050 and 15. 08 . 215. In all cases the more restrictive requirements shall apply. 2 . The site shall comply with Section 15. 07 . 040 (E2) of the Zoning Code by designating twenty-five (25) percent of the total parcel to open green area. In order to assure maximum area for recreation, this open green area shall be contiguous and accessible by all residents living within the apartment complex. 3 . Provide written information to the Kent School District which includes the location of the proposed apartment complex, the number and size of units, and proposed or existing pedestrian circulation and transportation components (ie: proposed sidewalk additions, areas adequate for bus stops etc. ) . Copies of this correspondence and/or replies shall be sent to the Planning Department. 4 . Complete a lot line adjustment, which removes all interior lines within the site, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12 Staff Report Kent 57 Apartments #CE-91-3 5. Incorporate a pedestrian circulation system (sidewalks) into the development connecting parking to all buildings and access to both 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th Street. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 18, 1991 13 I R,mwt LZ E fikid >>I ll C i �`�a� BRA r�� r .�� J � ' ' ' PA im� t17F14 � c■��■1 /rL�!7 .r.�i City of Kent Planning Department n 22ST SE 3 2zerH 3E 228TH 3T n ti 3E 8 in 282HD 81 232HO PL 0 n Q n 237T11 PL •' iz i o • ¢ N J 0 w 2413T 3 3 24 HD 2T APPLICATION NAME: Kent 57 Apartments NUMBER: CE-91-3 DATE: April 3, 1991 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LEGEND Application site VICINITY MAP Zoning boundary nnnu�� City limits City of Kent - Planning Department S.E. 2361h STREET 1 MW HM1I.b eu 4M1.Ml^[4 I • IILNeU p([IifnNl/ w[ t ww 'FRONT YARD oaue v.wnior.+ 1 T ea z_ IN 3 — . ' —� b e SITE PLAN JIM I I W�'[.�e! i/nv.� gwn'f+MY•.N NF%wf.W w i � I . — — l—' f� '•IA Y f,e H '8 r.'eaJawt.uo 1wo ilrS'. C J � �' '0U {'buf M10 VJO:M YKe6 ��i+V9 � MYIXlnD W�Tl [R1U n UR wrae�m.,.re�i w rx.cn m I $ ay - e eww x.9 yr.en.ta ecJua..+le». R9C c c I _ w IlY xtA'.an4e. I� yyyl t.i C%M LOY2VJaL v 7n ^ � o 1"I L t B1 I T� I �'r^Y[•xr�c`.uu Ist uw� IOJIicrNe.•r 1e ee�.ns,te I e i R I[[K. ftnl'D H6JIUG! I 1� n .t p OI pM1aMY/Rti1rt c g .�yclpx 1'I c 3 __ _ L } xoaoo", L--. to Sao' 'REAR YARDI •g �s.b LT ,42�, - APPLICATION NAME: Kent 57 Apartments NUMBER: CE-91-3 DATE: April 3, 1991 REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit LEGEND Application site SITE PLAN Zoning boundary City limits CITY OF RENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Environmental Checklist No. #ENV :90-103 Project KENT 57 APARTMENTS Description Pro osal to construct a 57 unit a artment com lex with related on-site arkin on a 2.5 acre site. A conditional use ermit w' ll be re uired for this ro'ec t. Additional mitigating conditions which do not e to SEPA review ma be a lied b the Hearin Examiner through the conditional use process. Location Southeast corner of 102nd Ave. S.E. and S.E. 236th Street Applicant The CaseV Group Architects Attn: Paul J. Casey 10116 36th Ave Ct S W. #109 Tacoma WA 98499 Lead Agency City of Kent• The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with theconditioned agncy. his Determinaianceti n the of Nonsignificance is specifically conditions and mitigating measures described below. This information is available to the public on request. _ There is no comment period for this DNS. X This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2) ; the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by _January 26 1991. Responsible Official _James P. Harris _ Position/Title _Planning Director Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent WA 32_Telephone: 859-3390 Dated January 11 1991 Signature - �"�� Questions regarding procedures for app aling this agency decision may be directed to the Responsible Official. CONDITIONS/MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Obtain a pollution discharge permit from the Kent Public Works his eatment Department. storm water runoffepriorment ototdischargetintolthe nearest be to 1Cityr of system- 2. Provide biofiltration of storm water runoff prior to discharge into the nearest City storm system. A minimum 200 foot long biofiltration swale with maximum 3 to 1 side slopes is required. Wetponds, filter strips, or other alternatives shall comply with the latest edition of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Biofiltration systems shall not constitute part of the required landscaping. on site detention shall be required in accordance with Kent standards. 3. Execute an environmental mitigation agreement to financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the south 224th/228th Street corridor project. The minimum benefit to the above development is estimated at $40,888 based upon 38 PM peak hour trips entering and leaving the site and the capacity of the South 224th/228th Street Corridor. The execution of this agreement will serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the above mentioned intersections and road system by committing funding for the construction of the above mentioned corridor project which will provide additional capacity from traffic volumes within the area of the above mentioned development. Page 1 of 2 Determination of Nonsignificance KENT 57 APARTMENTS #ENV-90-103 4. Provide improvements for those portions of SE 236th Street right of way easterly of the subject property as necessary to provide a minimum 24 foot asphalt paved roadway with five foot gravel shoulders and adequate drainage facilities. 5. If necessary, deed to the City the property needed to accommodate a 35 foot curb return radii at the intersection of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th St. 6. Extend 102nd Avenue SE to the north property line of the subject property: The minimum improvements shall include curb and gutter ut eron(both sides) , sidewalks (east side only) , street lighting with asphalt pavement 32 feet in width, storm dan drainage facilities, underground utilities (including water) , hydrants, d related appurtenances. Street identification signs shall also be provided. Cement concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the east side of 102nd Avenue SE for the entire property frontage of 102nd Avenue SE. 7. Some of the improvements mentioned in number 6 above may have been completed by a new development located on the west side of 102 Avenue SE. For that portion of the improvements which lie easterly of the center line of 102nd Avenue SE this development may therefore be subject to latecomers fees. a. All above described improvements must be complete prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed project. 9. Incorporate a pedestrian 'circulation system (sidewalks) into the development connecting parking to all buildings and access to both 102nd Ave. SE and SE 236th Street. 10. Dust generated during construction activities shall be controlled by wetting those dust sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before they leave the site, and installing and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track-out is also a major dust source. Any evidence of track-out can trigger violations and fines from Ecology or the local air agency. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, James P. Harris, Responsible Official under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 197-11-788 and 910, and Kent City Code Chapter 12.12A.100 do hereby declare that the Determination of Non ignificarce, as described in this public notice, was duly posted on i 15- 1 91 uy') by a member of the Kent Planning Department, on or near the site described therein. Ja s P. arris, Responsible Official Page 2 of 2 CITY OF KENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISION TO SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Checklist #ENV-90-103 Name of Project KENT 57 APARTMENTS Threshold Determination Date: January 11 , 1991 The Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for the above project has been examined and due to changed conditions, new circumstances or new information, the following revisions to the condition/mitigation measures are approve without the need to withdraw the DNS and reissue a new Threshold Determination. Responsible official _James P. Harris position/Title _Planning Director. Address 220 S. Fourth Avenue Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: 859-3390 Dated January 23 1991 signature Revisions to Conditions/Mitigation Me sures: Submit a detailed topographic survey prepared by a Washington State Licensed land surveyor of the SE 236th Street right of way from 102nd Avenue SE easterly to 104.th Avenue SE. The survey shall clearly show the limits of the existing paved roadway as well as the drainage course that parallels SE 236th Street on the north. Based on this survey and as determined by the Public Works Director, the developer shall either construct SE 236th Street to the same standards as 102nd Avenue SE for the entire property frontage thereon or construct a minimum roadway section of 24 feet in width of asphalt pavement with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the south Side only, a five foot gravel shoulder on the north side, storm drainage, street light, and other related street improvements. / 1 ^ 11 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW (ZCA-90-5) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider the Multifamily Design Review Report as recommended by the Planning Committee. This report outlines a recommended design review process and criteria to be applied in reviewing proposals for multifamily development. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Multifamily Design Review Report, Planning Commission Minutes of July 22 , 1991 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT: i CLOSE HEARING: a 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: /i Councilmember ' ! moves, Councilmember � ` ' seconds to accept/reject/modify the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the Multifamily Design Review No. ZCA-90-5, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2D x MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW Kent Planning Department July 1991 MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW Kent Planning Department July 1991 MAYOR: Dan Kelleher CITY ADMINISTRATOR: Ed Chow PROJECT STAFF: James P. Harris Planning Director Fred Satterstrom Planning Manager Lauri Anderson Senior Planner Janet Shull Lead Project Planner Anne Watanabe Planner Laura Yeats Planner MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION - WHAT IS DESIGN REVIEW? 3 CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND 5 History of Multifamily Development in Kent 5 Existing Design Review in Kent 7 Design Review Research 10 CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS 13 No Action 13 Implement the RUGG Requests 13 Implement a Design Review Program 15 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Conclusions 17 Recommendations 18 I. Develop Illustrated Design Guidelines Handbook 18 II. Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review 41 III. Increase Staffing in the Planning Department 41 IV. Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily 41 Design Review V. Implement an Administrative Process for Design Review 41 VI. Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis 43 CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION AGENDA 44 APPENDIX 45 BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to the request of the City Council, the Planning Commission has been considering the proposed controls on multifamily development contained in the Petition by the Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG). At its October, 1990 workshop, the Planning Commission directed the Planning Department to do additional research on design review as a possible means of addressing some of the issues raised in the Petition. After reviewing the information gathered by Planning Department Staff, the Planning Commission determined that a design review process would be the best mechanism to achieve improved multifamily development both in appearance and function. As a result of months of workshop sessions with the Planning Commission, the Planning Department has produced this report which outlines a recommended design review process as well as the specific criteria which would be applied in reviewing multifamily development. Summary of Findings In Kent, where the current ratio of multifamily to single-family units is approximately 65% to 35% respectively, the potential impact that multifamily development has on Kent's livability and image as a residential community is significant. The Planning Commission and Planning Department Staff found the following to be critical in making the decision toward design review for multifamily development: 1. Kent citizens have been vocal in expressing concerns with both the rate and physical form of multifamily development. 2. Current development regulations do not ensure that new multifamily buildings will be compatible with and become a viable part of the surrounding neighborhood or will work well for residents. 3. Development standards alone cannot address design issues as design is site- and project- specific, whereas development standards address all like-zoned land identically. 4. Design review can go further than the specifics of the RUGG Petition in addressing issues of RUGG concern. 5. Puget Sound communities that have opted to implement design review in permitting multifamily development have recognized success with their programs and feel that the design review approach has resulted in improved multifamily developments. 1 Summary of Recommendations The Planning Commission has reviewed the RUGG Petition requests for changes to development standards for multifamily development. The Planning Commission has also examined the many recent modifications to development standards and zoning designations which preceded the RUGG Petition. The Planning Commission questioned whether additional changes to the Zoning Code would best control the impacts of multifamily development. The Planning Department recommended that the Planning Commission consider a design review program which would allow the City to better review multifamily development on a site-specific basis. Outlined below are a series of recommendations staff has developed for the Planning Commission to consider in implementing a design review program: Applicability. The design review process should apply to all multifamily development of three or more units, unless the multifamily development is located in a mixed-use building where the housing units are not located on the ground floor. Design Review Process. The design review process should be administrative. This means that the process would be conducted "in house" by City staff as opposed to through public meetings of a design review board. The process should be incorporated within the framework of the existing permit review process. Staffing and Fees. A staffing increase of .25 to .50 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) will be necessary for the Planning Department to implement the Design Review Program. Appropriate fees for design review will be established as part of a comprehensive fee study to take place in the latter part of 1991. Design Review Criteria. The design review process should utilize the following three primary areas of review: - Site Design Criteria - Landscape Design Criteria Building Design Criteria Design Review Manual. The design review criteria should be illustrated and published in a Design Review Manual or "Design Guidelines". The design guidelines would then be referenced in the Zoning Code. These recommendations are presented in more detail in Chapter Four and are organized into an Action Agenda in Chapter Five which is a plan of action for implementation. 2 I CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION - WHAT IS DESIGN REVIEW? The terms "design review", "aesthetic controls", and "appearance review" are generally synonymous, referring to the regulation of the design of new development. A design review approach provides for review of individual projects according to guidelines or policies, rather than a specific set of development standards. This review may be conducted either by a special board appointed for this purpose or by staff as an administrative process. Proposals must meet the underlying development standards for the district, but in addition, the board and/or staff will evaluate the project according to design review guidelines. The guidelines address matters such as the relationship of the structure to the site and compatibility of design with neighborhood character. In some cases, the development standards may be waived by the board and/or staff to better achieve the City's development objectives. Design review can be analyzed in terms of several components, each of which is discussed below: Scope. The scope of design review is a major consideration. Design review can be applied throughout a city, or only in certain areas. All types of development may be subject to design review or only certain types, or categories within those types. Design review has long been used in historic districts to ensure that new development will be compatible with the unique character of the district. Many cities (for example, San Francisco and Portland) also utilize design guidelines for development within their downtown areas. Design review which specifically addresses multifamily development is currently utilized by only a few cities. The City of Bellevue's design review program initially addressed only transitional zones adjacent to single-family development(usually multifamily areas). They have since expanded the scope to include virtually all multifamily and commercial development. The City of Tukwila reviews a very wide range of development projects, including multifamily development. Minneapolis conducts a review of projects involving nine or more multifamily units, although a developer's compliance with design recommendations is voluntary. Careful selection of the scope of review enables a city to target review (and therefore staff time and resources) to the appropriate projects. Voluntary or Mandatory Participation. The design review process may be mandatory for those projects within the scope of review, or it may be an optional process. Cities such as Tukwila make their process mandatory for all projects within the scope of review. Seattle currently utilizes a voluntary design review process for multifamily development, but is now considering mandatory design review. Kent also has a discretionary design review process available for projects in the Multifamily Transition Area (see Chapter Two). 3 Elements. Design review may be applied to a number of elements. Building design, site design, landscaping, access, colors, materials, lighting and signs are just a few of the possible subjects to which design review may be applied. The elements selected for review depend on the goals of the review. For example, if the scale of the project in relation to the surrounding area is the main concern, the height, bulk and scale of the development should be the focus of design review. Process. In some cities, design review is conducted by professional staff or by the Planning Commission. For example, Bellevue's design review is conducted by staff. Tukwila has designated its Planning Commission as its "Board of Architectural Review". Some cities have set up a pubic review body for the specific purpose of performing design review. The City of Vancouver (BC) has an Urban Design Panel to review projects, and Portland, Oregon has a Design Review Commission. Locally, the cities of Redmond and Mercer Island have both created design review boards. Such public bodies often include volunteers with expertise relevant to the review process (architects, landscape architects, urban designers, etc.). Public Participation. Another component of design review is public involvement or review. When should public participation occur, and in what form? In some cities, for example, Portland, no additional public review beyond that associated with the underlying permit approval is provided. In other cities, such as San Francisco, citizens actually have the authority to initiate hearings on projects. Design review is not a new concept and is currently utilized as part of the permit review process in other Puget Sound cities. Kent has the opportunity to draw from a large selection of existing programs in assembling the program which best meets our community goals. 4 CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND HISTORY OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN KENT The mix of housing units in Kent has changed substantially over the last twenty years. In 1970, single family accounted for approximately two-thirds of all housing units and multifamily less than one-third. In 1980, the housing mix was divided almost equally between single family and multifamily units. Today, multifamily housing constitutes approximately 65 percent of the units and single family only 35 percent, a complete reversal of the 1970 pattern. This dramatic increase in multifamily development may be a result of many factors, including: the demand for affordable housing due to the rising costs of purchasing a home; the numerous single parent, elderly and non-traditional households seeking smaller living units; close proximity to Kent's employment centers; and the amenities found in larger multifamily developments such as recreational facilities, daycare and access to transit. Kent's rapid growth and expanding population have impacted the City's infrastructure and its ability to provide necessary services. Just after the major multifamily development boom in 1985 and 1986, the community began to express their concerns over the seemingly uncontrolled growth and the projected proportion of multifamily to single-family development. In December of 1986, the City Council passed Resolution 1123 referencing these concerns and establishing its intent to reduce multifamily densities by 20 percent throughout the City. Report on Multifamily Density The first report conducted under the guidance of Resolution 1123 was the Report on Multifamily Density, completed in July of 1987. This report, prepared by the Planning Department, provided an in depth study of multifamily land and development patterns and found that: - The City's housing stock is predominantly multifamily (59 percent). - Between 1970 and 1987, there was an increase of 358 percent in the number of multifamily units constructed. - The rapid increase in multifamily unit construction has resulted in heavy population growth. In 1970, the population was 16,275; it has since doubled. - Not only has the number of units being constructed increased, the average size of developments has grown. Prior to 1980, projects averaged less than 30 units. Since 1980, the average size is 110 units. Signature Pointe, a project just nearing completion, contains well over 500 units. 5 At the time of the study there were 570 acres of vacant or underdeveloped multifamily zoned land. The report also described six alternative approaches for accomplishing the intended 20 percent density reduction. The Housing Study In 1988, the City Council passed Resolution 1172 directing the Planning Department to conduct a two-phased Housing Study. The first phase, the updating of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, was completed in April of 1989. The second phase was an area-by-area analysis of remaining vacant or underdeveloped multifamily-zoned land in the East Hill, West Hill and Valley Floor Planning Areas. While the study was underway, an interim 20 percent reduction in multifamily development densities was enacted which was applied to all new multifamily development in the City. Planning Department staff conducted the area-by-area or "site-specific" analysis phase of the Housing Study during 1989. The Planning Commission held extensive public hearings between July and December of 1989 on the site-specific alternatives for achieving a 20 percent reduction in the potential number of multifamily units which could be built in the City. The Planning Commission modified the staff recommendation during the hearing process and forwarded its proposal to the City Council. The City Council passed the site-specific reduction in February of 1990 and lifted the interim overall 20 percent reduction. The result of the site-specific reduction was a decrease in the potential number of multifamily units which could be built in the City by more than 25 percent. This was achieved by rezoning designated areas to a lesser density multifamily or a single-family designation. In some cases, non-residential areas were rezoned to multifamily to result in a density transfer from East and West Hill neighborhoods to areas on the Valley Floor where increased density is supported by proximity to public transit, jobs and services. The RUGG Petition In June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth Group, (RUGG) which requested that the City Council consider the following: - Revisions to the current development standards for new multifamily housing; Revisions to the PUD ordinance; Restrictions on the number of multifamily units which may be permitted annually; and 6 Elimination of any future application of the recently adopted RI-5.0(single-family residential, 5000 square foot minimum lot size) district in the City. The petition was signed by approximately 1600 individuals residing both within and outside of the Kent city limits. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to review the contents of the petition and bring back recommendations for further action. The RUGG petition outlines 8 specific actions (a copy of the petition is included in Appendix A). Action items 1-4 of the petition recommend changes in existing development standards for multifamily development. The Planning Commission is addressing these items by directing Planning Department staff to develop the design review process outlined in this report. Chapter Three further discusses items 1-4 of the RUGG petition and compares their implementation with a "no action" alternative and a "design review" alternative. EXISTING "DESIGN REVIEW" IN KENT Design review of multifamily development in Kent is not a new concept. Responding to the concerns raised in Resolution 1123, the Mayor created the Executive Committee on City Design Policy in July of 1986. In April of 1987, the Committee issued its Recommendations for Multifamily Residential Design. The Committee identified several problems with multifamily residential development and existing regulations: - The density of certain recent multifamily developments has been high. - Little design consideration has been given to providing privacy for residents. - Many projects do not provide for significant degree of security for residents of multifamily developments. - Landscaping has not been utilized effectively to buffer residential units at street level from activity on adjacent roadways. - Open spaces in multifamily developments are not used effectively, either as recreational spaces or as buffers between buildings or uses. - Aesthetic qualities of some projects have been lacking. Special problems which were cited included monotonous building design and layout, poor architectural treatment, insufficient landscaping, and overall poor image quality. - The current development standards are inflexible. 7 The Committee recommendations were two-fold: (1) establish higher or more stringent development standards (including landscaping, building heights, setbacks and offsets) for multifamily projects through a Multifamily Transition Area; and (2) establish an Administrative Design Review process in order to permit flexibility in site development when a superior project design is proposed. The Planning Department developed the new Multifamily Transition Area and Administrative Design Review guidelines and the Zoning Code was amended in March of 1988. These Zoning Code requirements are described in more detail in the following sections. Multifamily Transition Area. Section 15.08.215 of the Kent Zoning Code establishes additional development standards for multifamily developments within 100 feet of a Single-Family District or within 100 feet of an abutting public right-of-way. The purpose is to mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses and to minimize the noise and visual impacts of the street for residents of multifamily developments. The additional development standards include: 1. Minimum yard requirements or setbacks depend on the classification of the abutting right-of-way or whether the development abuts a single-family district. The yard requirements are a minimum of 20 feet and an average of either 30 or 40 feet. 2. Buildings elevation facing a public right-of-way or single-family district must be offset at intervals not exceeding 70 feet. The offset must be at least 20 feet in the horizontal direction and have a depth of at least 6 feet. 3. Height within the Transition Areas is limited to two stories or 25 feet. There is an exception to this requirement for small lots which have multiple street frontages. 4. The landscaping along public rights-of-way is increased from 10 feet to either 15 or 20 feet depending on the street classification. Parking areas that abut the street must be bermed. A six foot, sight-obscuring fence is required where the development abuts a single family district. Administrative Design Review. Section 15.09.045 of the Kent Zoning Code sets up an optional design review process for projects within the Multifamily Transition Area. Through this process, the Planning Director may waive or modify any of the specific requirements of Section 15.08.215 indicated above. The review process may not consider "design elements that are not directly related to site planning and layout," and elements such as building colors and textures and siding materials are specifically excluded. The review must be completed within seven working days. To date, there have been no projects developed using Administrative Design Review; the reason for this is unknown. Other design review processes are also presently available to the City. Design review is 8 promoted through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Landscaping Standards, as well as through Development Plan Review and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process. The following sections describe these design review opportunities in more detail. Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Unit Development chapter, 15.04.080, while not a set of design review standards, incorporates some of the flexible standards of a design review approach. Density bonuses may be granted when the applicant provides additional "amenities or design features" such as open space, native vegetation, or mixed housing types. Landscaping. Chapter 15.07 of the Zoning Code contains the landscaping regulations. While primarily a set of standards for landscaping, Section 15.07.010 provides that the Planning Director may waive specific requirements or impose additional requirements in unique or special circumstances to assure the fulfillment of the purpose of the chapter. This exemption from specific standards, in exchange for a superior end product, is an approach similar to the design review process. However, the emphasis here appears to be on environmental amenities. The special conditions listed include: preservation of unique wildlife habitat; preservation of natural or native areas; compliance with special easements; renovation of existing landscaping; and unique site uses. As with the administrative design review option described above, few applicants have requested an exemption based on this language. Development Plan Review. Another section of the code that provides some site-specific flexibility is Chapter 15.09, which states several standards that must be incorporated into every development plan, including a pedestrian circulation system and compatibility with neighboring existing development. However "compatibility shall not refer to architectural design features but to siting of building and location of off-street parking". It also refers to efforts to preserve "environmental amenities". State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The purpose of the environmental review process is to provide information to help the applicant and the City of Kent identify impacts from the proposal, to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, and to help the City decide whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required. Some of the issues in the SEPA checklist relate to design--for example, light and glare, and aesthetics. The City can reference goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in making SEPA findings. The Comprehensive Plan has some existing policies in support of urban design and aesthetics: City-Wide Comprehensive Plan. Housing Element: Goal 1, Objective 3, Policy 7 states "Through enhanced development standards and other mechanisms, improve the appearance and 'fit' of multifamily developments within the community." - The Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan has an entire section, entitled "Urban Design uali ", encouraging urban design awareness. 9 Therefore, it is possible that SEPA, either as currently administered by Kent, or with the adoption of additional policies, could be an additional tool for addressing some design concerns. However, the mitigating conditions for site and building design can only be administered through SEPA if the proposed design would be an environmental impact. As you can see, the City has many tools currently at its disposal for guiding the design of multifamily development in Kent. However, the City also lacks a comprehensive procedure for conducting design review. Currently, design review occurs in a piecemeal fashion. The City's current authority to conduct design review is limited to the language in the PUD, Landscaping and Development Plan Review sections of the Zoning Code and the SEPA review process to the degree which design issues can be tied to environmental impact. Otherwise, administrative design review is only utilized upon the request of the applicant in the Multifamily Transition Area. Design review must become a specific area of focus in the application review process in order to be truly effective. DESIGN REVIEW RESEARCH Planning Department staff collected examples of design review ordinances, procedures, and manuals from cities throughout the nation (see listing in the bibliography) for reference in developing a process and criteria which we felt would best serve Kent's needs. Staff also conducted an informal telephone survey of local jurisdictions which require design review (Bellevue, Redmond, Tukwila and Mercer Island) to learn more about how the process can be expected to impact our current permit review process. Potential Impacts on Permit Review Time. Interviews with staff from these cities indicated that permit review time will be increased by the inclusion of a design review process. The amount of time the process adds in these jurisdictions ranges from three weeks to three months. It is difficult to separate out the time allotted strictly to design review. Some of the projects which take a long time to go through the review process are stalled by something other than design review. For example, an issue may come up in SEPA review, or the project may require a rezone or variance. In other words, some projects just take longer. If a public review component is included in design review, it may add approximately two or three months to the process. If there is no public review component the time frame for accomplishing design review may be more in the neighborhood of three weeks to a month. Reasons for the time difference include the necessity of scheduling public meetings, preparing of staff reports, mailing of agendas and allowing for public notification and comment periods. Staff Time Required. None of the people interviewed had tracked the number of staff hours necessary to conduct design review. The average number of staff meetings with a design review applicant is three. A staff report may be prepared. The staff report is typically a separate report if the jurisdiction has a design review board. Otherwise, the design review report may be incorporated in a general staff report covering all findings 10 regarding a particular project. Redmond utilizes a checklist to facilitate the staff review process. In general, when design review is carried out by a separate review body, the staff time required increases in that additional time is spent developing a report, typing and mailing notices and agendas, and facilitating the meeting. Staff Expertise Required. Bellevue was the only jurisdiction that indicated their staff has a formal background in design. However, all jurisdictions recognize the value of a staff with expertise in landscape architecture and architecture. It was suggested that the staff persons conducting design review have a good understanding of building and site design and construction techniques, have knowledge of plant materials, and be good negotiators as much of the design review process tends to involve negotiation. Departmental Organization. In most jurisdictions, design review is conducted by staff in a current planning or permit review section which performs other aspects of development plan review as well. Survey of Design Review Participants To better assess the potential impacts of design review on housing affordability, staff contacted local developers and designers who have participated in design review to get a sense of what those impacts may be. Staff also queried developers and designers as to their feelings about design review in general. The comments ranged from being supportive of the process to not really liking it at all. All comments were helpful to us in developing our final design review proposal. Impacts on Affordability. Most respondents felt that design review impacted the cost of their projects, but that this did not directly impact rental rates. One person commented that the things that were changed through design review were not things that could be directly translated into higher rents. For example, the things changed were site- related or involved exterior building design. The potential renter may not initially notice, and therefore would not be willing to pay more for, these changes. In other words, the market tends to govern what rents will be. The real effects of design review may be felt most directly by the property owners/developers who may not realize as high a profit margin. Some commented that the design review process did not significantly affect project costs and that if the process is expedient, there should be no real impact on costs. How Did the Process Affect Cost? The responses to this question centered around the time it took to go through the process and the cost of changes that were requested. There was frustration with the process when applicants were called back again and again to design review meetings and when these meetings were not run effectively; i.e, when 11 design review board members were allowed to go on discussing one element of a project at length, such as screening of trash receptacles. When changes required the redrawing of plans, architectural fees would increase. One respondent said that since design review occurs early in the permit process, the level of design detail required up front is greater than normal and requires increased investment in design in the preliminary design phase. Suggestions to improve the process seemed to support an administrative process over that of the public design review board. However, two respondents cited review processes which utilized a board as good ones to model--specifically, Redmond and Mercer Island. Other suggestions included making sure the applicant is well informed about the process and that criteria are made clear up front. It was felt that design review meetings could benefit from the presence of an effective staff facilitator who could keep things on track and in perspective. The goal seemed to be fewer and more effective meetings, especially in the case where there is a public review board. Some thought the process needed to be more flexible so that an applicant could get some requirements waived when being asked to provide other design features. Overall Effect on Project Quality. Responses to questions about the impact of design review on quality ranged from claims that design review definitely improved a project to design review having no significant effect on quality. No one claimed that the process made their project design worse--even if the process frustrated them in some way. When projects were felt to be improved, the biggest improvements were realized in site design-- amenities such as parking, circulation and landscaping were improved. One person even stated that the improvements to site planning helped to "sell" the project. Another person (an architect) thought the process made the project significantly better because it forced the client to think about issues with greater sensitivity. The guidelines provided the architect with material to convince the client that certain changes would improve the design. Staff reviewed the results of the informal telephone surveys with the Planning Commission in workshop session. The potential impacts on permit processing time and housing affordability versus the merits of design review were discussed. The recommendation that design review in Kent be an administrative process was solidified by this discussion as it would mean that the City could conduct the process in the shortest time possible and keep it closely tied to the existing permit process. 12 CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS In this chapter the pros and cons of three alternatives, No Action, RUGG Petition, and Design Review, are presented in discussion form. A. No Action The City of Kent last revised its multifamily development standards in March of 1988 by adding the Multifamily Transition Area and Administrative Design Review sections (see description in Chapter Two) to the Zoning Code. If the City decides to adopt the No Action option for responding to the RUGG petition, we will continue to rely on the tools we currently have in place for permitting multifamily development and influencing its physical form. While the City seems to be realizing improved quality in multifamily development as a result of the 1988 Zoning Code amendments, there is question as to whether, overall, we're getting housing which is a source of pride in our community. By taking the No Action approach, we may be sending a negative signal to members of the community who feel that recent revisions to multifamily development standards and rezoning of multifamily areas to lesser density designations have not done enough to control multifamily development. With current regulations, the City is limited in its ability to affect the physical form of multifamily housing development. We can control density, building height, and amount of open space. We cannot review the aspects of design which determine the livability of multifamily development for future residents, nor can we effectively evaluate their contribution to the livability of the community. As growth continues in our region, suburban cities like Kent will continue to develop an increasingly urban character, unless we choose to endorse sprawl. The No Action alternative would limit Kent's ability to shape new, higher-density growth, to the detriment of all of the City's residents. B. Implement the RUGG Requests The RUGG Petition proposes changes to our existing multifamily development standards. Figure 1 shows the effect of Action Items 1-4 of the RUGG petition on existing multifamily regulations in comparison form. In general, the petition calls for increased setback and landscape areas and a decrease in maximum height for each of the three multifamily zoning districts. It also calls for expanded application of the Multifamily Transition Area requirements (from the current 100' to 250') and for greater setback and landscaping requirements within the transition area. 13 � § k ) § !{ lEE ; } \ LL ¥lWO | § eE 2 . ! - -� ; � ! . . . . . . - ] E | | § } ! z ! ¢ § aa me E | nnnvo ; Ef \ ` / «!z= { � \ \ n ; 66 f ® 0kk ƒƒ $ ( ( ■ , : , - - - - - - - - � � (.- : :/ _ .- - -< - - - - ! - - - - § } § � \ a ) f . ; \ £ } ! @n 2 k The RUGG requests would result in multifamily development which occupies less net lot area, is lower in height, and may be screened by more landscape elements. However, with these changes applied, there is no reason to believe that multifamily development will look much different than it does today or be any better accepted by the community. It will only look smaller and be set back further from property lines. Although staff agrees that there has been significant growth in multifamily development and feels that the RUGG group's concerns regarding multifamily development are legitimate, we feel uncomfortable implementing more restrictive development standards for multifamily housing as a solution to those concerns. By further restricting the area within which developers have to work to produce housing, we will be limiting our own options for effectuating quality housing development. Staff feels that the City will be better served by retaining our current level of flexibility in development standards, but then asking the development community to work with the City to design and build liveable neighborhoods for our residents, both present and future. C. Implement a Design Review Program The advantage of a Design Review Program is that it allows for a dynamic, project-specific review that addresses the complexities of ensuring a quality project. Whether landscaping, size, and other design features may be desirable in a given case often depends on the specific features of the project and its surroundings. While comprehensive standards can lead to good projects, such standards may not anticipate the special problems or features that are often a part of every project. For example, in Kent we require a six foot sight obscuring fence to screen multifamily development from major arterials and single family development. One unanticipated problem with this requirement, in application, is that pedestrian access to and from the multifamily development becomes restricted, which limits the potential for multifamily developments to be served by public transit. This is unfortunate as higher density development normally can take advantage of public transit and limit the amount of automobile traffic generated by each unit. The disadvantages of a design review approach are that it requires more review time by staff and/or by a review board than would the application of established standards; and in the absence of clear guidelines and good communication between staff and applicants, it can lead to an unpredictable process for applicants. The choice which City officials must make regarding whether or not to implement a design review process hinges on weighing the costs associated with permit review time against the benefits to the community, which could be realized in better quality housing development. Below, three alternative processes for conducting design review are examined. Staff is recommending that the design review process be administrative--conducted in-house by Planning Department staff. This process is outlined on the following pages in relation to the existing permit review process. The two additional options which have been examined are: an administrative process with a public comment period, and design review by a design review board. Each of these options is discussed in comparison to the preferred administrative process. 15 Existing City of Kent Permit Process. The average review time within the Planning Department for a multifamily permit application in Kent at the present time is approximately three to four months inclusive of the SEPA review process. Projects requiring development plan modification or other environmental impact mitigation actions may take longer. The three to four month average does not include projects that apply for a variance or rezone which could add approximately six months to permit review time. The first step in the permit review process is environmental review under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) in which the applicant is required to complete an environmental checklist and obtain SEPA threshold determination. The Planning, Public Works and Building/Fire Departments review the checklist which takes approximately four -weeks (unless additional information is required or any environmental impact statement [EIS] is required). One to two weeks after the environmental review process is completed, a development plan review meeting is scheduled. At this meeting, City staff meet with the applicant to review preliminary site plans in light of relevant code regulations and imposed SEPA conditions for the proposed property use. After the development plan review meeting, the applicant may submit formal permit applications. It is important to note that certain projects are exempt from the environmental review and development plan review steps in the permit review process. In the case of multifamily developments, projects with fewer than 12 units (or those projects generating ten PM-peak-hour trips or less) are exempt. Further, if an applicant is requesting a rezone, conditional use permit and/or variance, hearings and decisions on these issues must take place prior to the development plan review meeting. Option Cl: Preferred Option - Administrative Design Review Outlined below is a summary of the proposed permit review process which incorporates the steps associated with administrative design review: First Meeting: The first meeting will be an informal meeting to go over the requirements to be fulfilled by design review. (This could take place on a walk-in basis at the Planning Department counter.) Second Meeting: During the second meeting, staff will meet with an applicant to discuss preliminary building and site design drawings and outline any changes which are necessary to meet the goals of design review. SEPA Review: Once the applicant has met with staff the second time, SEPA review will commence and take place concurrent with the 16 remainder of the design review process so that any significant findings may be coordinated. Pre-Development Meeting: The third meeting where design review will take place will be the pre-development meeting itself. If all necessary revisions have been incorporated in a development proposal at this time, the applicant will be able to proceed with the permit process. Note: The design review process must be initiated and substantial progress made prior to the pre-development meeting. To show substantial progress in design review, the applicant must have met with staff at least two times to discuss their development intentions. Additional Meetings: Additional design review meetings may be required with staff depending on the nature of any changes required, the complexity of a project and any further issues which may surface in the pre- development meeting. Public Hearings: No additional public hearings will be required through the design review process. Appeals: Any appeal of a design review determination will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Option C2: Administrative Design Review with a Public Comment Period This process would be similar to the process outlined above with a public comment period built in. The comment period could take place concurrent with the SEPA comment period. Public notification would include publishing notice in local newspapers, posting of the site and/or notification by mail to neighboring property owners. Within a specified time period, public comment could be submitted to the City. For example, Bellevue has a 17-day public comment period and notifies by mail all property owners within a 200' radius. An appeal process would need to be established for anyone who submitted a written comment and wished to call a public hearing. Appeals could be heard by the hearing examiner. The advantage of this alternative is that it allows for public review and comment on all design review projects. The disadvantages are that additional time would be required by staff to prepare and mail public notices, and if a project is appealed, additional time would be required to schedule and hold a public hearing. There are other costs (in 17 addition to time) associated with this option. For example, notification costs would increase, particularly if a public hearing was held. Such costs may need to be reflected in fees. Applicants may also be uncomfortable with the uncertainty associated with a potential appeal. Option C3: Design Review with a Design Review Board If design review is conducted by a separate body, either a public meeting or hearing would be held in place of the second meeting with staff in the administrative process. However, the public meeting/hearing would need to be held after SEPA determination. Staff would still conduct its administrative review and in addition, be required to prepare a report for the design review board. This report would likely include an analysis and recommendations. The composition of the board would likely include design professionals and citizens. (In Redmond, residency is not a prerequisite for board appointment but they do have citizen representation.) The board meeting could be conducted as a public hearing or a public meeting; the difference being level of public participation. For example, Redmond invites the public to its design review meetings but the public does not participate by giving testimony. A record of the meeting would need to be kept and notification of the meeting would be required. The advantage of this process is similar to that of Option C2 in that it allows for citizen input plus review by design professionals in addition to City staff. The disadvantages are also similar to those of Option C2 in that additional time and money would be required to facilitate the review board. Additional staff time would be required to prepare and mail report material to the board and to facilitate their meetings. The City would also need to allow for scheduling meetings with the board as they typically have set meeting dates and times. Depending upon the complexity of the project, there may be the necessity for more than one board meeting. Permit review time would likely be extended. The following chapter presents the recommended process and criteria for implementing multifamily design review. The recommendations call for illustrated design guidelines coupled with the administrative process (Cl) described in this chapter. Staff feels that this combination will ensure a level of predictability and timeliness which should lessen the potential disadvantages associated with design review and highlight the advantages. 18 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS Multifamily housing development can provide an important alternative to suburban sprawl. We may wish we could go back in time to 1970 when most Kent residents lived in single family homes, but simple economics, geography and land availability do not permit this. As a community, we must focus our energy on determining the overall livability and quality of our residential areas, both multifamily and single-family. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element goals, policies and objectives speak to improving the fit of multifamily development within our community. One approach to achieving a better fit of multifamily development is to focus on density (the City in fact took this approach with the Housing Study). The shortcoming with this approach is that once development takes place at the lower densities, it is not necessarily evident that density has been reduced. In other words, the building will still be a multifamily building,just with fewer housing units. Perceived density is often more significant than actual density. Further, limiting density on a site limits the development community's ability to produce site and building amenities which add up to a quality project. In the long term, focussing on quality of housing stock will be of more value than focussing on the quantity of units. To look at it from another angle, one could argue that if we had a greater percentage of single-family housing in Kent, but that housing was poorly built and of low quality, we would not feel any better about our community image. In thinking about the fit of multifamily development in our community, it is natural to think in terms of design. Often design review is utilized by a community primarily to ensure that passersby, when looking at a development, will find it pleasing, feel that it belongs in the neighborhood, or at the very least, find it acceptable. Design also comes into play in terms of livability for the residents. In Kent, it is important that multifamily design review go further than just addressing building character and scale. Realizing that so many of our residents live in multifamily housing and many of them for years at a time, it is important the housing be pleasant and safe to live in. Families with young children and elderly persons live in multifamily housing. Will they feel and be safe? Will there be places to play or to gather outside with friends? Will there be the opportunity to walk to transit, schools, and neighborhood services? These are all important questions which design review can address. One common concern with our rapid multifamily growth is that it increases the number of cars on local arterials. Although all new development undeniably results in increased automobile traffic, it is interesting to note that the average multifamily housing unit produces fewer trips per household than the average single family housing unit. There are also greater opportunities to 19 utilize public transit with multifamily densities. However, this can only happen if site design allows residents to comfortably walk to the nearest bus stop. Increased transit ridership is only one of the opportunities we can focus on in the design review process. By adopting design review for multifamily development, the City can send a message of expectation for community excellence, as well as one of flexibility and cooperation with the development community in the effort to achieve community goals. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are specific recommendations for implementation of a design review process in Kent. I. Develop an Illustrated Multifamily Design Guidelines Handbook. The Design Guidelines are presented on the following pages in three major categories: Site Design, Landscape Design and Building Design. Each of the major categories has a series of criteria which would be used to evaluate multifamily projects. Each criteria is presented in bullet form followed by a discussion of that criteria's purpose and one or more illustrations. Sample illustrations for approximately half of the criteria are presented below. Illustrations for each criteria would be produced for the final document. The design guidelines handbook would also include an outline of the design review process as presented in Recommendation W" on page 41. 20 SECTION A: SITE DESIGN Al. Integrate site plan with the surrounding neighborhood. It is important to think of each new housing development as contributing to a larger neighborhood whole. The site design should complement and provide connection with neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools, shopping, transit routes, etc. The site design should take clues from the relationship of street, lot and building patterns in the surrounding neighborhood as these relationships dictate the scale and texture of a neighborhood. Suggested Illustrations: Example of neighborhood where adjacent developments do not complement each other. Example of neighborhood where adjacent developments do complement each other. 21 A2. Site plan should take into consideration environmental conditions and the lay of the land. Kent has many steeply sloping sites which are zoned for housing development. The site plan should utilize the natural topography, and every effort should be made to avoid major grading and filling and use of large retaining walls. Sensitivity to topographical situations will result in a site which better accommodates pedestrian circulation while saving on engineering and construction costs associated with extensive grading, filling and large retaining walls. The site design should consider the local microclimate--sun, wind and rain exposure. Will buildings and open space receive adequate sunlight or will residents and landscape materials broil in the summer sun? To what extent can the site be designed to shelter residents from rain and wind conditions? The site design should protect and enhance natural amenities such as large trees, waterways, wetlands, wildlife habitat and views. These natural amenities, which exist on the site, should be viewed as opportunities for a site design which will result in a desirable place for people to call home. D D D p p ° D B drJnD Anna IIC7II � - ° � Dad 0 To be avoided: The use of extensive cutting and filling and large retaining walls to develop a sloping site. 22 ❑ ❑ a ` rT ❑ ❑ dURN np a [JDD a0DD Preferred: Design with the natural topography. The relationship between neighboring buildings is improved, and it would be easier for the residents to walk around the site. Suggested Illustrations: Example of site design that has properly considered sun exposure, wind patterns, and climate conditions. 23 A3. Provide an open space network which will accommodate a wide variety of activities--both semi-public and private. Each element of the open space network should be designed with a use in mind or in association with a residential unit. Activity opportunities for all ages residing in the housing should be anticipated in the site design. The open space network should provide private or semi-private open spaces which are accessible from each residential unit. This can be achieved with balconies, screened patios or small shared courtyards. The open space network should provide for privacy of residents while allowing for security and surveillance from residential units. The open space network should be well lit at night. Suggested Mustrations: Example of open space network which is well defined and related to the buildings it serves. Example of open space network which is not well defined and not well used. 24 25 A4. Accommodate vehicular access and parking in a manner which is convenient, yet does not allow the automobile to dominate the site. Parking areas should be located to the rear or side yard so that parking areas do not dominate the streetscape. Plan for many small lots as opposed to few large ones. Parking areas should be convenient to and safely accessed by the buildings served. Utilize many small lights as opposed to few large lights in order to illuminate parking areas. (Large lights tend to "spill" into people's homes.) Locate parking and automobile circulation so as not to conflict with children's play areas. To be avoided: Parldng configurations which dominate the site by being large and centrally located. -- - -- -__ ,J I I i 26 ---- Preferred: A parking configuration which —— —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — provides about the same number of stalls, but --- - breaks them up into • smaller groupings located on the periphery r- of the site. This scheme r also provides a better — potential for well-defined useable open spaces. qP Nola � I 27 A5. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation. In Kent, commercial and residential growth has resulted in increased automobile traffic. Each new housing development should do its share to provide alternatives to the automobile through the design of pedestrian circulation paths between the site and surrounding neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools, and shopping. The scale of a housing development may make a new transit stop feasible at the site. Pedestrian pathways which link the site with existing or planned transit stops should be provided. Within the site, pedestrian pathways which connect each unit with the parking, open space and site amenities designed to serve it should be provided. Locate pedestrian pathways in the normal day-to-day view of residents and passersby. Pedestrian pathways should be well lit at night. To be avoided: Site plan and — - - - — - — circulation system that limits � mobility of pedestrians. I I I — I I , I I - i I SRC 1A ' II , I 28 Preferred: A circulation system that promotes pedestrian movement and access to area amenities such as open space and transit stops. � . . r � 6 r — _ I — f I I 29 B. LANDSCAPE DESIGN B1. Landscape plan should integrate with and enhance the surrounding neighborhood landscape. Dominant landscape features in the neighborhood should be reflected in landscape plan. Dominant neighborhood landscape features may be natural or man made. These features include retention of mature trees or other native vegetation, a greenbelt or other open space corridor, a trail system, or formal landscaping along a public right-of-way. Street trees should be incorporated in the landscape plan when they exist in the neighborhood. This is one simple way to integrate a new housing development into an existing neighborhood. SUGGESTED ILLUSTRATIONS: Severe disruption of a neighborhood's valued landscape amenities in the wake of new development. Incorporation and enhancement of neighborhood landscape quality in new development. 30 B2. Landscape plan should incorporate existing natural features of significance. The landscape plan should enhance existing topographical conditions. The landscape plan should incorporate significant natural amenities such as waterways, wetlands, large trees and wildlife habitat. The landscape plan should preserve and enhance view corridors. to , tI 0 0 ) Q a To be avoided: Example of landscape plan which ignores natural features. 32 ❑ ❑ fr Preferred: Example of landscape plan which works with natural features. 33 B3. ]Landscape plan should enhance the planned open space network. Large expanses of open space, when ill-defined, are often little used by residents. People feel more comfortable in spaces when there is a certain sense of enclosure and privacy. This is particularly true when planned activities are passive such as sitting under a tree reading a book or talking in a small group. Landscape elements should help define open space activity areas but not hinder planned activities. For example, will large trees, planted too close, shade and drop leaves into a swimming pool? Landscape elements should provide opportunities for shade and wind protection for public spaces. The landscape plan may include an area for gardening if residents will likely utilize this space. To be avoided: Open ---- - ---- - — ---- - spaces without any provision for privacy — screening. When open spaces are not enclosed �c — -- — by buildings or landscape elements, there is less chance that lF �l•r = the residents will feel ' comfortable or safe using them. c' AILJ 34 Preferred: By simply providing a few trees and shrubs to the same site plan, one can start C it to make a "place" of a "space". We can imagine the large area r being used by all residents for active recreation and the smaller spaces between buildings being used by the residents who inhabit the units adjacent to C�� - (;"` those spaces. .h�l• i Suggested Mustrations: Example of landscape elements hindering activities. 35 B4. Landscape plan should enhance parking and utility areas. Landscaping should be utilized to help break up and screen parking areas. Landscaping should also screen utility areas such as garbage dumpsters and mechanical equipment. Suggested Mustrations: Examples of ways landscaping can screen site elements which are typically unattractive. 36 B5. Landscape plan should enhance building forms and orientation. Landscape elements surrounding buildings should be in scale with the building with mature plant size taken into consideration. Trees and shrubs can be planted to enhance entryways and in groupings which relate to building modulation. Landscape elements should provide for shading of buildings and sun exposure where desirable. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 'INGENSE'� �� CuE�Y To be avoided: Maturation and spacing of landscaping must be considered. For example,incense cedar grow tall and thin and must be planted close together to provide a screen. Some types of cherry trees may never grow to be in scale with the building. ❑ ❑ ❑ Preferred: Plant type and species can be selected to enhance the building's form. Deciduous trees, such as this maple, provide shade in the summer and allow sunlight to penetrate in the winter when solar access is most desirable for energy efficiency. Coniferous trees provide a year-round screen, excellent for creating privacy and security. 37 B6. Landscape plan should indicate use of plant species suited to the microclimate of the site and should provide for their maintenance. Plant materials should be chosen which can withstand traffic and our local climate. Select the species which require the least maintenance and are most likely to survive. Select related landscape materials such as paving, seating, etc. which are durable and easy to maintain. Suggested Mustrations: Provide a recommended plant species list or list of sources. Provide a list of sources for landscaping materials which are durable and easy to maintain. 38 C. BUILDING DESIGN C1. Maintain neighborhood scale and density. The perception of density is almost more important than actual density. This is particularly important for infill development where neighborhood residents may feel it's getting a little crowded. The applicant must pay particular attention to building scale and modulation on sites which are adjacent to single-family or other smaller scale development. Building scale, massing, and modulation can reduce the perceived density of a development if handled well in the design of a project. To be avoided: This multifamily building has been built on a site surrounded by single family development. The building bears no resemblance to the existing buildings which surround and looks out of place. i a ' a 40 Preferred: This is a multifamily building which has been built on an identical site, but whose design has taken clues from the neighborhood. This building covers roughly the same lot area and provides for the same number of units while appearing as if it "fits' in its surroundings. 4 ° 44 Qa d ° d Da� j• 41 C2. Buildings should be oriented to provide for privacy. Windows should not be placed so that residents from one unit look directly into another unit. When this is unavoidable, buildings should be spaced at greater distances or utilize landscaping to provide for privacy. The number of units using a common entrance should be minimized for security as well as privacy. Privacy in ground floor units is especially important. Parking areas and common activity areas should not impose upon the units' privacy. I 1 To be avoided: This illustrates an example of poor design and placement of buildings. Even though each unit has been provided with a balcony or private patio, they may not wish to use it because they can be observed by many of their neighbors. Preferred: This example illustrates how building placement, varying building designs, use of natural topography and use of landscape elements can result in increased privacy for residents. 42 C3. Building design should provide for individual unit identity. Although more and more people now live in multifamily housing and do so for longer periods of time, most people still long for their own detached home. Through the use of modulation, color and other architectural elements, each unit can be given its own sense of identity. Incorporate elements such as balconies, window boxes, private gardens or patios, and private entries which residents can personalize. Suggested Illustrations: Example of a multifamily development that does not offer individuality of units or private open spaces. Example of a multifamily development that allows for individual expression with the provision of diverse unit types, balconies, and architectural detail. 43 H. Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review. The fees for zoning permits in Puget Sound cities where design review takes place are substantially higher than zoning permit fees in Kent. For example, in Tukwila, the fee for design review is $900. In Redmond, the fee for a zoning permit is approximately $2000 which includes design review. In Kent the current zoning permit fee is $25. The Planning Department plans to conduct a comprehensive fee study later this year and recommends that appropriate fees for design review be determined as part of this study. M. Increase Staffing in the Planning Department by a Minimum of .25 FTE. The Planning Department estimates that the workload impact of an administrative design review program is approximately .25 to .50 FTE (full-time equivalent). This increase in workload may be accommodated either by an increase in staffing or an adjustment in the Department's work program. Any work program changes would have to be coordinated with the Council's Planning Committee. The design review planner should have expertise in landscape architecture, architecture, and/or urban design. IV. Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily Design Review. The Zoning Code will have to be amended to reference the Design Review Guidelines Handbook and to specify applicability. V. Implement an Administrative Process for Design Review. Implement the administrative design review process as presented in Chapter Three. VI. Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis. The design review program should be evaluated on a periodic basis to monitor successes and note areas for improvement. Additionally, the illustrated Design Guidelines Handbook should be updated to keep current with innovations in the building industry and to incorporate examples of multifamily housing built utilizing the guidelines. 44 CHAPTER FIVE: ACTION AGENDA Outlined below are the six primary actions which must be taken by City officials to implement design review of multifamily housing in Kent. Action Item I: Direct Staff to Develop an Illustrated Multifamily Design Review Guidelines Handbook. Note: Upon adoption of design review by the City Council, staff will prepare the Illustrated Design Review Guidelines Handbook. This effort will entail further developing and completing illustrations and incorporating any additions or changes necessitated by the public hearing process. Action Item H: Determine Appropriate Fees for Design Review. Action Item III: Increase Staffing in the Planning Department by a Minimum of .25 FTE. Action Item IV: Amend the Zoning Code to Provide for Multifamily Design Review. Action Item V: Implement an Administrative Design Review Process. Action Item VI: Evaluate the Design Review Program on a Periodic Basis. 45 Appendix A: RUGG Petition 46 A PETITION FOR RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROWTH We, the undersigned, believe that the rapid development of multi-family housing (apartments and other high-density housing) has seriously affected the quality of life of everyone living in Kent by overburdening our street and road system, fire and police protection, utilities, and the schools our children attend. The city's infrastructure simply cannot keep pace with the number of high-density housing units being built each year in our city. Currently, Kent has the highest multi-family/single-family ratio of any city in the regionl We believe the City Council needs to take the following steps (as detailed on the back of this page) IMMEDIATELY to address our urgent concerns: 1 ) limit the rate of construction of multi-family housing to 500 units/year; 2) strengthen regulations to ensure adequate roads, parks, schools, and other public facilities are in place before additional development is allowed; 3) not allow any single-fancily land to be rezoned to multi-family until specific requirements are met; 4) establish a minimum single-family lot size of 7,200 sq. ft.; 5) institute an open space requirement and increase landscaping requirements for all multi-family projects; 6) disallow attached side-by-side units on single-family. projects; 7) expand the definition of "multi-lamily transition" areas; 0) modify existing setback and building height requirements to reduce overall density of multi-family projects. 2 3 n Gl ?�CC U r�- Sr w S tiL 6 �. ,- �� / S 7 st l�_yL LIG �C1l� 171C7sC>.`7 7 ( J SGU-Z_ 9 � 2 chi 1 _Z f,,Z e t 7 CL 11 JM 12 13, e�� ?5-F7 14 a1 2x L�-�� 7 L S. f . zs� k 15 1 6 y�L��J (L - 2z Z � 7 i.,J ti�s lGE t CJa 17 e�'� -c 2 �? J it- lOd' �w S t �9 dos r I !t 1 1 /C ^r. �. 7f _ ,l i 19 4 S/`% �z t, 20 21 q�z�a u L��p _L_: y</ r �r� CL4 • `Y��O 31 I 22 76i)D —7Sd ,.LQ�1�., a�1�� ly ItY_�S.l�, 1 ��hS /Cz� �I� 2803/ 23 r.0 l ZL'o i/ 2425 A -1DIaI oC- 0 rl)y.ivl tiC IWN? persor-ts Srgvrcd, ft,( Pt-hhon ...� SPECIFICS SUPPORTING THE PETITION FOR KENTS RESPONSIBLE URBAN GROWTH 1) Re: MR-G (Garden Density MF -- up to 16 unils/acre) A) Increase side yard requirement to 20' or 20% of lot width, whichever is granter, not to exceed 30'. B) Increase rear yard to 25'; side yard on flanking street of corner lot to 20'. C) Require a minimum 20' of perimeter landscaping In all multifamily (MF) developments. Breaks In the landscaping sliall be permitted to provide pedestrian and vehicular access. Breaks In the landscaping for vehicle access shall not exceed the width of permitted curb cuts and any required sight Wangles. Perimeter landscaping shall be Type I solid screen landscaping, as provided In Section 15.07.050, except that only evergreen trees and shrubs shall be used. (Except as provided above, Ilia landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 shall apply.) D) Limit building height to 2 stories, not to exceed 25'. E) Require that al minimum of 25% of ilia total area be loll as upon groan space. 2) Re: MR-M (Medium Density MF -- up to 23 units/acre) A) Same as above. B) Same as above. C) Same as above. D) Limit building height to 3 stories, not to exceed 35', E) Same as above. 3) Re: MR-H (High Density MF -- up to 40 unils/acre) A) Same as above. B) Same as above. C) Same as above, except 30' minimum. 0) Same as above (MR-M). E) Same as above. 4) Re: Multifamily Transition Areas A) Redefine "multifamily transition" areas to be an MF area within 250' of a Single-family (SF) area, within 250' of a public street right-of-way which also abuts a SF zoning district, and/or within 100' of any other public street right-of-way. B) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on an arterial or collector street shall be 30' and 45', respectively. C) Minimum and average setbacks for frontage on a local access street shall be 30' and 35', respectively. D) Minimum and average setbacks for the portion of a property abutting a SF zoning district shall be 30' and 45', respectively E) Limit building height to 2 stories, not to exceed 25'. F) Increase the 20' MF perimeter landscaping requirement to 30' where a development abuts a SF district or an arterial, collector, and/or local access street. All other landscaping requirements same as above. 5) Re:Planned Unit Developments A) Require all housing units be detached, SF.dwolling units. No longer allow attached side-by-side units, B) Establish a minimum lot size of 7200 sq. N. 6) Issue building permits for no more that 500 MF dwelling units in any calendar year, until such lime as the number of constructed and approved MF dwelling units In Kent Is equal to or less than 50% of the total dwelling units in Ilse City. When the total number of MF dwelling units In the City Is equal t to 50% of the total dwelling units In the City, the City shall not, In any calendar year, issue building permits for more that the number of building permits Issued in that calendar year for single family dwelling units. Dwelling units In annexed territories shall not be included as pan of the total number of dwelling units In the City until the Initial zoning for such territories Is completed. 7) Properly in SF. Districts shall not be subject to rezoning to a MF District designation until such time as the number of constructed MF units is equal to or less than 50% of the total housing units In the City. B) Establish a 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size in all SF zoning districts. The establishment of any now SF Zoning District which permits a minimum lot area less that 7200 sq. ft. and the reclassification of a properly to any zone which permits a minimum lot area loss that 7200 sq. It. shall both be prohibited. Properties zoned SF Residential, R1.5, as of April, 1990, may be developed In accordance with the minimum lot area and other requirements of the R1.5 zone. PLEASE MAIL SIGNED PETITIONS TO: Chris Grant; 26302 Woodland Way S.; Kent, WA 98031 BIBLIOGRAPHY Kent Planning Department Reports Kent Zoning Code; Current Edition. The Area Housing Studies; July 1989. Proposal for a Housing Element Update; January 1989. Report on Multifamily Density; July 1987. Recommendations for Multifamily Residential Design; 1987. Multifamily Design Review Resources Barnett, Johathan. "Developing Urban Design Guidelines". paper prepared for AICP Planners Training Service Conference. 1988. City of Bellevue. " Design Guidelines:Building/Sidewalk Relationships CBD". Bellevue, WA, 1983. Bureau of Planning, Portland. "Central City Plan Fundamental Design Guidelines". Portland, Oregon, 1990. City of Boston. "Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Housing". Boston, Massachusetts. 1988. City of Edmonds. Community Development Code (Architectural Design Review Section). 1982. City of Enumclaw. Municipal Code (Design Review Board Section). 1982. City of Mercer Island. Development Guideline No. 12. 1989. City of Mesa. "Design Guideline Handbook". Mesa, Arizona, 1985. City of Olympia. Design Review Ordinance. 1988. City of Redmond. Zoning Code (Design Review Sections). City of Snohomish. Zoning Code (Design Review Sections). 1987. City of Seattle. "Design Review Analysis of Options". 1988. 49 City of Seattle. "Summary of the Proceedings: Neighborhood Design Review Forum". 1990 City of Tukwila. "Multifamily Design Standards Update" (Draft). 1991. Duerksen, Christopher J. Aesthetics and Land-Use Controls: Beyond Ecology and Economics". Chicago: American Planning Association. 1986. Glassford, Peggy. "Appearance Codes for Small Communities". Chicago: American Planning Association. 1983. Gehl, Jan. "Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space". New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1987. Marcus, Clare Cooper., and Wendy Sarkissian. "Housing as if People Mattered". Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986. McCamant, Kathryn., and Charles Durrett. "Cohousing:A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves". Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press, 1989. Alexander Cooper and Partners/Battery Park City Authority. "Design Guidelines". Battery Park City, New York, 1987. Pasadena Multi-Family Housing Task Force. "A City of Gardens: Pasadena Design Ordinance for Multifamily Housing". April 1988. Portland Chapter AIA. "The 10 Essentials for North/Northeast Portland Housing". January 1991. San Francisco Department of City Planning. "Residential Design Guidelines". City and County of San Francisco, 1989. 50 CONSENT CALENDAR �3 . City Council Action: Councilmember 1 moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through I be approved. Discussion Action 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 3 , 1991. 3Z Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through September 16, 1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 45 p.m. on September 24 , 1991 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agenda)( Item No. 3 A-B' Kent, Washington September 3 , 1991 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 and White, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Manager Satterstrom, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Police Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Assistant City Administrator Hansen, Finance Director McCarthy, Information Services Director Spang, and Personnel Director Olson. Councilmember Woods has been excused from the meeting. Planning Director Harris and Parks Director Wilson were not in attendance. Approximately 25 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Kelleher announced COMMUNICATION that Kathleen Pace has been selected as Employee of the Month for September. He noted that she works in the Public Works Department as an Accounting Services Assistant III . He commended her for her pleasant, cooperative and dependable attitude. Her supervisor, Paul Scott, added that Ms. Pace is gracious and warm, and always goes the extra mile to help people. He stated that she is a very valuable asset to the City. The Mayor pre- sented Ms. Pace the Employee of the Month plaque. CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A-N be CALENDAR approved. Mann seconded. Item 30 was removed at the request of Bill Doolittle. The motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM .3A) Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of August 20, 1991 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) SANITATION Northwest Business Park Plat Phase I . ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement sub- mitted by Upland Industrial Development Company for continuous operation and maintenance of ap- proximately 6012 feet of water main extension, 1, 396 of sanitary sewer extension, 5 , 377 feet of street improvements and 5 , 374 of storm sewer im- provements constructed in the vicinity of South 226th Street and 58th Place South, South 228th Street and 54th Avenue South and South 228th Street and 64th Avenue South for the Northwest Business Park Plat Phase I and release of the cash bond with waiver of the one-year maintenance period. 1 September 3 , 1991 HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) SANITATION Van Doren's Landing Short Plat. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Upland Industrial Development Company for contin- uous operation and maintenance of approximately 920 of storm sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of 64 Avenue South and South 226th for the Van Doren's Landing Short Plat and release of the cash bond with waiver of the one-year mainte- nance period. WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Water Line Crossing South 222nd. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2999 authorizing staff to proceed with condemnation procedures for right-of-way on South 222nd for a water line crossing, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee. STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Street Occupation Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2998 relating to the use and occupa- tion of public streets, sidewalks and other public places, requiring permits, defining offenses and providing penalties , as recommended by the Public Works Committee. TRAFFIC (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) CONTROL 196th Corridor. Authorization has been requested for a budget change to transfer $150, 000 from the Street CIP Fund to the 196th Corridor Fund in order to proceed with acquisition of property, as recommended by the Public Works Committee and IBC. WHITE SO MOVED. Dowell seconded and the motion carried. (BIDS - ITEM 5B) Canyon Drive Left Turn Lanes and Guardrail Rehab- ilitation. Bid opening was held on August 19 . Two bids were submitted with a low bid of $726, 074 submitted by D.A. Zuluaga Construction. Upon re- view of the bids, staff recommends that $154 , 000 be transferred from the 72nd Avenue Advanced Acquisition Fund to this project and that the contract be awarded to D.A. Zuluaga Construction. WHITE SO MOVED. Houser seconded and the motion carried. 2 September 3 , 1991 SEWER (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) Extension of Utility Services. The Public Works Committee has recommended that a resolution making a limited exception to the moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 1275 on the City' s extension of sewer and water services to properties outside the city limits be forwarded to Council without a rec- ommendation. Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that the Planning Committee now recommends not proceeding with the amendments to Resolution 1275 . Johnson explained that the committee feels that anyone who wishes to have water and sewer service can submit an application at any time. He noted that under the present resolution, before approv- al is granted or a permit issued, the property has to be annexed to the City. Keith Carpenter, Pastor at Kent Covenant Church, 240th and 120th, noted that they need sewers in order to meet the needs of their growing congre- gation. He explained that they hope to construct a building for education needs , and that they have been told by King County that they cannot use a septic system. He stated that they presently hold classes at Meridian Junior High, which the school district allows on a temporary basis as long as the church is making progress on their building project. He asked the Council to consider an ex- tension of the sewer. Jim Bruns, Kent Covenant Church, noted that without sewers, their expansion project cannot go forward, and asked for the Coun- cil ' s help. Paul Morford, 21264-132nd Avenue SE, noted that he owns property adjacent to the church, and spoke in favor of the amendment. He pointed out that this area is in the sphere of in- terest and that King County has adopted an interim plan. He noted that 240th is scheduled to be widened to five or six lanes next year, and that if the sewer is not in by then, a street cut would be required. Morford also discussed the possibil- ity of the City working with Soos Creek Sewer Dis- trict. Mr. Wagner stated that he had spoken with Kent Pullen who felt they would qualify since the proposed plan designates the area where the church is located would be in the urban development plan for the City of Kent. He noted that eventually the area will annex to Kent, and urged the Council to pass the resolution. 3 September 3 , 1991 SEWER White said that the proposed resolution encourages single-family residency and annexation to the City. He pointed out that sewer service can be obtained through the LID process even outside the City. He opined that a resolution could be drafted which would meet everyone ' s needs. Orr pointed out that the church has submitted a peti- tion for an LID which was turned down. Wickstrom clarified that through the LID process they would have to comply with the resolution and the City would not be able to extend the sewer service and allow development. The Mayor clarified that the LID is a financial mechanism to pay for the extension but that under the resolution the City would not allow the hook- ups. Orr pointed out that even if the resolution were passed, the church would be required to sub- mit a 10% petition for annexation and 60% signa- tures . She also noted that even though interim boundaries are in place, they are subject to change at any time. She explained that the mora- torium is in effect only until the county reaches agreement on boundaries. Wickstrom clarified for White that sewer extensions can be approved for existing development, but not for expansions, additions or new developments. Dowell questioned whether the church had filed their request prior to adoption of the resolution, and Wickstrom ex- plained that what they had provided was not an actual petition, just the preliminary paperwork for an LID. Dowell commented that if it was sub- mitted before the resolution was adopted, perhaps they would be exempt. Morford pointed out that the Planning Committee ' s concern was setting a precedent, and that if the church were exempt from the provisions of the resolution, action taken now would not be setting a precedent. City Attorney Lubovich noted that the original resolution states that the City shall not accept new applications, and that the question is whether or not the filing with Public Works constitutes an application for water and sewer extension. Mann suggested amend- ing the resolution to grandfather in those appli- cations prior to the resolution. Johnson pointed out that both the existing resolu- tion and the proposed resolution require annexa- 4 September 3 , 1991 SEWER tion. HE MOVED for approval of Resolution No. 1294 and addition of new language to Section 1, Item C. stating that no application shall be ap- proved or permit issued for water or sewer service until the area in question is actually annexed to the City according to State law. He clarified that this action would make an exception to the moratorium allowing filing of applications but placing a condition that they be annexed before the permit would be approved. He said the pro- posed resolution does not provide water or sewer service unless a 10% annexation petition and 60% signatures are provided, so that no one is able to get sewer and water service and then not annex to the City. White seconded Johnson ' s motion. He pointed out that the original resolution could be null and void as early as December, and that applications could be filed immediately. Dowell suggested not adopting Resolution 1294 and leaving Resolution 1275 as is . MANN OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION to amend Resolution 1275 to define an application as being the submittal of a request for proposed Local Improvement District for sewer or water. White seconded. He voiced concern that this has not been evaluated in light of the entire resolu- tion, and suggested that the matter be referred to committee and brought back to Council in two weeks. Mann accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. White then WITHDREW his second and MOVED to send this item to the Public Works Com- mittee. Houser seconded and the motion carried. SHORELINE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) MASTER Foster Industrial Park - Lot 18 (SMP-91-1) This PROGRAM public hearing will consider the Planning Commis- sion ' s recommendation of approval on a request to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Environment from an existing conservancy environ- ment to an urban environment. Carol Proud of the Planning Department noted that the property abuts the Valley Freeway to the west, 74th Avenue South to the east, and S . 259th Street (if extended) to the south. She explained that the owner of the property would like to utilize a portion of the property located within the shoreline area to 5 September 3 , 1991 SHORELINE construct an accessory parking lot for a ware- MASTER house/distribution facility, which would not be PROGRAM permitted with a conservancy designation. She noted that the applicant must obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and possibly a var- iance, which would require additional public hearings. She added that the applicant would provide three public parking stalls and enhanced landscaping. The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience and JOHNSON MOVED that the hearing be closed. Houser seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON THEN MOVED to ac- cept the Planning Commission' s recommendation of approval on a request to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program Shoreline Environment from an existing conservancy environment to an urban envi- ronment and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the resolution of intention to adopt the amendment as required by the State Department of Ecology. White seconded and the motion carried. ANNEXATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) East Hill Annexation. Signatures on the 10% peti- tion received at the August 6th Council meeting have been verified and staff recommends that October 1st be set as the date for a public meet- ing with the petitioners . Public Works Director Wickstrom explained that the area contains 608 . 5 acres, the population is esti- mated at 982 , and the assessed value at $40 million. He explained that a public meeting with the petitioners should be set up to determine whether to pursue the annexation, whether the boundaries are satisfactory, and whether to in- clude the acceptance of City indebtedness. He noted that the meeting would also give petitioners direction as to whether to pursue the 60% petition and explained that after Council receives that petition, a public hearing would be held and testimony taken. He recommended October 1st so that if Council chooses to refer this matter to the Public Works Committee, they will have time to prepare a recommendation. 6 September 3 , 1991 ANNEXATION Upon questions from Dowell regarding Table 3 (Revenue vs. Expenses) , Wickstrom noted that it is estimated that expenses for this annexation would be $22 , 386 per year above revenues. He also noted that $65, 560 is needed for immediate overlays in the area. He explained that this one-time only expense is related to the gasoline tax and that 1/3 of the total gas tax revenues could be used for the overlays. Dowell pointed out that there would be $10, 000 in revenues, for a total of $55, 000 of expenses over revenues. WHITE MOVED that October 1 , 1991, be set as the date for a public meeting with the petitioners for the East Hill Annexation and that the matter be referred to the Public Works Committee for a rec- ommendation. Orr seconded. Johnson pointed out that it would cost an additional $370 , 000 for an appropriate level of fire service in the area. The motion then carried. East Hill Annexation. Charlie Kieffer, 10926 S . E. 274th Street, asked that he and his father John Kieffer, 11048 S .E. 274th Street, be notified when the Planning Department determines that the annex- ation of East Hill is non-significant. The Mayor so ordered. MULTI-FAMILY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) DESIGN REVIEW Multi-Family Design Review (ZCA-90-5). AUTHORIZA- TION to set September 17 , 1991 as the date for a public hearing to consider the multi-family design review, as recommended by the Planning Commission. CONDITIONAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) USE PERMIT Kent 57 No. CE-91-3 . AUTHORIZATION to set Septem- APPEAL ber 17 , 1991 for a public hearing to consider an appeal by the Casey Group Architects on the Kent 57 No. CE-91-3 on a denial by the Hearing Examiner on an application for a conditional use permit to construct the 57-unit apartment complex. A public hearing on the application for this conditional use permit was held on April 3 , 1991 by the Hear- ing Examiner. 7 September 3 , 1991 COMMUNITY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) DEVELOPMENT 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Pro- BLOCK GRANT Aram. AUTHORIZATION to set September 17 , 1991 for PROGRAM a public hearing to consider adoption of the 1992 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, as recommended by the City Council ' s Planning Com- mittee. BUSINESS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N) LICENSE Business License Revocation - U.S . Engine Inc. AUTHORIZATION to set October 1, 1991, as the date for a public hearing on the revocation of the business license for U. S . Engine, Inc. Kent City Code Section 5. 02 . 120 states that if the Council finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a business has or is operating in violation of the laws of Kent, it shall order the City Clerk to send a written notice to the license holder that a hearing shall be held to determine whether the business license will be revoked. The Planning Department has either cited or informed U.S . Engine of violations of Kent City Code. STATE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) CODES 1991 Washington State Energy Code. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2995 related to the 1991 Washington State Energy Code. This code regulates the heat loss in all new construction. This ordinance will repeal ordinance 2308 and adopt as written the 1991 Washington State Energy Code as filed in Chapter 51-11 of the Washington Administrative Code. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) 1991 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2996 related to the 1991 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code. These codes regulate the ventilation and air quality in all new con- struction. This ordinance will adopt as written the 1991 Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Qual- ity Code as filed in Chapter 51-13 of the Washing- ton Administrative Code. 8 September 3 , 1991 STATE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) CODES Unfair Housing Practices. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 2997 repealing Ordinance 1932 , relating to unfair housing practices. This repeals an out- dated ordinance on a subject adequately covered by State law, containing enforcement provisions which require State, not City implementation. STORAGE (BIDS - ITEM 5A) TANKS Underground Storage Tank Removal and Installation of Above Ground Tanks. Bid opening was held on August 8 with three bids received. The low bid was submitted by CEcon Corporation in the amount of $61, 376 . 45. Staff recommends that $3 , 212 be transferred from the unencumbered sewer utility funds and $4, 088 from the unencumbered water util- ity funds and the project be awarded to CEcon. WHITE SO MOVED. Orr seconded and the motion car- ried. BUDGET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Proposed Use Hearing on the 1992 Budget. AUTHORIZATION to set September 17 for a proposed use public hearing on the 1992 Budget. In addi- tion, Council is scheduled to hold a workshop at 6 : 00 p.m. prior to the Council meeting to discuss a preliminary budget balancing scenario based on input received at the August 8 Council work ses- sion. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through August 30 , 1991 after au- diting by the Operations Committee at its meeting at 4 : 45 p.m. on September 10 , 1991 . Approval of checks issued for vouchers : Date Check Numbers Amount 8/16-8/31/91 108764-109417 $1, 488 , 605 . 24 Approval of checks issued for payroll : Date Check Numbers Amount 9/5/91 01160253-01161000 $ 628 , 925 . 31 9 September 3 , 1991 FINANCE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) L.I.D. 336 Bond Ordinance and Purchase Contract. Finance Staff requests the adoption of bond Ordi- nance 3000 and authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $1, 888 , 078 for LID 336 bonds. The bond proceeds will be used for the widening and improvement of East Valley Highway from South 192nd Street to South 180th Street. The final assessment roll for the LID has been adopted and the 30-day prepayment period has elapsed. The purchase contract with Lehman Bro- thers is at a net interest cost of 7 . 03 percent and has a gross underwriting spread of $19 per thousand dollar bond. This results in an average coupon of 6 . 80 percent and an assessment to prop- erty owners of 7 . 30 percent. Finance Director McCarthy stated that the rates are fair based on the index and recent comparables, and recommended approval . HOUSER MOVED for adoption of Bond Ordinance 3000 authorizing the Mayor to sign the purchase con- tract with Lehman Brothers . White seconded and the motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30) RECREATION (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF BILL DOOLITTLE) Parkside Wetlands Purchase and Sale Agreement. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an earnest money agreement in the amount of $118 , 000 to pur- chase Lots 1 through 6 , Block 22 , Interurban Heights, 3rd Section as part of the West Hill Parkside Wetlands project: , as approved by the Parks Committee. Bill Doolittle, 412 If. Washington, showed the location and city limits on the map and noted that contrary to the map presented at the Parks Commit- tee meeting, there are no through streets in the area. He noted that the City of Des Moines is buying 14 acres to use as wetlands, and that there was discussion at the Parks Committee meeting about building an interpretive center at the park. He pointed out that there are many apartment com- plexes in the area, but only two houses in the Kent city limits north of 248th. He noted that one of the houses is proposed to be purchased by the City for $118 , 000 and said he feels the price 10 September 3 , 1991 PARKS & is too high, noting that $200, 000 is budgeted for RECREATION the entire project. He added that there may be clean-up costs associated with an underground oil storage tank, and with garbage and brush in the area. He suggested that this issue be studied further to determine whether to spend money for a park which is totally inaccessible to most Kent citizens and questioned whether Kent should be providing an interpretive center for a Des Moines park. Doolittle also noted that there are three lots on 248th and Military Road for sale for $75, 000 and that the seller would take $500 down and reasonable payments. He noted that there are no parks in that area although there are many children who would use one. He added that he had not seen any children in the vicinity of the Des Moines site. He suggested putting the park on the Military Road location. Dowell recommended that this issue be sent to the Parks Committee for further consideration. Helen Wickstrom of the Parks Department noted that money has been budgeted for this project and that it has been under consideration for two years. She ex- plained that the City has met with citizens from Salt Air Hills, who would like a park on the west side of Pacific Highway South. She said that $100 , 000 in matching funds has been received from King County for this project. She noted that the property consists of steep, wooded terrain, and that the plan is to preserve the hills and wet- lands and provide a trail system in the park. She suggested including the property on Military Road in next years budget, and felt the funding for the wetlands park should not be jeopardized. Upon questions from Dowell , Wickstrom clarified that Des Moines received open space bond issue money for 14 acres, and they did not include the two acres inside Kent ' s city limits. She also noted that the site contains a level piece of property surrounded by apartment complexes and that is was suggested that this area be used for an interpre- tive center. She noted that 26th Place and 26th Avenue are not through streets and that neither is projected to be. Dowell suggested that Des Moines buy the land and add it to their park, and Wickstrom noted that they are not able to purchase it. She also noted that it would probably not be 11 September 3 , 1991 PARKS & possible to give Des Moines Kent' s share of the RECREATION grant money, because they would not be able to match it. Houser stated that the citizens of Salt Air Hills were promised a park on the west side of the highway, and that the City should follow through on that promise. Wickstrom clarified for White that the total appraisal for all the parcels is $270, 000 , and that they hope to negotiate with property owners to bring it within the $200, 000 budget. She explained that the other parcels do not have homes on them. Dowell suggested giving Kent ' s grant money to Des Moines to build the park and noted that the Kent residents could use the park. Wickstrom explained that because of the contour of the land, the trail would need to go up the hill through property which is in Kent, other- wise it would deadend at the bottom of the hill . White suggested referring this to the Parks Com- mittee and discussing it after the next financial projection. Wickstrom noted that although it could be postponed for a while, it would be unfair to the property owner to hold off for too long. Bill Doolittle noted that in addition to the cost of acquiring all eight parcels, it would take ex- tensive trail work to get access to the citizens of Salt Air Hills. He noted that the Parks Com- mittee should be aware of the assessed valuation, whether the property has been on the market, at what price and the size of the lot when consider- ing this issue. DOWELL MOVED that this item be referred to the Parks Committee. Mann seconded and the motion carried. Mayor Kelleher noted that if the Parks Committee decides not to move ahead on this pro- ject, it should be removed from the budget. CITY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) COUNCIL Wheelchair Basketball Challenge. The Kent Knight- riders (wheelchair basketball team) has challenged the Mayor and Kent City Council to a wheelchair basketball game. Jim Hernandez , coach/player, at- tended the August 27th Parks Committee meeting and presented the challenge. Proceeds from the event will be divided among three organizations : Special Populations Scholarship Fund, a youth club from 12 September 3 , 1991 CITY Kent-Meridian High School. and the Kent Knight- COUNCIL riders. The game has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 23 at Kent-Meridian High School, 7 p.m. A prac- tice and photo session will be scheduled one week before the game. Council will be notified of the date and time after the gym usage has been con- firmed. DOWELL MOVED for acceptance of the Knightriders vs. Mayor and City Council Wheelchair Basketball Challenge. Helen Wickstrom of the Parks Department encouraged Councilmembers to draft department heads and supervisors, noting that with a larger number of players, more substi- tutions could be made during the game. The motion then carried. Council Agenda Procedures. Upon White ' s question, Mayor Kelleher noted that the Council President has the authority to set procedures regarding the Council agenda, and that the Council President has recently announced that no items should be brought to Council without a committee recommendation. White questioned how to handle the situation if he has items he wishes to have on the agenda, and the Council President does not put them on the agenda , or pulls them from the agenda. The Mayor suggest- ed forwarding items out of committee with recom- mendations, asking the Council President to place the item on the agenda without a recommendation, raising the issue at the Council meeting even though it is not on the agenda, or passing a new rule regarding such procedures . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 40 p.m. Brenda Jacobe�r, MC Deputy City C rk 13 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO KENT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM FOR FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 0 expressing the City's intention to adopt a proposed amendment to the Kent Shoreline Master Program and to forward the same to the State Department of Ecology. The City Council , at its September 3 , 1991 Council meeting, considered proposed amendments to the Kent Shoreline Master Program as recommended by the Kent Planning Commission to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program by changing an existing conservancy shoreline environment to an urban environment for Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18 No. SMP-91-1, and further directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution declaring its intent to adopt the amendments as proposed by the Planning Commission and to forward the same to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval . 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION- ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, expressing the City ' s intention to adopt a proposed amendment to the Kent Shoreline Master Program and to forward the same to the State Department of Ecology. WHEREAS, the City received an application for a shoreline management development permit to develop certain property located near the Green River; and WHEREAS, the applicant requested the amendment to the Shoreline Master Program in order to utilize a portion of the property located within the shoreline area to construct an accessory parking lot for a warehouse/distribution facility; and WHEREAS, on July 22 , 1991, the Planning Commission, after reviewing the applicant ' s request, made a recommendation to amend the shoreline environment within the Kent Shoreline Master Program for Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18 , No. SMP-91-1, from a conservancy shoreline environment to an urban environment; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting of the Kent City Council on September 3 , 1991, the Council considered the proposed amendment to the Master Program and the recommendation of the Kent Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Kent hereby declares its intent to adopt the amendments to the Kent Shoreline Master Program as recommended by the Kent Planning Commission to amend the Kent Shoreline Master Program by changing an existing conservancy shoreline environment to an urban environment for Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18 , No. SMP-91-1, the property more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 2 . Pursuant to RCW 90 . 58 . 190 (1) , the Kent Planning Department is hereby authorized to transmit the approved, proposed amendments to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1991. Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1991. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 2 EXHIBIT A F '1 CITY OF KENT Application Fee: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Acreage Fee: - (206) 859-3390 APPLICATION FOR A SHORELINE Environmental MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL Checklist Fee: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDITIONAL TOTAL FEE: 'Q� USE PERMIT OR VARIANCE PERMIT TO THE APPLICANT: This is an application for a substantial development, conditional use,. or variance permit as authorized by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. It is suggested that you check with appropriate local, state, or federal officials to determine whether your project falls within any other permit systems. TO BE FILLED OUT BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Type of Application: Date Received: Received by: Application No. : (Applicant should not write above this line.) NAME OF APPLICATION: FIRST AMERICAN` INC GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (GIVE STREET ADDRESS, IF KNOWN, AND LIST SECTION TO THE NEAREST QUARTER SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE. ALSO NEAREST CROSS STREETS) : LOT 18 FOSTER 'INDUSTRIAL PARR LOCATED ON 74th AVE SOUTH AND SOUTH 259th .STREET KENT WASHINGTON. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach if lengthy; : A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4. OF SEC. 25 & SW 1/4 OF SEC. 24, T 22 N, R 4 E WM CITY OF KENT, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON KING COUNTY TAX ID NUMBER (PARCEL NUMBER) NAME OF APPLICANT: FIRST AMERICAN, INC. MAILING ADDRESS: 40 LAKE BELLEVUE # 100 TELEPHONE: (206) 454-4105 BELLEVUE WA 98005 RELATION OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY: Owner Lessee Purchaser Other X DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT NAME OF OWNER: FRONTAGE FREEWAY ASSOC. TELEPHONE' 454-0522 MAILING ADDRESS. P.O. BOX 1282, BELLEVUE WA 98009 NAME OF WATER AREA AND/OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED: -GREEN RIVER CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: VACANT, M-2 ZONE PARCEL. ALL OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS (ROAD, SEWER. STORM.SYSTEM, ETC) -ARE IN PLACE. PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) 28,750 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE%WAREHOUSE FACILITY (SEE ATTACHED SITE, PLAN) ' 1n1Ll�JLIi v'.: FEB 2 5 1991 ' pl/,HtJtIJG OEPAPT MFIJI xent Planning Departme;ic Shoreline Permit, etc. Application Form Page 3 11. If the development proposes septic tanks, does proposed >. development comply with local health and state regulations. 12. Shoreline designation according to master program. 13. Show which areas are shoreline and which are shorelines of state-wide significance. (b) VICINITY MAP ;t> 1. Indicate site location using natural points of reference c (roads, state highways, prominent landmarks, etc.) . 2. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, please identify the proposed disposal site on the, map. If the disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map, provide another vicinity map showing the -' precise location of the disposal site and its distance'to the _•,.j nearest -city or town. 3. Give a brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within one thousand (1,000) feet in all directions from the development site (i.e. residential to the north, commercial to the south, etc.) . I, �T�sT 4N Lo 4 1NL am the above-named applicant for a perinit to construsN A, oreline management (substantial development) (conditional use) (xarianermit pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and hereby state that the foregoing statements, answers; and information are, in all respects, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ' (Signatu e) (Date) c:smaappfr 12/89 Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar li 1. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public hearing to consider amendments to Mobile Home Park Code. 3 . EXHIBITS• 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council (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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3D IS Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 1991 4 ` l Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance establishing the Drinking Driver Task Force. The recent Warner Group Management Study recommended that the City's Drinking Driver Task Force report to the Kent Police Department. Since the Task Force is governed by a board consisting of both City officials and citizen members, it was recommended by the City Attorney's Office that an ordinance be drafted formally establishing the Task Force setting forth procedures for appointment of Task Force members and administrative staff, and providing that the Drinking Driver Task Force staff report to the Chief of Police for administra- tive purposes. The City Council is asked to pass the proposed ordinance implementing these recommendations. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee City Attorney's Office, Administration, Chief of Police (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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E X i I iI ORDINANCE NO. I� AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to and establishing the Drinking Driver Task Force. I WHEREAS, the City of Kent created the Drinking Driver IfTask Force in 1983 to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving l in Kent; and i I WHEREAS, the Task Force has developed a community based jleducational approach to drinking drivers through work with the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission, the Kent Police ,; Department, community leaders, school districts, and other i ! interested citizens; and i WHEREAS, the scope of the work of the Task Force has i evolved and expanded since its creation to include services that !1provide educational prevention services focusing on the use of IIseat belts, parenting skills, drug and alcohol prevention I i, activities for at-risk youth, training and consultation services 1 to school district staff, private non-profit agencies, work with j ;! local establishments that serve beer and alcohol , and various public and private agencies that work with and through the law 1jenforcement system including, the courts, the police, prosecutors, I jlprobation officers; and I, WHEREAS, as a result of the increased services it is I i deemed desirable to formally organize the Drinking Driver Task i Force; and i i i I II II I WHEREAS, the City, in a recent management study, has ;' determined it appropriate for the Task Force staff to report to j j jthe Kent Police Department; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES '( HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE CREATED. The Cityi of Kent Drinking Driver Task Force is hereby created. The Task I Force shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Mayor, City I I Council, City Administrator and Police Chief. i Section 2 . MEMBERSHIP TERMS RESIDENCE REOUIREMENTS. A. The Task Force shall consist of eleven appointed members, each of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The length of the term of office of each Task Force member shall be three years except as set forth ' below. B. The term of office of the first three Task Force members appointed and confirmed shall expire January 1, 1992 ; the term of the subsequent four Task Force members appointed and i confirmed shall expire January 1, 1993 ; the term of office of the final four Task Force members appointed and confirmed shall expire January 1, 1994 . When a vacancy occurs on the Task Force, appointment for that position shall be for three years, or for the lremainder of the unexpired term, whichever is the shorter period !' of time. �! C. The number of members residing inside Kent shall exceed at least by one the number residing outside the City. I' i, - 2 - �I II I I !I I D. To the extent practicable, appointments shall reflect ) a balance of interest and should include representatives from education, parents, hospitality, enforcement and the treatment community. Section 3 . ORGANIZATION, MEETINGS. The Task Force Chairll shall be appointed by the Mayor on an annual basis. The Task Force shall meet upon the call of the chairperson, as necessary. I I Section 4 . ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF. The City Administrator ), ! shall appoint appropriate staff to assist the Task Force in the ;Ipreparation of such reports and records and to perform such administrative duties as are necessary for the proper operation of j the Task Force. The administrative staff shall report directly to ! i the Police Chief for all administrative functions consistent with i j1the direction and needs of the Task Force. The administrative staff shall be exempt from civil service classification. 'i Section 5 . TASK FORCE RESPONSIBILITIES . The Task Force shall make reports and recommendations to the Mayor, City Council , and City Administrator concerning issues related to: A. the incidence of driving while under the influence in Kent; !i B. education of beverage servers; I' C. public education on traffic safety issues; and �I I I i D. drug/alcohol awareness and education activities; II i Section 6. FUNDING. The Task Force is subject to annual ) budget review and funding by the City for its continued operation. - 3 - Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: VMS (VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEM) UPGRADE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee and approved by IBC and Operations Committee, authorization for the Mayor to sign a WSDOT grant application for funding the upgrade of the Vehicle Monitoring System and to establish the budget for monies received from said grant. 3 . EXHIBITS: IBC Note, Memorandum from Public Works Director and excerpt of Public Works Committee minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Age a Item No. 3F PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 3, 1991 PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris Leona Orr Ed White Steve Dowell Jack Cosby Don Wickstrom Charlie Kieffer Mr. and Mrs. Rust Guiberson Street Reservoir Wickstrom reminded the Committee that the landscaping would be about $30, 000 with about $8, 000 in yearly maintenance costs. Wickstrom stated he was recommending that we not proceed with the project at this time. While the cost for the landscaping would come from the water utility and funds are available, because of the current budget constraints and the freeze on hiring, Wickstrom stated he can not be assured that he can maintain the staff required to keep up with the current maintenance needs let alone adding new projects. Leona Orr suggested the Committee send this item to IBC with a recommendation this project be completed as soon as the personnel needed to maintain it can be added. She stated she has a problem with putting in the landscaping without being able to meet the maintenance requirements and then in a couple of years it would have to be redone. The Committee unanimously approved proceeding with the project subject to the approval of IBC. VMS Upgrade Wickstrom explained that $137, 164 in Federal Aid funds have been allocated to the City to upgrade our VMS . We are applying now for preliminary engineering funding in the amount of $20, 782 with the City' s match approved in the 1991 Grant Matching Fund. We are requesting the Mayor be authorized to sign the grant application and to establish the budget for the grant funding. The Committee unanimously approved. Ordinance Correcting the Recorded Plat of Walker' s Acres Wickstrom stated the City obtained the property through a drug seizure. We short platted the property and the plat was sent to the County for recording. Somehow, the plat was amended at the County and the recorded plat is different that what we sent. We are proposing to adopt an ordinance authorizing the correction of the plat of Walkers Acres. The Committee unanimously approved. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 12, 1991 TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council FROM: Don Wickstrom C)�� RE: VMS (Vehicle Monitoring System) Upgrade Federal Aid funds ($137, 164) have been allocated to the City for upgrade of our Vehicle Monitoring System (VMS) . The total project is estimated to be $165, 000. The City' s matching funds were budgeted in the 1991 Grant Matching funds. We are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the application for preliminary engineering funds at this time and to establish the budget for funds received from this grant. IBC, Public Works Committee and Operations Committee. have all approved the request. Message. Dated: 08/26/91 at 1702. Subject: VMS SIGNAL UPGRADE - FISCAL NOTE Sender: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Contents: 2. Tr Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW Part 1 . FROM: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN TO: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Karen SIEGEL / KENT70/PW Don WICKSTROM / KENT70/PW Part 2. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDING TO UPGRAGE THE CITY'S MASTER TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM. THE NEW SYSTEM WILL HELP ACHIEVE LOWER LONG RANGE COSTS FOR REPAIRS, SINCE THE CURRENT 1980'S VERSION REQUIRES COSTLY OR NON EXISTANT PARTS. THE TOTAL PROJECT WILL COST $165,000 WITH $137, 164 OF THAT FROM FEDERAL FUNDS. IF THE GRANT IS FUNDED, THE CITY WILL NEED TO USE $27,836 JF THE $80,000 BUDGETED IN 1991 IN THE STREET FUND FOR CONTROL DEVICES & TRAFFIC SAFETY MATCHING FUNDS. IHE IBC RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT TO FURTHER IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW, THE COUNCIL'S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. THE STREET 'ORTION OF THE 1991 CIP HAS FUNDS BUDGETED TO COVER THE CITY'S PORTION )F $27,836. THIS WILL MAXIMIZE THE THE LIMITED CITY FUNDS & REDUCE COSTS 'IN THE FUTURE. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL - AID PROJECT PROSPECTUS 10-9-90 DATE AGENCY ,._Ci tof Kent ........ FEDERAL-AID PROJECT'NUMBER hreTiz""-"' F�oute FEDERAL PROGRAM TITLE: ( :1 20.204 % 20.205 "L] 20.206 j J 20.209 0 Other PROJECT TITLE,;_-_ r VMS„(Vehi:cl,e Mon i:toC,1p_q_Sy .......... PROJECT TERMINI FROM..r .., .rr...w,.:,..., ,.w..,.. ., .r..._,..... ......................::. FROM: MP . .,_.,,. .... TO ------ MP Length of Project - boles AWARD TYPE Local 0 Stale Federal Agency 9 Y FHWA V...lOthars.....r.....,....._................................... ..� Local Forces [_, Railroad City Number „.,, 0615 County Number .......1L.. County Name ,.....:K1.n9.........,.............._. EIS CE EA DOT Dlstrlcl...............•..••.•................. Congressional District......................:............. D I 1 } II f 1 III LegisWlve Districts_ Urban Area Number_l Area Clearinghouse 9 MPO 8_ •:: .. .:v v.�::. :. v :...:Y....:ry:i..:..Y...:.v:.Y'.!:<.yx.Y i}v..Y.;::::}:_:::{:.._:__.............n.: 3=n yh...\'2:= r.a? } 9 >C k? Yfi2 J�y'(H ��` Y Za r (�Yf4� a`^:+ } J;=< LOCAL`AGNC( ;sp�(iC Nt .GJk3l ICyA�1N f' �q =r � � r rtIMA'Tl~G?rGST ` Y ?YF °FUNpINGa„ ;�3 Yv,'.as ?_ .e \Y a Sy =2 5e a • 'a x r (Naaiest DotiarY ,';^F ;(Nearest pollarY ;,Y (Nearest poll2,r} F, FUNDsa�,lh Year> .,;.k:u.Sdw�il ...� '-.. J..:..., .........'.r.= w '' .:,..i. � � �..� '...... . .a.......e_...i..:=i:�::.. P.E I 25,000 �4�218 _ 20 782 � 83. 13 1 91 R/W CONST 140 00.0 23T 618 �� 116 382 83. 13 _ 2 TOTAL 165,000 _ 27�836 137 . 164 T �_! ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITY (Existing Design and Present Condition) Roadway Width: ,•, Number of Lanes: ........................................ ................................................. SEE ATTACHED .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK New Construction I.;.I 3-R Roadway Width: ............................... ...... Number of Lanes:............................. SEE ATTACHED (ocai �HeRgY,.ConfactPerson__,..._._.. .r ,..w. .Ent��xC(W�1.h1�E__r .W -,,,Melling Address 220 4th Ave S _ _ mm Phone LB52- City Kent w W Washington �ZleCode W98032 LOCATION AND DESIGN APPROVAL BY: (Optional for CA Agencies Only) {Approving �ulhonty} TITLE: Public biorks Director DATE: DOT Form 140-009A Revised7/67 Page 1 of 3 v' y y\ r' > Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CORRECTION OF A RECORDED PLAT 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Committee, adoption of Ordinance ` correcting the recorded plat of Walker's Acres. Short Subdivision of Walkers Acres was approved subject to certain conditions, some of which were to appear on the face of the plat. A plat conforming to the conditional approval was submitted to the King County Auditor for recording, but it was subsequently discovered that the plat as recorded was different from the plat as submitted. This ordinance follows the statutory procedure for correction of a plat in such circumstances. 3 . EXHIBITS: Plat as approved and submitted for recording; plat as recorded; excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes; ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: (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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3G v� PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 3, 1991 PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris Leona Orr Ed White Steve Dowell Jack Cosby Don Wickstrom Charlie Kieffer Mr. and Mrs. Rust Guiberson Street Reservoir Wickstrom reminded the Committee that the landscaping would be about $30, 000 with about $8, 000 in yearly maintenance costs. Wickstrom stated he was recommending that we not proceed with the project at this time. While the cost for the landscaping would come from the water utility and funds are available, because of the current budget constraints and the freeze on hiring, - Wickstrom stated he can not be assured that he can maintain the staff required to keep up with the current maintenance needs let alone adding new projects. Leona Orr suggested the Committee send this item to IBC with a recommendation this project be completed as soon as the personnel needed to maintain it can be added. She stated she has a problem with putting in the landscaping without being able to meet the maintenance requirements and then in a couple of years it would have to be redone. The Committee unanimously approved proceeding with the project subject to the approval of IBC. VMS Upgrade Wickstrom explained that $137, 164 in Federal Aid funds have been allocated to the City to upgrade our VMS . We are applying now for preliminary engineering funding in the amount of $20, 782 with the city' s match approved in the 1991 Grant Matching Fund. We are requesting the Mayor be authorized to sign the grant application and to establish the budget for the grant funding. The Committee unanimously approved. Ordinance Correcting the Recorded Plat of Walker' s Acres Wickstrom stated the City obtained the property through a drug seizure. We short platted the property and the plat was sent to the County for recording. Somehow, the plat was amended at the County and the recorded plat is different that what we sent. We are proposing to adopt an ordinance authorizing the correction of the plat of Walkers Acres. The Committee unanimously approved. ll I� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, jl Washington, relating to platting and I, subdivision, correcting the recorded plat of Walkers Acres, No. SP-90-221 to depict the declaration of private Ill access easements and utility easements thereon. Ills WHEREAS, the short subdivision entitled "Walkers Acres, " i short plat No. SP-90-22 (the "Plat" hereinafter) was conditionally lapproved on January 17, 1991 by the City of Kent; and WHEREAS , of the conditions imposed by the City upon the short subdivision (as set forth in Exhibit A hereto) , some were to be completed prior to the recording of the Plat and some were to be delineated on the face of the final Plat prior to recordation; and iI ill WHEREAS, the final, approved Plat was submitted for l'lrecording to the King County Department of Records and Elections Illand was given Recording Number 9103010512 thereby; and i i WHEREAS, it has been brought to the City ' s attention that the Plat as recorded is different from the Plat submitted to the County, and that the discrepancies .include, but are not limited to the deletion of the private easement declaration and all utility ! easements for side sewers or water service lines from the recorded Plat; and I� i WHEREAS, it appears that such unauthorized deletions took place after the original mylar of the Plat was submitted to the County for recordation, and that the City otherwise would not have approved the Plat as presently recorded under Recording Number 9103010512 ; and I j WHEREAS, state law provides a procedure for the i correction of a recorded plat, to be followed whenever the recorded i� plat of a city does not definitely show the location or width of I any street or alley (RCW 58 . 10. 030) ; and i WHEREAS, since the statute does not differentiate between II private and publicly dedicated rights-of-way, the Kent City Council finds that the correction of the Plat to appropriately depict all required conditions through recordation of the corrected Plat shall occur as set forth in RCW 58 . 10 . 030 ; NOW, THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES THEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : �i Section 1 . The Property Manager of the City of Kent is Ilhereby directed to certify, on the face of the corrected Plat of Walkers Acres, that the plat recorded under King County Auditor' s j File No. 9103010512 has been corrected to include all conditions limposed by the City, and which were to be depicted on the face of j the plat, as set forth in the City ' s approval of short plat No. SP- � 90-22 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and finally, that this ; I ordinance has been recorded in the records of the King County JIDepartment of Records and Elections in order to correct the plat recorded under King County Auditor ' s File No. 9103010512 . 2 I I Section 2 . The Property Manager of the City is hereby Iauthorized to submit the corrected Plat of Walkers Acres and a copy ( of this Ordinance for recording in the King County Department of ( Records and Elections. I I Section 3 . Any acts made consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are hereby ratified and confirmed. 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 l jATTEST: i, I! ''! BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK I �I (] APPROVED AS TO FORM: I IJROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1991. APPROVED the day of 1991- PUBLISHED the day of 1991. I 3 I I i �� a blvz 04 �➢ 1 C = @ a o- i �Y P ". Z s� z I16 a At 0 �. �� c z � to ➢ a,FJ�6�J. � d �`dJ°/1 1�r qt I- 4B r II � k SA . •, 8 �o<.oj 8J 4: No1�1.lZZ"EI � G l� � �� 110.03• �r �� VP i➢ t �nrpEo$nn� _ I41K -0AIr �� Jl c AJ a 0 gPR� v m Y aoil�Io ,(� r 7R 8 RG Go ra� O4yD' �ALQfll 1 J � •No1�11'ZZ`•E, I K� � $� L Irtut �E R �t�- 3 aL4t�R; ,r -o ,• „0.03' 'tt JSp Pa �ns0 a F rtf 6a a� S aJ yr U rb lot a� t9Ar gr c data DO Jb Do�� U — <.�.._.. 11o.a3• - ; via! � Q vi [Al a ,�-lDI�J � t�" frj� Dy� � t� � �• nP 6 �It Y o NCO{N A� (Pl yB ca o &Q �LLm U' ONAt�ahA��B�6� �TT ;;LLfJ p�^¶;yJb�I�6�Np��OesApy,' o P Off to n '01a; f�ni�� L ��^ a 4 Z sa0 �a ICU) 39F r oa��nosQP� 9 As hisoil -- WA KFRS ACRF� �w I i ��,.... lit R E v �y',k jig � •(g7�h,1 � � J� if �s •.11 O �� NOI�11� ° I •1 11 9103QI0512 �� .o� ,J/I 1 � JI • � I GG � � �•' F � �� lL 4►' Iln of I 11b � /t'�Y ail Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17 , 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CANTEBURY FINAL PLAT NO. SU-89-3 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public meeting to consider Cant6bury Final Plat map. The property is approximately 4 . 34 acres in size and is located on 100th Ave. S.E. and north of 248th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X 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. 3H r ./ti ��✓ � � Kent City Council Meeting Date September 17, 1991 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: EASTWOOD FINAL PLAT NO. SU-89-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public meeting to consider Eastwood Final Plat map. The property is approximately 4 . 35 acres in size and is located on 100th Ave. S.E. and north of 248th St. 3 . EXHIBITS: 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: 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. 3I CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE-- D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE_. F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - Political Signs OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: September 12 , 1991 TO: Judy Woods, Council President, Ken Council FROM: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney SUBJECT: CAMPAIGN SIGNS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY Questions have arisen with regard to the status of placement of campaign signs on public rights-of-way, especially in light of the recent street occupation ordinance which was passed by the Council at its September 3 Council meeting. Kent City Code 9 . 06. 080 entitled "Public Property - Political Campaign Signs Prohibited" provides as follows: "No person shall attach, place, paint, write, stamp or paste any sign, poster or bill upon any lamppost, electric light, railway, telephone or telegraph pole, or shade tree; on any bridge, pavement, sidewalk or crosswalk, public building or any property or anything belonging to the City or within public easements. " Under this provision, campaign signs were prohibited outright from public rights-of-way. With the passage of the street occupation ordinance, which has an effective date of October 3 , 1991, this provision was amended only to delete the words "Political Campaign" from the title of the section. The rationale for this was that the section applied to all signs, not just campaign signs, and so the title was misleading. This amendment, therefore, has no practical effect. Enactment of the street occupation ordinance, however, transformed the placement of such signs on public ways from a prohibited act to one permissible under a street occupation permit obtained under KCC Chapter 4 . 09 . All portable signs may be impounded pursuant to KCC 4 . 09 . 320 and penalties of $75. 00 per day from the date the director gives written notice for the removal of any such sign may be imposed for the unauthorized placement of the signs on public rights-of- way. In conclusion, campaign signs are prohibited from being placed on public rights-of-way without first obtaining a street occupation permit from the Director of Public Works . PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 3, 1991 PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris Leona Orr Ed White Steve Dowell Jack Cosby Don Wickstrom Charlie Kieffer Mr. and Mrs. Rust Guiberson Street Reservoir Wickstrom reminded the Committee that the landscaping would be about $30, 000 with about $8, 000 in yearly maintenance costs. Wickstrom stated he was recommending that we not proceed with the project at this time. While the cost for the landscaping would come from the water utility and funds are available, because of the current budget constraints and the freeze on hiring, Wickstrom stated he can not be assured that he can maintain the staff required to keep up with the current maintenance needs let alone adding new projects. Leona Orr suggested the Committee send this item to IBC with a recommendation this project be completed as soon as the personnel needed to maintain it can be added. She stated she has a problem with putting in the landscaping without being able to meet the maintenance requirements and then in a couple of years it would have to be redone. The Committee unanimously approved proceeding with the project subject to the approval of IBC. VMS Upgrade Wickstrom explained that $137 , 164 in Federal Aid funds have been allocated to the City to upgrade our VMS. We are applying now for preliminary engineering funding in the amount of $20, 782 with the City' s match approved in the 1991 Grant Matching Fund. We are requesting the Mayor be authorized to sign the grant application and to establish the budget for the grant funding. The Committee unanimously approved. Ordinance Correcting the Recorded Plat of Walker 's Acres Wickstrom stated the City obtained the property through a drug seizure. We short platted the property and the plat was sent to the County for recording. Somehow, the plat was amended at the County and the recorded plat is different that what we sent. We are proposing to adopt an ordinance authorizing the correction of the plat of Walkers Acres . The Committee unanimously approved. Public Works Committee September 3 , 1991 Page 2 East Hill Annexation Mr. Kieffer asked this item.be placed on the agenda for discussion. Wickstrom explained that on tonight's Council agenda is an item setting a public meeting with the petitioners for October 1. At that time, Council will determine whether to accept the petition as is, whether to amend the boundaries, place conditions on the 60% petition, etc. Wickstrom added that an optional action before the Council is to direct the annexation to the Public Works Committee for a recommendation at the October 1 meeting. It was confirmed for Leona that the Annexation Committee has discussed the annexation and has left it up to Public Works. Kieffer raised questions as to the procedure used in determining that the signatures on the petition represented 10% ownership of the assessed value of the property in the annexation boundary. Kieffer stated he was not happy about the annexation. Jim White explained that when the City receives a petition it has to respond to it. Kieffer asked how the County's school impact ordinance would apply to this. It was explained that the County' s ordinance would not apply if the property were annexed but the City is working on similar type of legislation. Kent Springs Transmission Main Kieffer asked this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. He stated he has been looking at the revisions to the project. He continued that the application for the Army Corps Permit states that the purpose is to replace the deteriorated Kent Springs Transmission Main, yet the latest revision cut out about 2 , 000 feet of the project. Wickstrom explained that the original design included a portion to serve the future Tacoma intertie and impoundment reservoir. That portion has been deleted from this project but we will construct it later when the intertie is constructed and will address the environmental issues at that time. Wickstrom further responded to Kieffer' s comments about the purpose of the project that it is to replace the old Kent Springs Transmission Main but it also takes into consideration the needs which are included in our 50-year water plan. Kieffer said he still had a concern that the purpose of the project is not to replace the transmission main and that he feels it is to have an intertie with the Tacoma Pipeline project. Wickstrom reiterated that the primary purpose is to replace the transmission main and that it is being replaced in an alignment that will fit with the needs identified in the Water Comprehensive Plan. Kieffer stated he thought the environmental study didn't include the scope of the project. Wickstrom offered a differing opinion. It was determined that Kieffer' s comments needed to be made to the Army Corps of Engineers. Kieffer asked about lead agency status on the SEPA review of the reservoir when it is designed.