HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/01/1991................
Colty of Kent .
i Council MeetinCt9
v
Agenda
CITY OF Luv
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Steve Dowell Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
October 1 , 1991
ti
Office of the City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 1, 1991
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. Employee of the Month
✓B. Proclamation - Crime Prevention Month
�C. National Night Out Presentation
f D. Metro Presentation
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. U. S . Engine, Inc. Business License Revocation
B. Mobile Home Park Code Amendnents
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Bill of Sale - Imperial Line Short Plat
D. Bill of Sale - LeBlanc Gardens
E. Bill of Sale - 102nd Avenue Apartments
F. Bill of Sale - East Hill Carriage and Antique Mall
G. Dover Court Storm Drainage Outfall - Ordinance
H. Towing and Impound of Vehicles - Ordinance
I . Parking Enforcement Aide Duties - Ordinance
J. Canyon Drive Speed Limits _. Ordinance .
K. Parkside Wetlands Purchase
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Canterbury Final Plat
B. Eastwood Final Plat
C. East Hill Annexation
-D. King Y/Metro Merger
er
g
E. SeaTac Boundaries Resolution
- Proposed SeaTac Sewer Extension
5 . BIIJ8
None
6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
8 . 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) Employee of the Month
B) Proclamation - Crime Prevention Month
C) Police Department Presentation - National Night Out
D) Metro Presentation
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE OF U.S . ENGINE, INC. ,
18403 E. VALLEY HIGHWAY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council must make a finding
based upon K.C.C. §5. 02 . 100 as to whether or not U.S. Engine has
committed any of the acts described therein. If such a finding
is made, the Council must revoke the business license of U.S.
Engine.
3 . EXHIBITS: All notices of violation issued by various City
Departments to U.S . Engine; memo from City Attorney's Office
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning, Code Enforcement Public Works ,
City Attorney
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Co;•.lnission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT. NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _.._—
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: ----
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A ,X
CITY OF a\�O u September 24, 1991 Dan Kelleher, Mayor
Norman G. Angelo, Fire Chief
1l�y�gm9fR�
Michael P. Crossen
U.S. Engine Inc.
18403 East Valley Hwy
Kent, WA 98032
SUBJECT: PREMISES KNOWN AS 18403 EAST VALLEY HWY, WHICH PROPERTY IS
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 2 OF KENT SHORT PLAT#SPC-80-8 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING
NUMBER 8004220852, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M. IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON,AND ALSO,THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT
3 IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M. IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON,
LYING WEST OF THE RENTON-ORILLIA STATE ROAD; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED
TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 3916582
Dear Mr. Crossen,
It has come to the attention of this office that U.S. Engine Inc. is engaged in the practice of removing and installing
engines in vehicles inside of your occupancy. Because this practice is done in conjunction with the use of
flammable and/or combustible liquids, your business falls outside of the scope of the use allowed by the original
Certificate of Occupancy (B-2) and would now be classified as an H-4 Occupancy. This conversion is in violation
of Sections 307 and 502 of the Uniform Building Code.
Should you wish to continue in the above mentioned practice, appropriate steps will need to be taken to up-grade
your space to meet the construction requirements of an H-4 Occupancy.
Please take action on this matter within 30 days by either restoring the original B-2 usage or by obtaining a building
permit for the purpose of retrofitting your space to an HA Occupancy. You must call for an inspection to verify
compliance.
Should you have any question regarding this matter, please contact me at 859-3360.
Respectively,
Robert D. Hutchinson
Building Official
cc: Russ Senger
TM/dp
FIRE HEADQUARTERS/24611 116th AVE. S.E., KENT,WASHINGTON 98031 /TELEPHONE(206)859-3322/FAX#859-3281
CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION/220 4th AVE.SO.,/KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3360 1 FAX#859-3334
CITY OFL)��\��� -
Da .Kelleher, Mayor
1 'F, D,m E. Wickstrom, P.E., Direct�r of Public Works
t
July 5 , 1991
Mr. Russ Segnor
Park 184 Associates
4536 153rd Ave S . E.
Bellevue, WA 98006
RE: Water Quality Violation
Dear Mr. Segnor:
City inspection of the U. S. Engine company ' s storm drainage at your
site on 7-3-91 revealed polluted water and contaminated sediments
in at least one storm drain catch basin. The affected catch
basin (s) discharge to the City storm system, which outfalls to
Springbrook Creek approximately one-half mile to the north.
Storm drain systems are intended to convey clean stormwater only.
The lack of significant oil stains on the paved catchment area for
the affected catch basin leads me to suspect direct dumping of
waste oil into the basin. At the time of the inspection, there was
no discharge of polluted water to the City system, due to the lack
of rain. Nevertheless , the presence of 2-3 feet of oil- and
grease-contaminated solids and polluted standing water in the basin
is unacceptable and represents a future water pollution discharge
to the City storm system.
The present situation must be corrected immediately to prevent both
further contamination and future water quality problems .
Specifically, the following corrective actions must be completed by
7-25-91:
- storm catch basins near U. S . Engine must be pumped clean
(pressure-hose and vactor) .
- Clean-up and disposal contractor chosen must be cognizant of
and abide by environmental regulations regarding sampling and
disposal requirements for potentially-contaminated catch basin
material .
It is unlawful "to discharge or in any way release or contribute
to pollution in any storm drain or surface water runoff which
enters into the storm and surface water facilities within the City
of Kent" . (Kent City Code 7 . 20 . 260 . B) Failure to implement
corrective measures regarding this violation will result in civil
penalties up to $250 per day, as authorized by KCC 7 . 20 . 500 . B.
(
A
220 411t AVE. SO., /KENT, WASI IINGiON 90032 5895 1 ENGINL6MNG (205)85J 3303 f-AX if L' ) 7559/OI'LTIATIONS (20G)059 3395 FAX 0 859 3664
Mr. Russ Segnor
Park 184 Associates
RE: Water Quality Violation
7/5/91
Any knowing violation will constitute a misdemeanor and will be
subject to a fine of up to $5000 or imprisonment for up to one -year
in jail. (KCC 7 . 20 . 500 B) The cost of monitoring repeated drainage
and water quality violations will be charged to your property thru
the Drainage Utility.
Furthermore, to allow oil to enter the storm sewer system and state
waters is a violation of RCW 90 . 48 . 080 , RCW 90 . 48 . 320 and RCW
90 . 48 . 350 . Penalties up to $20 , 000/day can be levied by the State
Dept. of Ecology for these violations .
This is not the first time the City has investigated U. S. Engine
for water quality problems . At the next available opportunity, the
city will monitor the drainage quality from this site and impose
civil penalties, if effluent quality does not meet State Water
Quality Standards (WAC 173 . 201) , or the Wa. State Dept. Of
Ecology ' s effluent guideline for oil and grease of 10 mg/l .
The City of Kent is committed to improving the quality of its
surface waters for the beneficial use of all . We would appreciate
your speedy compliance regarding this water quality violation.
Very truly yours ,
,��r� T, cx" e
Richard Chase
Water Quality Engineer
RC:mp
Attachment
cc: Nelden Hewitt, City of Kent Storm Supt.
Gary Gill, City Engineer
Carol Morris, Assistant City Attorney
Ron Devitt, Dept. of Ecology
Mike Crossan , U. S . Engine
CITY OF )f \
Dan Kelleher, Mayor
James P. Harris, Planning Director
4 QM s' The City o/Kent Celebrates Its First 100 Years
August 5, 1991
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Michael P. Crossan
U. S. Engine, Inc.
Automobile Engine Installation
18403 E. Valley Highway
Kent, WA 98032
Mr. Russ Segner
Segner Park 184
4536 153rd SE
Bellevue, WA 98006
RE: PREMISES KNOWN AS 18403 E. VALLEY HIGHWAY WHICH PROPERTY IS
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
LOT 2 OF KENT SHORT PLAT #SPC-80-8 AS RECORDED UNDER KING
COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8004220852 , BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT
LOT 3 IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 23 N,
RANGE 5 E, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND ALSO, THE
NORTH 100 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 IN SECTION
31, TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
LYING WEST OF THE RENTON-ORILLIA STATE ROAD; EXCEPT THAT
PORTION CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON UNDER AUDITOR' S
FILE NO. 3916582
Dear Messrs. Crossan and Segner:
As a result of recent inspections by Charlene Anderson of the Kent
Planning Department on July 3 and 25, 1991 and Phil Herrera of the
Kent Fire Department on July 22 , 1991, notice is hereby given that
the subject property and/or person(s) responsible for that property
are in violation of the Kent Zoning Code, Title 15 of the .Kent City
Code, Sections 15 . 05 . 060 (D) and 15 . 04 . 180 (A) and the Business
License Code, Section 5 . 02 . 030 and 5 . 02 . 060 . Corrective action by
the responsible person(s) is required no later than August 12 ,
1991.
I
220 4th AVE.SO_ /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3390 1 FAX#859-3334
Mr. Michael P. Crossan
Mr. Russ Segner
August 5, 1991
Page 2,
The specific violations are as follows:
Operation of an automobile repair facility is not a permitted
use in an M-2 , Limited Industrial, zoning district. KCC
Section 15. 04 . 180 (A) .
Every business within the City limits must make application,
pay a fee for and be licensed by the City. We have no record
of a business license for Automobile Engine Installation or
U. S. Engine, Inc. KCC 5. 02 . 030 and 5 . 02 . 060.
Automobiles are parked in areas which have been designated as
maneuvering areas, and outside of approved parking stalls.
Buildings which utilize dock-high loading doors shall provide
a minimum of 100 feet of clear maneuvering area in front of
each door. KCC Section 15. 05 . 060 (D) .
The necessary correction to be taken by the responsible person (s)
before the date set for compliance (or August 12 , 1991) is:
CEASE PARKING OUTSIDE OF APPROVED AND DESIGNATED PARKING
STALLS.
CEASE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY OR MAKE
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MAINTAIN SUCH USE
ON THE PROPERTY.
CEASE OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINE INSTALLATION COMPANY OR
SUBMIT AN APPLICATION, PAY FEE AND OBTAIN A LICENSE FOR SUCH
BUSINESS.
Penalties for failure to comply with this Notice of Violation
within the time frame specified herein are as follows :
For each violation under the Kent Zoning Code; conviction of
a misdemeanor, punished by a fine of not more than one hundred
dollars or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both,
and costs and expenses in the case. Each day such violation
continues after the date set for compliance shall constitute
a separate offense.
For a violation of the Kent Business License Code; a monetary
penalty not to exceed three hundred dollars, which shall be in
addition to all other existing remedies .
Mr. Michael P. Crossan
Mr. Russ Segner
August 5, 1991
Page 2
Any communications regarding this Notice of Violation should be
addressed to me at 859-3390. Please call me for an inspection as
soon as corrections have been completed. Otherwise, an inspection
shall take place on or after the date set for compliance, and if
the required corrections have not been made, this Notice will be
referred to the City Attorney' s office for further action as
described above.
Sincerely,
6 aA c0. A C
Charlene Anderson
Planner
CA/slc:usengine. ltr
cc: Dan Kelleher, Mayor
Norm Angelo, Fire Chief
Scott Garrison, Tax Discovery, Washington State Department of
Revenue, 301 Evergreen Plaza Building, Olympia, WA 98504
James Gooding, Attorney at Law, 909 W. Meeker Street,
Kent 98032-5795
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Robert Hutchinson, Building Official
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
Carol Proud, Senior Planner
Don Wickstrom, Director of Public Works
SENDER: � I also wish to receive the
• Complete items 1 andlor 2 for additional services. I following services (for an extra
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so fee :' ❑ Addressee's Address
that we can return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. 2 El Restricted Delivery
Write "Return Receipt Requested" next on the mailpiece n to Consult postmaster for fee.
the article number. 4a. Article Number
3. Article Addressed to: p 692 149 700
Mr . Russ Segner 4b. Service Type
Segner
Park 184 [1 Registered
[-1 Insured
�'Certif��ed ❑ COD
4536 15 3 rd SE Return Receipt for
Bellevue, WA 98006 [1Expr s Mail a Merchandise
7. D e f eliv ry
8. Address e' Address (Only if requested
Signa ur ddressee) and fee is aid)
atu (Agent)
RECEIPT
PS Form 3811, October 1990 U.S.GPO:
DOMESTIC RETURN
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services5;. also wish to receive the
• Complete items 3, and 4a & b. , following services (for an extra
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so fee):
that we can return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the 1 ❑ Addressee's Address
back if space does not permit.
• Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece next to 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
the article number. Consult postmaster for fee.
3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number r
Mr. Michael P. Crossan P 692 149 699
U .S . Engine, Inc . 4b. Service Type
❑ Registered ❑ Insured
18403 E . VAlley Highway }Certified ❑ COD
Kent , WA 98032 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7. Date of DeliverA
r.,
5. Signature (Addressee) 8. Addressee's Ad re (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
6. Si at IA r—
PS Form 3811, Octob 990 *U.S.GPO:1990-273-861 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT .
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF RENT
PUBLIC HEARING
U. S. ENGINE - BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION
The purpose of this hearing is for the Council to hear and consider the
pertinent facts relating to the proposed revocation of business license for
U. S. Engine.
I. HEARING PROCEEDINGS
1. Staff presentation
A. City Attorney
B. Planning Department
C. Building Code officials
D. Public Works - Water Quality
E. other
Staff will have a total of 20 minutes in which to make a
presentation to Council .
2 . U. S. Engine
U. S. Engine and/or its representatives will have 20 minutes in
which to present its position to the City Council .
3 . Public Testimony
Anyone not part of City staff or U. S . Engine representatives
wishing to present testimony regarding this issue will have five
minutes in which to speak. Testimony may be further limited
depending upon the number of individuals wishing to speak.
Testimony should be limited to the issue at hand.
4 . Rebuttal or Closing Arguments
Both City staff and U. S. Engine may reserve a portion of its
allotted time for rebuttal and/or closing arguments following
public testimony.
II. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
1. Deliberation
Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 5 . 02 . 100, the City Council may
revoke the business license of a business operating in the City
when it finds any of the following:
A. That the business has engaged in a continuing pattern
of false and misleading advertising;
B. That the business has engaged in oppressive, harassing bill
collecting techniques which unreasonably interfere with the
debtor's well-being;
C. That the business has engaged in conduct which is a
nuisance, or is otherwise injurious to the public health,
safety or welfare of Kent;
D. That the business has or is operating in violation of the
laws of Kent, or other governmental authority.
2 . Council Action
Based upon information presented by the various City
Departments and public testimony, the Council needs to
make findings on the record on KCC 5. 02 . 120 (1) through (4) above.
If the finding of the Council is that U.S. Engine has engaged in
acts listed in (1) through (4) above, the Council may revoke the
business license.
If the Council revokes the business license, the City Attorney
recommends that U.S. Engine be informed that it must cease
operations immediately. The City Attorney should also be given
authorization to take whatever legal action is necessary to
ensure that U.S. Engine does not continue to operate without a
valid Kent business license, including the collection of
penalties as provided under KCC 5 . 02 . 090.
Extensions of time: U.S. Engine's attorney may ask the
City Council for an extension of time for this revocation
hearing. The City Attorney recommends that the Council first
consider whether enough information has been presented for a
determination to be made that the acts described above have
occurred. If so, the Council should make a decision whether to
revoke the business license or not. Given the limited scope of
remedies available to the City Council if it finds that U.S.
Engine committed the acts described in KCC 5. 02 . 100, an extension
of time for this revocation hearing is irrelevant if granted for
the purpose of providing more time for the business to achieve
compliance with the zoning, water quality and building code. All
of these violations will be prosecuted separately in District
Court.
However, if you decide to grant an extension of time, keep in
mind that the code requires that the revocation hearing be held
within 60 days of the initial notice, so the hearing must be
scheduled for the next City Council meeting, and appropriate
notice requirements (publication) must be observed.
procedure.doc
FTCITY OF �2�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
°�Tern�s� October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ._
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE - U. S. ENGINE, INC.
Kent City Code Chapter 5. 02 . 100 (A) provides that the Kent City Council mal
revoke a business license when, for example:
1. The business has engaged in conduct which is a nuisance
or is otherwise injurious to the public health, safety or
welfare.
2 . The business has or is operating in violation of the laws
of Kent, or other governmental authority.
As you will notice by the attached chronology of events, U. S. Engine, Inc.
has operated in violation of the Kent Zoning Code, and other regulations for
over two years.
U. S. Engine continues to conduct auto repair operations despite numerous
notices that such operations are not allowed, nor have they submitted ar
application for a conditional use permit to allow auto repair operatioT at
their site. Kent Zoning Code section 15. 02 . 030 defines automobile repai, as
follows: _ "Includes fixing, incidental body or fender work, paintinc
upholstering, engine tune-up, adjusting lights, brakes, supply and installinc
replacement parts to passenger vehicles and trucks. "
In addition, U. S. Engine continues to store items outdoors. At various
times there have been tires, hitches, I-beams, pallets and other items store
on-site in violation of City code requirements.
U. S. Engine is displaying a large wall sign on the south wall of their
building. The sign exceeds the area allowed for a sign in the M-2 , Limitec
Industrial, zoning district. Their sign permit application was denied. U.
S. Engine has not submitted an application for a sign variance, yet continue
to display the sign.
Numerous court cases are pending related to U. S. Engine operations. Also;
the City of Kent has received several complaints about their operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council revoke the business license of U. S
Engine, Inc. and thus require them to cease operating in the City of Kent.
CA:JPH/mp: a:usengine.mem
Enclosure
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
May 21, 1986 Kent Hearing Examiner conditionally approves a
conditional use permit for Russ Segner, Segner
Park 11184" (#CE-86-3) , allowing for expansion
and relocation of an existing automobile,
commercial and industrial vehicle and
equipment repair facility. The repair
facility would occupy approximately 51000 feet
maximum. Conditions include no outside
storage or repair of vehicles shall be
permitted.
February 29, 1988 A business license was issued to North West
Engine Exchange at 18817 84th Avenue South
(This is not part of Segner Park 184) . The
description of their business was "We sell and
deliver remanufactured motors to auto repair
shops. The space is for warehouse use, with a
small office & show room. "
November 3 , 1988 Senior Planner Kathy McClung, in a letter to
Russ Segner, authorized tenant space for auto
repair-type uses totalling 5, 792 square feet
under the existing conditional use permit.
The tenants listed as part of the 5,792 square
feet did not include U. S. Engine Inc. Ms.
McClung stated in her letter that any further
expansion of auto repair-type uses would
require a new conditional use permit.
January 16, 1989 The Planning Department received notice via
notation on a Business License Renewal Notice
that NW Engine Exchange had changed their name
to U. S. Engine, Inc. and had relocated to
18403 East Valley Highway (within Segner Park
184) . The business license renewal was held
up pending compliance with zoning code
regulations.
May 2, 1989 A zoning permit was issued for a tenant
improvement application for U. S. Engine. The
zoning permit included under "Special
Conditions or Restrictions" the statement
"Engine assembly only-no auto repair on this
site. "
May 18, 1989 Julie Espey of U. S. Engine, Inc. wrote to the
Kent Planning Department and stated they were
still waiting for their renewal license. She
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
provided their new address as 18403 East
Valley Highway.
June 20, 1989 Planner Scott Williams, in a letter to Michael
Crossan of U. S. Engine, stated the department
had received several complaints regarding U.
S. Engine operations. Mr. Williams further
stated the U. S. Engine sign on the south side
of the building was too large and all signs
require a sign permit. In addition, Mr.
Williams stated that a fenced storage area
which had been set up in a parking area on the
north side of the building cannot be used for
storage. The City required that both the sign
and storage area be removed by July 20, 1989 .
December 21, 1989 Michael P. Crossan, President of U. S. Engine,
Inc. paid $50 for the 1990 renewal of his
business license. The renewal license was not
issued.'
January 29 , 1990 Mr. Ronald C. Devitt, Water Quality Inspector
for the State Department of Ecology, wrote a
warning letter to Mike Crossan regarding oil
contamination of storm sewers caused by poor
storage practices at the loading dock area of
U. S. Engine. The letter stated it was the
third time Mr. Devitt had discussed the
problem with U. S. Engine.
July 91 1990 The Kent Planning Department received a
complaint about the U. S. Engine sign being too
large, a cardboard sign in the window of the
tenant space, and conducting of illegal auto
repair.
November 13 , 1990 Planner Charlene Anderson, in a certified
letter to Julie Espey of U. S. Engine, Inc.
stated she observed zoning code violations on
the U. S. Engine site. By November 22 , 1990
U. S. Engine was required to apply for sign
permits for their signs, cease auto repair
operations, properly maintain landscaping
around their building, and eliminate outside
storage or submit development plans for an
outside storage area which complies with City
regulations.
2
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
November 16 , 1990 Michael P. Crossan submitted a new business
license application form for relocation. The
description of the business states,
"Automotive engine remanufacturer & engine
assembly sold wholesale, retail & service.
Products include all internal engine parts and
cores. "
January 24, 1991 Planner Charlene Anderson, in a certified
letter to Michael P. Crossan, denied U. S.
Engine's application for a sign permit for the
wall sign on the south wall because the sign
is too large. She stated that by February 51
1991 U. S. Engine must remove the wall sign,
submit a sign permit for the door sign, cease
auto repair operations, remove the outside
storage north of the building or submit
development plans which indicate compliance
with City code, and remove the sign structure
located in the landscaping abutting East
Valley Highway.
February 11, 1991 The Kent Planning Department sent a Code
Enforcement Complaint Form to the Kent Water
Quality Engineer informing them of suspected
dumping of material from repair operations in
the landscape islands south of and abutting
the U. S. Engine tenant space.
March 29, 1991 Two separate citations were written to Michael
P. Crossan for failure to obtain a business
license, failure to obtain a sign permit, and
failure to properly screen outside storage
areas.
April 2 , 1991 Planner Charlene Anderson, in a certified
letter to Michael P. Crossan, informed Mr.
Crossan of the citations and stated that
unless the violations were resolved by April
11, 1991 he would be cited daily for the
violations.
April 4, 1991 Thomas H. Cinko, Vice President of U. S.
Engine, Inc. , in a letter to Planner Charlene
Anderson, stated U. S. Engine had removed all
signs except the sign on the south wall for
which a sign permit application was submitted,
stated U. S. Engine had no outside storage
3
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
areas, and stated that a business license was
applied for.
April 8 , 1991 In a telephone conversation, Planner Charlene
Anderson informed Tom Cinko of U. S. Engine
that they still were not in compliance with
City , code related to signage and outside
storage and that the City had received another
complaint related to illegal auto repair being
conducted by U. S . Engine. Ms. Anderson sent
an application for sign variance to Mr. Cinko.
May 17, 1991 Planner Charlene Anderson photographed outside
storage and parking in maneuvering areas
adjacent to U. S. Engine tenant space, and a
vehicle being worked on inside the U. S.
Engine tenant space.
May 28, 1991 The Kent Planning Department received a
citizen complaint about U. S. Engine being
allowed to operate without a business license
and informed the City that two other companies
were doing business from the U. S. Engine
tenant space.
June 4, 1991 Paula Ratcliff wrote to the Kent Business
License Department, with a copy to the Mayor
and City Attorney, requesting investigation
and closure of U. S. Engine. She provided a
list of other pending court cases against U.
S. Engine and a summary of her personal
complaint about the company' s operations.
June 10, 1991 Due to an error a business license was issued
to U. S. Engine despite the fact that their
latest application was not yet approved.
June 20, 1991 Mayor Kelleher requested that Planning
Director Harris and Fire Chief Angelo respond
to Ms. Ratcliff ' s complaints.
June 26, 1991 Attorney James Gooding, in a letter ,to Planner
Charlene Anderson, stated he represents U. S.
Engine and he requested a meeting with Ms.
Anderson related to resolving issues.
July 11 1991 Kent Planning Department received a complaint
about auto repair operations being conducted
4
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
by U. S. Engine and their dumping oil, etc.
into the sewer system. The complaint was
forwarded to the Kent Water Quality
Engineering section.
July 3 , 1991 Charlene Anderson inspected the U. S. Engine
site, and noted two landscape islands were
"trashed" and a jeep with the hood up was
located outside the U. S. Engine tenant space.
July 5, 1991 Mr. Richard Chase, Kent Water Quality
Engineer, wrote to Russ Segnor with a copy to
Mike Crossan, regarding polluted water and
contaminated sediments in at least one storm
drain catch basin. The letter stated this was
not the first time the City had investigated
U. S. Engine for water quality problems.
July 11, 1991 Attorney James Gooding wrote to request of
Charlene Anderson a response to his June 26,
1991 letter.
July 15, 1991 Charlene Anderson left a message with Mr.
Gooding' s receptionist to return her call.
July 16, 1991 Attorney James Gooding wrote to request a
meeting with Charlene Anderson to discuss
resolution of the matter of U. S. Engine, Inc.
July 22 , 1991 Mr. Phil Herrera of the Kent Fire Department
notified Charlene Anderson that he observed
auto repair being conducted by U. S. Engine
Inc.
July 25, 1991 Charlene Anderson talked to Attorney James
Gooding regarding the U. S. Engine sign
violations, outside storage and auto repair
operations. Ms. Anderson copied material
related to U. S. Engine for Mr. Gooding to
pick up at the Kent Planning Department. Ms.
Anderson called Mr. Gooding' s office to inform
him the material was ready to be -picked up.
As of September 23 , 1991 the material still
has not been picked up.
July 25, 1991 Charlene Anderson observed a hitch in the
landscape island, autos parked in the
maneuvering areas north of the U. S. Engine
5
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
U. S. ENGINE, INC.
tenant space, and concrete dug out at the
north loading dock bay of the U. S. Engine
tenant space.
July 26, 1991 Charlene Anderson verified with Washington
State that neither AEI (Automobile Engine
Installation) or NC Machine in Kent are
registered with the state.
July 30, 1991 Charlene Anderson called Automobile Engine
Installation and verified they are located at
18403 East Valley Highway and they install
engines.
August 5, 1991 A certified letter was sent to Michael Crossan
by Charlene Anderson. The letter provided
notice that U. S. Engine, Inc. aka NW Engine
Exchange, is subject to busines license
revocation.
August 5, 1991 A certified letter was sent to Michael Crossan
by Charlene Anderson. Necessary correction to
resolve zoning code violations include cease
parking outside of designated parking stalls,
cease auto repair operations or apply for a
conditional use permit for auto repair
operations, cease operation of Automobile
Engine Installation or submit application for
a business license.
August 27 , 1991 Attorney James Gooding requests additional
time for U. S. Engine to relocate their
facility. Mr. Gooding submitted a copy of a
letter from Thomas Cinko stating their
intention to relocate.
September 41 1991 Deputy City Clerk sent Notice of City Council
public hearing to revoke the U. S. Engine
business license to Michael Crossan.
September 16, 1991 Assistant City Attorney Carol Morris informed
James Gooding via letter that the business
license code does not allow the City to
postpone the hearing to revoke U. S. Engine' s
business license.
Kent Planning Department
October 1, 1991
6
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CODE AMENDMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider
revisions to the Kent Mobile Home Park Code. At the August 6,
1991 Council meeting, Council amended the Mobile Home Park Code
and requested that the Planning Department meet with interested
people and come back with any additional necessary amendments.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, draft amendments to the Mobile Home
Park Code, City Council minutes of 8/6/91
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS : _—
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIOON:
Councilmember t % moves, Councilmember ' seconds
to accept/reject/modify the revisions to the Mobile Home Park
Code and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
r
ACTION: _—__-
Council Agenda
Item No. 20
CITY OF L�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT FOR
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
OF OCTOBER 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: James P. Harris, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Revisions to Recent Mobile Home Park Code Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The proposal is to further amend the Kent Mobile Home Park Code.
Revisions include:
1. Revise non-conforming mobile home park standards to
allow recreational vehicles as permanent dwelling
units under certain circumstances.
2 . Eliminate accessory structure diagram 12 . 08 . 380-3
and make minor text revisions to remaining setback
diagram.
3 . Revise the definition of an accessory structure.
4 . Provide appeal procedures for Building Official
decisions.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
At the August 6, 1991 City Council staff was directed by the
Council to conduct an additional meeting with mobile home park
owners. A few park owners had identified concerns with the
proposed amendments. Planning and Fire Department staff met with
park owners and other interested persons on August 28 , 1991 . The
following issues were discussed:
1. Setbacks on mobile home park boundaries.
2 . Permit process.
3 . Recreational Vehicle issues .
4 . Structures .
5 . Variance procedures.
6 . Spacing requirements.
The proposed amendments to the Mobile Home Park Code are noted in
"bill form" with strike outs of the current language and the new
language underlined. Please refer to the attached sections of the
Code, pages 2 , 19 , 20, 21 and 22 .
REVISIONS TO RECENT
MOBILE HOME PARK
CODE AMENDMENTS
Page 2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The above six issues were thoroughly discussed. It became apparent
that the recent amendments to the Mobile Home Park Code would pose
difficulties both for staff to administer and park owners/tenants
to comply with. Further clarifications and revisions are
necessary.
All reference to meeting zoning setbacks at park boundaries are
proposed to be eliminated. Planning Department staff are not
included in the review of placement permits in non-conforming
parks . The only relevant setbacks for individual units that must
be met in a non-conforming park are in relation to adjacent
structures and roadways . Please refer to strike-outs on page 21
and page 22 .
The permit process will continue to be administered by the Code
Enforcement Department. An application and a site plan will be
required. Timely permit. issuance is dependent upon complete
submittals. Staff will issue a permit within five working days .
A development assistance brochure is available that outlines the
procedures for obtaining a mobile home set-up permit (please refer
to attached document) .
Several park owners expressed concern with undersized individual
unit spaces that can not accommodate even a single wide mobile home
and meet the minimum separation requirements . Some relief in this
instance was warranted. Rather than out right deny use of an
existing space, by allowing a recreational vehicle as a permanent
dwelling unit, the proposed amendments would afford occupancy of
the space and provide compliance with minimum fire/safety
separation requirements . Please refer to page 19 and page 20 , new
section 3 for amended language.
Concerns with regard to accessory structures included the number
allowed per individual space, meeting setback requirements, and
difficulty with including carports and porches as accessory
structures . Staff re-thought the need for including standards for
accessory structures in the Mobile Home Park Code. Existing
Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards are adequate and applicable
for addressing the placement of accessory structures and assuring
safe separation requirements . Additional requirements in the non-
conforming provisions would be redundant. For purposes of
measuring setbacks between units, carports and porches would not be
considered accessory structures and in most instances would not
have to meet separation requirements . Please refer to definition
REVISIONS TO RECENT
MOBILE HOME PARK
CODE AMENDMENTS
Page 3
of accessory structure on page 2 for amended language and strike-
outs on page 19 , section 3 , page 20 , section 5 and entire page 22 .
Variance procedures from a Building official decision were
requested. One proposal was to bring appeals of permit decisions
directly to the City Council for resolution. The existing variance
procedures outlined in the Mobile Home Park Code pertain to new
park development and would not be applicable to issuing a placement
permit. The Kent City Code, Chapter 14 . 01, currently provides for
appeal procedures from any building official decision with regards
to permit approval. The Council has appointed a Board of Appeals
that is comprised of builders, architects and others in the
community to conduct public hearings and modify administrative
decisions when necessary. Please refer to page 20 , new section 5
for amended language.
Spacing concerns discussed included distance between units,
setbacks from park boundaries and internal roads, construction
materials and accessory structures . The proposed amendments
establish minimum safety requirements and afford the greatest
flexibility for individual unit placement within a non-conforming
park. The requirement to define an individual mobile home lot is
eliminated. Spacing or separation requirements will be determined
by distance between units rather than lot lines. Lot coverage
requirements will not apply to individual units. When separation
requirements can not be met, park owners will have the- option to
occupy the space with a recreational vehicle.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above discussion, staff recommends that the Council
APPROVE the amendments to the Kent Mobile Home Park Code as
proposed.
CP/ch:a:mhpcode2.rpt
DRAFT
For Discuscion Purpoca3 Only
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
time said mobile home is placed on the lot or as soon thereafter as is reasonably practicable.
Failure to make such inspection shall not constitute a waiver of any of the provisions of this
Code_ For inspection purposes, the Building Official or his duly.authorized representative
shall have the right and is hereby empowered to enter any mobile home park.
The Code Enforcement Division of the Fire Department may require a permit for the
placement of a mobile home on a lot and may charge for said permit.
If, after due investigation, the Building Official determines that any provisions of this
code have been violated, the mobile home park owner shall have 14 days to remedy the
violations. If the violations are not corrected within 14 days, the violations shall be
forwarded to the City Attorney for action under 1 2.08.420 Penalties.
12.08.070. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this code certain terms, phrases,
words, and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this Section. Words used in
the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular. The words "shall" and "will" are
mandatory; the word "may" is permissive.
1 2.08.071 . ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - Any structure on an interior mobile home
lot or site that is appurtenant to the principally permitted mobile home or nonconforming
recreational vehicle. For purposes of non-conforming mobile home parks carports and
porches open on three sides shall not be concidered accessory structures.
12.08.072. CITY COUNCIL. The City Council of the City of Kent, Washington.
1 2.08.073 COMBINING DISTRICT. District regulations superimposed on an underlying
zone district which impose additional regulations for specific uses, and which are valid for
a stipulated time period. Uses permitted by the underlying zone may also be developed.
12.08.074. COMMON OPEN SPACE. A parcel or parcels of land or an area of water
or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a mobile home park which
are designed and intended for the use or enjoyment of residents of the park. Common open
space may contain such complimentary structures and improvements as are necessary and
appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of residents of the mobile home park. Common
open space may also include all landscaped buffer areas.
12.08.075. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. The plans, maps and reports which comprise
the official City development plan as adopted by the City Council in accordance with RCW
35.63 or RCW 35A.
12.08.076. COUNTY AUDITOR. As defined in Chapter 36.22 RCW or the office of
the person assigned such duties under the King County Charter.
12.08.077. CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. A use permitted
in a zoning district only after review and approval by the Hearing Examiner. Conditional uses
2
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
12.08.380 NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK STANDARDS
To assure reasonable opportunity for the continued use of existing mobile home parks
created prior to the adoption of the Mobile Home Park Code and therefore not in compliance
with all or some of the development standards required herein, said parks shall be considered
legal nonconforming uses. The following minimum standards shall apply to the placement
or relocation of individual mobile homes and recreational vehicles within nonconforming
mobile home parks and to the' construction of accessory structures.
1) A site plan drawn to scale that shows the perimeter park boundaries, the dimensions
andlots, the location of all existing mobile homes,
accessory buildings, carports and porches, utility hookups and internal roadways shall
be submitted in conjunction with permit application for placement or relocation of
individual mobile homes or construction of accessory buildings.
2) The placement or relocation of individual mobile homes in nonconforming mobile
home parks shall be subject to the minimum separation standards of the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA 501 A, Section 4-2.1 .1) as adopted by reference in the
Kent Municipal Code Chapter 13.02.080 for required standards. Lot coverage
requirements need not apply. See diagram 12.08.380-2
3)r—11,11 new f ae-eesso+y_strtlettetis in a neneenfeirming
t te h sepaicatien standards of the
__OFe than st, e' rn shall be allevved en eaeh n9ebile--he l�ei
eeverage requkements need not I-y -Se"
g
e
replaeed by a similar le at the-exact web' e
Building Offieiaf
Recreational vehicles shall be allowed as a permanent dwelling unit in a non-
conforming mobile home park under the following circumstances:
a. A recreational vehicle may be relocated on an individual mobile home space
that is occupied by a similar unit at the time of adoption of the non-
conforming standards.
b. The park owner demonstrates that an existing moblile home space can not
be used for a mobile home due to the minimum setbacks specified in
diagram 12.08.380-2.
Verification of these provisions shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Building
19
City of Kent Mobile Horne Park Code
Official in coniunction with application for an individual mobile home placement
permit All recreational vehicles in use as a permanent dwelling shall be hooked up
to approved utilities and shall comply with the seperation requirements specified in
diagram 12.08.380-2.
h-em
64) No nonconforming mobile home park boundaries shall be expanded nor shall any
additional mobile home lots be created as a result of these provisions. Any new
expansion shall be subject to the provisions of the Mobile Home Park Code.
51 Appeals of any Building Official decision with regard to placement or relocation of a
mobile home recreational vehicle and/or accessory structure are subject to the appeal
procedures specified in Kent City Code Chapter 14.01 .
20
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
Diagram 1.2.08.380 - 2
Minimum NONCONFORMING Mobile Home Park Separations
Reference: NFPA 4-2.1 .1/Kent Municipal Code GhapteF Title 13.
The following example illustrates the minimum separation standards for the placement of
mobile homes/manufactured homes in nonconforming mobile home parks.
MINIMUMS
10' SIDE TO SIDE
8 END TO SIDE
6' END TO END
6' DIAGONALLY
I
I
lol
I
Side A
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Interior Park Driveway)
Any portion of a mobile home/manufactured home shall not be located closer than 10 feet
side to side, 8 feet end to side, 6 feet end to end horizontally or 6 feet diagonally from any
other mobile home/manufactured home or community building.
No portion of a mobile home/manufactured home can encroach on an internal driveway.
setbae'ES must be verified by the Kent Plannin@-Depaftm-e�.
The site plan must reflect adjacent park spaces and separations between units and accessory
structures and roads.
Additional permits and review may be required by other agencies or City departments as a
result of the placement of a mobile home/manufactured home.
if you have fUFtheF qUeStienS, please eentaiat the Kent Gede EfifE)Feement Division ef the F;r,-
NOTE: Upon approval of the Building Official construction of an approved two-hour fire
resistive wall may decrease required separation distances.
21
City of Kent Mobile Home Park Code
AAlAAA4L1h4S .
-GGRGtFWGtiQR)
biz�$tible + I -shall net
than three feet frem any building oF struetwe on-an adjaeent site.
pow Pi
e
�c'Fn fact ed h r eneFe8eh T -Fv rvm�v.�ccc-S
Seth"r .vc;ts-rr. t-be-verified-
The site plan st Fefleet adfaeept pa-rk spaees-se4bac-k&-and--separatief:is-betweea-units-and
aefesseFy stFuetuFes and reatd5.
Additional peFFnits and review may be Fefored by other ageneies r Gity-d epa « -z i�z
22
City of Dent
att or�'3,ettait
Development Assistance 23
Brochure
Requirements For Mobile Home Set Up Permit
All mobile home set-ups and permanent structures within mobile home parks must conform
to the standards adopted by the City (The Mobile Hoine Park Code) along with state
requirements for electrical installation.
Prior to submitting your application for a building permit, you must have the following
documents:
1) Legal description of proposed site
* Lot, block and subdivision name. Assessor's parcel number.
2) Site plan of the mobile home park - two copies which include the following:
* Scale used and marker showing direction north.
* Location and dimension of perimeter park boundaries and all lot lines.
* Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed mobile homes and other
structures, showing distance to lot lines.
* Location of on-site parking and internal roadways.
3) Working Drawings - Two complete sets which show:
* Foundation or mobile home ground anchors details (see handout sheet #1).
* Elevation drawings showing construction details for permanent structures such as
decks, porches, stairways and storage buildings.
4) Additions to mobile homes
* Permanent connections to the mobile home require approvals from the Department
of Labor and Industries, State of Washington.
8/91
August 6, 1991
ANNEXATION the signatures must be verified by Public Works,
PETITION and recommended that the petition be referred to
(Ramsted) the Annexation Committee simultaneously. He
pointed out that the Council must consider it
within sixty days. Woods noted that someone from
the Public Works Department will be in contact
with Mr. Sharp.
MOBILE HOME (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
PARK CODE Mobile Home Park Code Amendment. This public
AMENDMENT hearing will consider three revisions to the Kent
Mobile Home Park Code summarized as follows :
1) Codification revisions throughout documents ;
2) Minor text revisions that revise consistency
with adopted city codes and policies; and 3) New
non-conforming mobile home park section. The re-
visions are being brought directly to the City
Council for deliberation as a result of Section 2
of the adopting Ordinance No. 2077 which states
that "the code may be amended by the City Council
at any regular City Council meeting upon motion
duly made, seconded and passed. "
Carol Proud of the Planning Department noted that
they have received a regulatory review request
from a mobile home park owner asking that Section
1 . 3 paragraph 3 which reads as follows be amended:
"Any units brought into an existing mobile
home park: any mobile home relocated on its
own lot or onto any other lot: any additions
to the structure or structures present on any
lot (e . g. storage buildings, canopies , decks ,
patios, fences, etc. ) must comply with this
code as well as all other applicable City
codes and regulations . "
She noted that it is the duty of the Building
Official to issue relocation permits for individ-
ual mobile home units in existing parks, and that
he has denied relocation permits because the Code
does not permit relocating individual mobile home
units that cannot meet requirements and standards
for new parks . She explained that all of the
existing mobile home parks within the City were
built prior to the 1978 adoption of the Mobile
Home Park Code and that all of the existing mobile
home parks are non-conforming with respect to
6
August 6, 1991
MOBILE HOME individual unit placement criteria which includes
PARK CODE lot size, coverage, setbacks and separation
AMENDMENT requirements between units and accessory build-
ings. She noted that an environmental review
of the proposed amendments to the mobile home park
code was conducted pursuant to the State Environ-
mental Policy Act and that the Fire Department
recommended that combustible accessory structures
be limited to one per mobile home park lot, in
order to avoid proliferation of such structures
that could otherwise present an unacceptably high
fire risk. Proud noted that several meetings were
conducted with interested parties which included
park owners, tenants, real estate agents and King
County Housing and Economic Development section.
She said only one comment was received, which con-
curred with the staff ' s recommendation. She noted
that of most concern is the dwindling number of
mobile home parks available, and the fact that new
mobile home parks are not being constructed.
Proud reviewed the non-conforming Mobile Home Park
Standards which staff has developed. She clari-
fied for White that sewer and other types of hook-
ups may be required and that the Building Depart-
ment will administer this . White voiced concern
regarding the number and cost of permits required.
Proud urged the Council to direct the City Attor-
ney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Woods declared the public hearing open. Mel
Kleweno, 555 W. Smith, Attorney representing sev-
eral mobile home park owners, noted that they are
concerned about the costs associated, and pointed
out that mobile home parks are one of the main
sources of affordable housing for low and fixed
income people. He stated that some park owners
had asked for additional meetings with staff and
urged the Council to direct Planning to work fur-
ther with the owners.
Paul Symbol , owner of a park at 412 N. Washington,
voiced concern about losing spaces due to setback
requirements, and noted that it would be difficult
to comply with the ordinance regarding water,
sewer and power hookups because of the short no-
tice given by tenants when moving in and out. He
also requested that more meetings be held with
7
August 6 , 1991
MOBILE HOME Planning staff before adoption of the ordinance.
PARK CODE Jack Keck, 855 E. Smith, owner of Circle K Park,
AMENDMENT spoke in regard to recreational vehicles. He also
stated that he would like to meet with Planning
again before this issue is finalized. Upon a
question from a mobile home owner, Mrs .
McLaughlin, Carol Proud said that this amendment
would have no effect on people currently living in
mobile home parks, that it only affects people
trying to move into parks . Proud noted that she
had sent out notification and draft copies asking
for comments, but received only one comment.
Proud pointed out that this amendment would allow
the Building Official some flexibility to allow
people to move into parks and that it would make
it easier for people to replace their existing
mobile home with a new one. White asked that the
issue regarding whether tenants could have both a
carport and a storage shed be clarified.
Ron Clark, representing the Washington Manufac-
tured Housing Association, said the ordinance pro-
vides flexibility and noted that the National Fire
Protection Standards are reasonable .
John Marshall , owner of two empty spaces at Valley
Manor Park, asked that the amendment be accepted
subject to further review if necessary. He noted
that there are urgent needs for people to move
into the empty spaces which clearly conform to the
new restrictions.
Harry Allen, 849 Main Street, Edmonds, voiced con-
cern about modifying spaces to meet this new code.
He noted that there is considerable cost involved
regarding water, sewer, pad, concrete patio and
other things. He said if a park owner chooses to
modify a space, he would have to clear the second
space in order to create the room to meet the new
code, which would impact other tenants . He added
that the restriction should be changed so that
there can be more than one structure per lot. He
suggested that this be discussed further and pre-
sented at a future time. Proud said that the ma-
jority of parks will be able to be accommodated by
this, although some of the old ones would have a
problem.
8
August 6 , 1991
MOBILE HOME Bill Doolittle said that this would allow older
PARK CODE parks built before the 1978 Mobile Home Park Code
AMENDMENT went into effect to keep utilizing those spaces
for similar units. He noted that without it, when
spaces are vacated, owners would have fewer units
and rent would have to be increased. He noted
that permits required would probably be at a mini-
mum, and commended the Planning Department for ad-
dressing this problem since mobile home spaces for
older units are scarce.
There were no further comments and WHITE MOVED to
close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the
motion carried. WHITE MOVED that this be referred
to staff and that the minor details be worked out
and brought back in two weeks if possible. Harris
asked for more time, and agreed to work toward a
September 3 deadline. White asked staff to
respond to the items people brought up tonight.
Woods asked interested people to contact Planning
Director Harris or Carol Proud for input as to
when meetings are held. WHITE REPHRASED HIS
MOTION to move that this be referred to staff and
be brought back to Council on September 3 . Houser
seconded. Orr voiced concern about the time con-
straint for people being displaced at Longacres
and suggested adopting this ordinance with the
provision that the staff revisit those areas that
are problems and bring it back to Council for re-
vision. She noted that Council could amend this
simply by passing another motion. City Attorney
Lubovich pointed out that the ordinance has not
been prepared yet. He added that the ordinance
would not go into effect until 30 days from
passage. White withdrew his motion and Houser
withdrew the second. JOHNSON MOVED to accept the
revisions to the Mobile Home Park Code and direct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance, with the understanding that people who
have concerns about certain provisions of the
proposed ordinance meet with the Planning
Department and work them out and that staff bring
revising language back to Council . Orr seconded.
Upon comments from the audience, Woods and Harris
clarified that an ordinance has not yet been pre-
pared, and that the motion is to direct the City
9
August 6, 1991
MOBILE HOME Attorney to prepare an ordinance, and to direct
PARK CODE Planning to meet with interested people and come
AMENDMENT back with necessary amendments. Proud noted for
White that as the code stands now, without the
revisions, she cannot allow anyone to move into
the parks. White assured the people in the
audience that their concerns will be addressed.
Orr agreed with White and noted that it will be a
simple task to make the changes and in the
meantime this will provide relief to people in
need.
The motion then carried.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER DOWELL
Planning Commission Appointment. CONFIRMATION of
the Mayor ' s appointment of Kent Morrill to the
Kent Planning Commission replacing Willie Gregory
who resigned.
Dowell voiced concern regarding the appointment of
a King County official, which gives the appearance
of a conflict of interest . He noted also that Mr.
Morrill is challenging councilmember White for a
Council position, and that if he wins the
election, he would have to be replaced on the
Planning commission in five months. Dowell
pointed out that the appointment could be viewed
by citizens as political in nature rather than in
the best interests of planning for the City.
Dowell said he has no objection to Mr. Morrill ' s
ability or experience, but objected to the timing,
the potential conflict of interest, and the
appearance of fairness associated with the
appointment at this time. HE MOVED to refuse the
confirmation. White seconded. The motion was
defeated with Dowell and White in favor and Woods
abstaining. DOWELL THEN MOVED for approval .
Johnson seconded and the motion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Board of Adjustment Appointment. CONFIRMATION of
the Mayor' s reappointment of Raul Ramos to the
Kent Board of Adjustment .
10
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 ./ City Council Action :
r/ Councilmember 1 moves , Councilmember
seconds that Consent-Calendar Items A through K be approved.
Discussion �� {, �!
Action a
3A� Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
September 17 , 1991 .
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through October 1,
1991 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
at 4 : 45 p.m. on October 8 , 1991 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for-_payroll :
Date Check Number: Amount
Council AgeaJ
Item No. 3 A'-B
Kent, Washington
September 17 , 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, White and Woods, City Administrator
Chow, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, 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. Parks Director Wilson was not in attendance.
Approximately 30 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Walk for Health Day. Mayor Kelleher read a
COMMUNICATION proclamation declaring Saturday, September 28 ,
1991, as Walk for Health Day in the City of Kent.
He noted that the City of Kent has also promoted
walking through the City ' s Wellness Program and
City employees participate in regular scheduled
walks . He encouraged people of every age, back-
ground, ethnic group, and interest to take part in
this community event. The Mayor presented the
proclamation to Lynn Stellick.
Citizenship Day/Constitution Week. Mayor Kelleher
read a proclamation declaring September 17 , 1991 ,
as Citizenship Day and the week of September 17-
231 1991, as Constitution Week in the City of
Kent. He noted that it is important that all
citizens fully understand the provisions,
principles, and meaning of the Constitution so
they can defend it and, this week gives the
opportunity for all Americans to learn about and
to reflect upon the rights and privileges of
citizenship and its responsibilities . The Mayor
invited every citizen and institution to join in
the national commemoration.
Mayor Kelleher introduced Olga Zuyeva, Secretary
of the Board of the Soviet Peace Fund. Ms . Zuyeva
explained that she is visiting the United States
and Canada at the invitation of the Rotary Clubs,
and said she is honored to be present at tonight ' s
meeting.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR I be approved with the exception of Item 3E which
was removed by White. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
1
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of September 3 , 1991 .
STREETS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
VMS (Vehicle Monitoring System) Upgrade.
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, as recommended by
the Public Works Committee and approved by IBC and
Operations Committee.
SHORELINE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
MASTER Amendment to Kent Shoreline Master Program for
PROGRAM Foster Industrial Park. ADOPTION of Resolution
1295 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 1S 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 .
MOBILE HOME (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
PARK CODE Mobile Home Park Code Amendments. AUTHORIZATION
AMENDMENTS to set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public
hearing to consider amendments to Mobile Home Park
Code.
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Correction of a Recorded Plat. ADOPTION of
Ordinance No. 3002 correcting the recorded plat of
Walker ' s Acres, as recommended by the Public Works
Committee.
Short Subdivision of Walker ' s Acres was approved
subject to certain conditions, some of which were
to appear on the face of the plat. A plat con-
forming to the conditional approval was submitted
to the King County Auditor for recording, but it
2
September 17, 1991
PLATS 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 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Canterbury Final Plat No SU-89-3 AUTHORIZATION
to set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public
meeting to consider Canterbury Final Plat map.
The property is approximately 4 . 34 acres in size
and is located on 100th Avenue S .E. and north of
248th Street.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Eastwood Final Plat No SU-89-1 AUTHORIZATION to
set October 1, 1991 as the date for a public meet-
ing to consider Eastwood Final Plat map. The
property is approximately 4 . 35 acres in size and
is located on 100th Avenue S .E. and north of 248th
Street.
COMMUNITY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
DEVELOPMENT 1992 CommunitV Development Block Grant CDBG
BLOCK GRANT Program. This public hearing will consider adop-
PROGRAM ticn of the 1992 Community Development Block Grant
(CBDG) Program as recommended by the City Coun-
Cil ' s Planning Committee. Alice Shobe of the
Planning Department listed the projects and fund-
ing levels as follows :
Recommended
Funding
Project Type 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
3
September 17 , 1991
COMMUNITY Recommended
DEVELOPMENT Funding
BLOCK GRANT Project Type Level
PROGRAM
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
7 . YWCA Emergency Housing
Program Human Services 18 , 000
TOTAL $225, 180
--------------------------------------------------
*If the CDBG entitlement is reduced, funding allo-
cated to South King County Multi-Service Center
Kent Rehabilitation Project Phase III shall be re-
duced 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.
Shobe clarified for Dowell that funding for Human
Services projects is over and above the 1% allo-
cated through the General Fund.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Bonnie Winkenwerder, 25019-135th SE, thanked the
Council for their continuing support of the YWCA.
Arthur Lee, Executive Director of the Emergency
Feeding Program, noted that his agency is a new
applicant to the City and thanked the Council for
their consideration. There were no further com-
ments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close
the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion
4
September 17 , 1991
COMMUNITY carried. JOHNSON MOVED to approve the 1992 Commu-
DEVELOPMENT nity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as
BLOCK GRANT recommended by the Human Services Commission and
PROGRAM City Council Planning Committee. Woods seconded
and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2C)
USE PERMIT Kent 57 Appeal. This public hearing will consider
APPEAL an appeal by the Casey Group Architects of a
denial made by the Hearing Examiner for a condi-
tional use permit to construct a 57-unit apartment
complex in a CC, Community Commercial , zoning dis-
trict. Alice Shobe of the Planning Department
noted that this area is located on the southeast
corner of 102nd Avenue SE and SE 236th. She noted
that the site is currently vacant, and pointed out
that the areas north and east of the site are
zoned CC, and the area to the west is zoned R-
1. 50. She noted that an apartment complex was
built under MRM standards prior to the rezone in
March, 1990 . She noted that the property to the
south is zoned MRM, and was rezoned from CC in
1976 . She noted that the staff recommendation was
for approval with conditions regarding applicable
zoning regulations for multifamily development,
open space, notification to the Kent School Dis-
trict, and lot-line revision. She stated that the
Hearing Examiner denied the conditional use appli-
cation on April 17 , 1991 , and that a request for
reconsideration was filed on May 1, 1991 .
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Robert Bryan
of Sylvester, Ruud, Petrie & Cruzen, 3916-42nd
Avenue SW, Seattle, attorney representing the
owners, noted that when the original conditional
use permit was denied, the Hearing Examiner sug-
gested that if four specific areas were addressed,
the application would be reconsidered. He said
the Casey Group did address those issues but that
the Hearing Examiner subsequently denied it. He
noted that the particular zone that this property
is in was not rezoned during area housing studies ,
indicating that the Council did not intend to
limit the development of this property. He stated
that he feels the proposed project is the best use
of this property and that a similar opinion was
stated by the Planning Department in their report
to the Hearing Examiner.
5
September 17 , 1991
CONDITIONAL Bryan displayed a copy of the original site plan
USE PERMIT which consisted of 6 three-bedroom apartments, 30
APPEAL two-bedroom apartments and 21 one-bedroom apart-
ments. He identified the four areas which the
Hearing Examiner wanted addressed as follows:
1) Contiguous green area not met; 2) Project
should include more one-bedroom units because
multi-bedroom units would result in more children
and more noise; 3) Impact on schools ; 4) Pedes-
trian and road improvements necessary to accommo-
date the project. He noted that a reconsideration
was requested based on a new plan which contains
53 units. He explained that the project now is
bordered by the parking area which creates a
buffer zone and addresses the issues of traffic
and noise. He said that the project now includes
28 one-bedroom units, 25 two-bedroom units and no
three-bedroom units, and that there is a concen-
tration of green area in the middle of the pro-
ject. Bryan pointed out on the map that this
location is between commercial areas and multi-
family areas. He said he felt the permit should
have been approved after the revisions were made
to the project. He said that the negative aspect
identified after reconsideration was the addition-
al children in the schools , and pointed out that
the superintendent had submitted a letter indicat-
ing that an estimated total of 13 children would
be added to Kent schools with this project, and
suggesting that the Council consider impact fees.
Bryan noted that the developer does not object to
reasonable impact fees. He also said that the
traffic flow would be improved because 236th and
102nd would be extended. He added that there
would be 100 parking spaces for 53 units , which
exceeds the City' s requirements. He also noted
that traffic impact would be less with residential
development and that because of the location of
the property, a business would not have signage
rights on the major arterials. He stated that
compatible use is the only issue, and asked the
Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner ' s decision
and grant the conditional use permit.
George Thiel , 23830-102nd Avenue SE, President and
Manager of a condominium complex south of the pro-
posed unit, said he represents 24 owners in his
complex and 28 owners in a complex south of his .
6
September 17 , 1991.
CONDITIONAL He said he feels the impact to Kent schools would
USE PERMIT be greater than 13 , and that in addition to noise,
APPEAL traffic has increased a great deal since a 96-unit
complex was built across the street. He said that
with a commercial development, traffic would be
limited to business hours and that opening the
streets from 236th to 104th will create additional
traffic problems . He urged the Council not to
approve this project.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr
seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to
remand this matter to the Hearing Examiner with a
restriction that he direct his review exclusively
to the issue of whether or not the proposed appli-
cation meets the criteria for a conditional use
permit in a CC zone. Woods seconded. Upon
White ' s question, Lubovich voiced concern about
whether the Hearing Examiner can determine what
type of unit to be built. He also noted that the
issue of whether this project is compatible with
other uses in the area, which was the basis for
denial, was not addressed. Mayor Kelleher
directed Lubovich to review the Fair Housing Equal
Opportunity Amendments Act of 1988 and other
recently adopted fair housing legislation in
regard to discrimination on the basis of family
size or type, and report his findings to him, the
Council and the Hearing Examiner. Johnson stated
that he would like the school district to let the
Council know if they are opposed to a particular
project and reasons why. Dowell noted that the
Council should try to determine whether the
Hearing Examiner erred in this case. He said he
feels the appeal should be approved. Mann pointed
out that the Council has voted to reduce multi-
family housing on East Hill , and that drainage
problems have not been addressed. The motion then
carried with Dowell and Mann voting nay.
MULTIFAMILY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2D)
DESIGN Multifamily Design Review. This public hearing
REVIEW will consider the Multifamily Design Review Re-
port as recommended by the Planning Committee and
the Planning Commission. This report outlines a
recommended design review process and criteria to
7
September 17 , 1991
MULTIFAMILY be applied in reviewing proposals for multifamily
DESIGN development. Janet Shull of the Planning Depart-
REVIEW ment noted that the Planning Commission is inter-
ested in design review as a method of addressing
some of the impacts that multifamily development
may have in the community. She noted that staff
researched other cities who currently have a
design review process . She explained that design
review applies to any proposed multifamily project
of three or more units , unless the development is
proposed in a mixed use building where multifamily
is not located on the ground floor. She noted
that the process would take place within the
framework of the existing permit review process .
She added that a handbook would be prepared out-
lining site design, landscape design, and building
design. Shull explained the recommended actions
as follows :
I . Direct Planning Department Staff to amend the
Zoning Code for an administrative design review
process for multifamily development, consistent
with option C1 as presented on page 16 of the
Multifamily Design Review report.
II . Direct Planning Department staff to develop an
illustrated Multifamilv Design Review Guidelines
Handbook.
III . Determine appropriate fees for design review
as part of the fee structure review being under-
taken by Administration.
IV. Strongly recommend that at least . 25 full time
equivalent be added to the Planning Department
upon adoption of this Multifamily Design Review.
V. Direct the Planning Commission to review the
Administrative Design Review process and Multi-
family Design Review Guidelines Handbook at least
once every three years with the first review to be
conducted within twelve months of the implementa-
tion of the process.
Upon a comment from White, Shull agreed that the
words "colors" and "materials" could be omitted
from Chapter 1 , Elements , since that section is a
definition of what design review can be.
8
September 17 , 1991
MULTIFAMILY Linda Martinez , Vice-Chair of the Planning
DESIGN Commission, noted that the plan recommended is a
REVIEW workable, effective means of achieving a better
community for all residents. She said that the
process allows enough flexibility that creative
and pleasing projects can be built, that it gives
developers a fixed, known process, and that it
gives the City the ability to influence how
multifamily development relates to the rest of the
City. She added that staffing is crucial . The
Mayor declared the public hearing open. There
were no comments from the audience and DOWELL
MOVED to close the public hearing. Mann seconded
and the motion carried. Shull clarified for White
that adding design review to the existing permit
process would add one additional informal meeting
with staff. She said the entire process usually
takes three to four months, and this would add
from one to three weeks. She also explained for
White that one option to adding the . 25 position
would be to look at the department workload and
make adjustments.
WOODS MOVED to accept the Planning Commission ' s
recommendations of approval of the Multifamily
Design Review No. ZCA-90-5 , and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Woods commended the staff and Planning Commission
for their work on this issue. Planning Manager
Satterstrom noted for Orr that the fees generated
could be used to offset the cost of staff time.
He noted that staff is proposing that review of
the design review fee be part of a fee ordinance.
Orr noted that she supports the proposal but is
concerned about not having staff to handle it.
Houser voiced concern about adding staff, and
about not knowing what the fee structure would be.
Harris noted that the Planning Department is being
asked to cut a significant amount of money from
their budget, which will affect programs, and said
they need to show the Council what is being done
now, what the demands on time are now, and what
programs would have to be deleted or adjusted to
allow time for design review. Upon Dowell ' s ques-
tion, Woods stated that White ' s comments regarding
colors and materials had been received in a
friendly fashion and that there was no need to in-
clude them in the motion. Orr agreed. The Mayor
9
September 17 , 1991
MULTIFAMILY clarified for Dowell that Council ' s direction to
DESIGN staff would be to look for ways to staff the . 25
REVIEW position within the department. White offered a
friendly amendment to delete Action Item IV
regarding the . 25 full time position. Woods did
not accept the suggestion as a friendly amendment.
WHITE MOVED to amend the motion, deleting Item IV.
Johnson seconded. The motion to amend carried
with Dowell , Johnson, Mann and White in favor and
Houser, Orr and Woods opposed. The motion to
adopt the Planning Commission ' s recommendations of
approval of the Multifamily Design Review, exclud-
ing Item IV, and directing the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance then carried.
MANAGEMENT (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
STUDY REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER WHITE
Drinking Driver Task Force. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3001 establishing the Drinking Driver Task
Force.
The recent Warner Group Management Study recom-
mended 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 appoint-
ment of Task Force members and administrative
staff, and providing that the Drinking Driver Task
Force staff report to the Chief of Police for
administrative purposes . The City Council is
asked to pass the proposed ordinance implementing
these recommendations.
White noted that the Task: Force has been very
successful , in part because of community partici-
pation. He voiced concern that it is now being
limited to eleven members appointed by the Mayor
and confirmed by the Council . He said that would
limit citizen participation and open the way for
political appointments . The Mayor noted that his
intent would be to appoint the people who present-
ly serve on the Task Force, and that he had pre-
pared a memo to that effect . White pointed out
that the people being appointed are presently com-
mittee chairs, and there is no involvement for
10
September 17 , 1991
MANAGEMENT anyone on the committee. Dowell asked whether the
STUDY intent of this action is to reduce the size of the
Task Force. Lynda Anderson, Coordinator of the
Drinking Driver Task Force, noted that the
ordinance was designed to reflect the participa-
tion in the Task Force. She pointed out that the
Steering Committee has been roughly eleven people,
and that the individuals who are currently serving
are people who have been very active and shown a
long-term volunteer interest, as well as people
who are professionally involved in the field of
traffic safety. ,
Lubovich explained that the ordinance serves to
formalize the Drinking Driver Task Force and to
implement a portion of the Warner Group Study
which recommends that the Task Force report to the
Police Department.
HOUSER MOVED for the adoption of Ordinance 3001
establishing the Drinking Driver Task Force. Mann
seconded. Houser pointed out that although many
volunteers contribute to the Task Force, the
members of the Steering Committee set the param-
eters and keep the programs going. She said there
is a need for an ordinance legalizing the Task
Force and placing it under the Police Department.
White pointed out that the Task Force was pre-
viously in the Police Department without an ordi-
nance, and that it was moved to Administration.
He agreed that it should be under the Police
Department, but felt an ordinance is not neces-
sary. Lubovich clarified that the Task Force has
not been operating illegally, and that although an
ordinance is not required, the idea was to effec-
tuate a formal transfer and to set up a procedure
for making appointments. Dowell pointed out that
the Public Safety Committee has not been involved
in this matter, and that only the Operations Com-
mittee has had an opportunity to study it.
The motion then carried with Dowell voting nay.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1992 Budget_ 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
11
September 17 , 1991
BUDGET meeting, the Council received a preview of the
Mayor ' s proposal to balance the budget. Finance
Director McCarthy noted that there have been
continuing downturns in the local economy and that
the budget is approximately $5 . 9 million out of
balance. He explained the balancing proposal as
follows:
Reducing the General Fund Contin- $2 , 300 , 000
gency to $500, 000 after adding
approximately $800 , 000 for Utility
Tax Accrual
Using Unemployment and CIP Transfers 1, 075 , 851
Increasing Departmental Revenues 514 , 000
Cutting Departmental Budget except 867 , 646
positions (one time only, 30%
Professional Development, extending
vehicle lives, department proposed cuts)
Establishing a salary credit to be 1, 177 , 116
allocated to Departmental Budgets to be
offset with vacant positions _
55 934 , 483
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. Upon
a question from Bill Doolittle, 412 N. Washington,
the Mayor explained that the City Attorney has
been asked to negotiate an extension of the City' s
pullout from Aukeen Court and therefore funding
for a municipal court is being deferred for one
year.
Doolittle pointed out that there is no dollar
amount attached to Item CW 13 , Eliminate Manage-
ment Benefits and Non-Public Safety Overtime. In
regard to CW20, Utilize Cuts Proposed by Depart-
ments, he noted that the Parks Department has
several human services programs such as the
Special Populations Resource Center, which already
operate on limited funds , and expressed hope that
they are not included in the budget cuts.
12
September 17 , 1991
BUDGET There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing.
Houser seconded and the motion carried. Mayor
Kelleher noted that there will be further public
hearings on the 1992 budget.
FINANCE Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through September 16 , 1991 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its meet-
ing at 4 : 45 p.m. on September 24 , 1991 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/1-9/16/91 109418-109886 $2 , 590, 246 . 39
Approval of checks issued for payroll :
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/20/91 01161001-01161709 $ 630 , 606 . 05
REPORTS Planning Committee. Johnson noted that two items
concerning regional issues will soon come before
the Council . The first item deals with full time
staffing for the Suburban Cities Association, and
the second with taking a position on the King
County-Metro merger.
Public Safety Committee. Mann announced that the
Public Safety Committee will meet on Thursday,
September 19th at 1 : 00 p.m. , and will be discus-
sing a comprehensive bike policy. He noted that
there will be several outside speakers and invited
anyone interested to attend.
Administration Reports. Lubovich drew the Coun-
cil ' s attention to an opinion enclosed in the
packet regarding campaign signs on public rights-
of-way.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 p.m.
Brenda Jacober, MC
Deputy City Cle k
13
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: IMPERIAL LANE SHORT PI-AT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by Imperial Builders, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 240 feet of sanitary sewer
constructed in the vicinity of S . E. 248th Street and 108th
Avenue S . E. for the Imperial Line Short Plat and release of cash
bond after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
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. 3C �(
TY MAP
I ,]
....7-' �/7 ___ ly f 1II 11• _._.. I II Sf .ice� ..
r ;y�y' �•'rr '.'_.,I TS' 1
-S( I it ate_.rl ^
r�
ci
KEN
.
7 ! 1
ST
— b .� . u�4 .
4 —� ....�... ......� .... .... . ..... . .... ......Vj .. . ..\..:��..... ........ .... ............ ... ........
' I L Co f
f I TE o
-21
.. ......... ... ........ . . . .. .... ;. . ... . ...... . ... ..... .. ...... .......
;07-
�F--
•it '25?.T S T a a
z j z IMPERIAL LANE
:ncoi I -TT $ { = _ SHORT PLAT
K E N T
`.R 1TR�lfTN S T
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
i
1. SUBJECT: LEBLANC GARDENS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by Schneider Homes, Inc. for continuous operation and
maintenance of approximately 1, 130 feet of water main extension,
1, 091 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 420 of street improve-
ments and 567 feet of storm sewer improvements, constructed in
the vicinity of S . E. 232nd and 100th Avenue South and 112th Ave.
S.E. for the LeBlanc Gardens project and release of cash bond
after expiration of the one-year maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Conmission, 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. 3DA
G 1
Y •��5E;j2177H S? I.
LSE 2167H ST I
5E 216TH216T�H PE ��—�'
F �
SE 219TH Pl. wl
�
SE 220TH RVE SCALE : I = 1 /4 MI.
r
SE 22380 STFT
a —'
J
225TH ST
a �5
5E 2
5 2261N
r
SE 227TH PL
SE 232Nd. ST
P�-
IVL
2281 H
�--'--
IJ ! �
SE ORCH,9R0 ERIOi R,Y ��
EL Ely. i11 �f� >
SCHOOL z t SE 23151 P PFIHi( <v �y 5T
^�
Sao YgpSZS4 S �� x
llg-4TH ST
4 N SE '234TH ST
n
scHao� _sE ,I 231T InLl �'
5E 236�.1 ST '
I
Si 175�
li
� �v �.
N
c-
2")TH S T
1 z ''
1
44TH
245TH
r
w G 14��
e
a 5E-tl Tt,
" LEBLANC GARDENS w I ..F PS 2 'P H ST P�— --
w 0- N d
' `� T
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 102ND AVENUE APARTMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by Larry L. Bramhall , DBA 102nd Avenue Apartments for continuous
and maintenance of approximately 916 feet of water main
extension, 420 feet of street improvements and 28 feet of storm
sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of S .E. 236th and
102nd Avenue S . E. for the 102nd Avenue Apartments project and
release of cash bond after expiration of the one-year
maintenance period.
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
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. 3E
.. .. ..... n.L.�.!•w4+.J"9::,''.tVtiaT�'i..N'.C"S.�`-��ll LSaCeYi. w � A.^:.'h"t:�i f.�'U'..ati".n� t �..k .'a._, d t� .c .:!Aro . . -
d
o
1
E Yk
2
102ND AVENUE
APARTMENTS
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL CARRIAGE AND ANTIQUE MALL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of the bill of sale submitted
by Metropolitan Federal Savings and Loan Association for
continuous operation and maintenance of approximately 218 feet
of sanitary sewer constructed in the vicinity of 101st Avenue
S.E. and South 260th Street for East Hill Carriage and Antique
Mall.
3 . EXHIBITS: vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ __
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves , Councilmember _seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
1if
, f r.
W a
�9 -a;�• `� w 5E 25157 51 l_
5 252 ST
rr•
" 'L"HlJPUS f
7
N d) W 1N
�3 CO♦ � ni m Sl �� 1n I •lP �'
H H ERST
SE 256TM Si
l� 5§ 2567n Si -J
D �J
9 ag��6 x
AAArAAAZs'.' V ^I x 5F zs5?M s
'9RK t Ir
SE 260?tf 5T
259in
EtY.(C H1w14 —
cyx3�CyVd� 9w51 *•n w CY � sy x,s`4t�v F9 y{„ �L, i' y t ,:..i � � � .
d''
P"� °� �'` t {" K..�yt 2 ,5'•� ,a x"� ��,rc.-Ce.Sh��cTHlt� ✓9q .yj � v.. w 4,�' %��. Eli...,.
{ �. �P � S.r. �A�rM. a F � .y 'e > }i'-4"� fie♦ tr rta' �i T 0:�i,a � � ;
,. '" �- 7�tfv�' A�' f s �s'{#�=7- `" >: /l�ri�1"'J`G�'. OL *r r 'l w __•p,�.y�R * ,,�� �
W
d y r. '
,SE 25 n
-- II IF
1.
E 'S_ 2715' Ci
IN-
-Jl
L12 4�
—5��.=— F� , IJ._JIL.._r r I� I;�,
i
I
275Tj� Sc— I� H�—
II st 276T,. � � 22e111
a
277iH P
"r'
� I
I I!
EAST HILL CARRIAGE —
& ANTIQUE MALL
P II:t i
zse�rl 'I
— i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DOVER COURT STORM DRAINAGE OUTFALL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, adoption of Ordinance .? ('U'� authorizing condemnation
for right-of-way in order to proceed with the storm drainage
outfall project for the Dover Court area.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, excerpt from the Public Works Committee
minutes and vicinity map
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 da
Item No. 3G
i
i
I
it
I
jI
I
ORDINANCE NO.
j AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, providing for the acquisition of a
j permanent easement for storm drainage purposes
over certain property in order to improve,
alter, install , operate and maintain a storm
drainage system mainly located in the area of j
the Cambridge East Subdivision; providing for
'I the payment thereof from the City's
Miscellaneous Storm Drainage Improvement Fund;
and providing for the condemnation of such
property rights as necessary therefor; all of
said properties located within King County,
Washington.
l
THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
j FOLLOWS :
I
Section 1 . The City of Kent ("City" ) authorizes the
j acquisition by condemnation of two parcels of real property,
�I Parcel Nos. 145701 and 147231, all located in King County,
Washington and legally described in Exhibits A through B, which
iiare attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference j
j' (hereinafter, the "Properties" ) .
i
Section 2 . The public convenience, use and necessity
fdemand that the City condemn the Properties in order to acquire an'!
easement for storm drainage purposes , which purposes shall includei,
all acts necessary or that may, from time to time, become
necessary to complete the improvement, alteration, installation,
operation and maintenance of said storm drainage system.
I I
I
i
ij
j
Section 3 . The City shall condemn the Properties only
after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for ,
! the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law.
Section 4 . The City shall pay for the entire cost of the
acquisition by condemnation provided for in this Ordinance through ':
the City's Miscellaneous Storm Drainage Improvement Fund, or from
any of the City's general funds, if necessary, as may be provided
by law.
!
Section 5 . The City authorizes and directs the City
Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are
necessary to condemn the Properties . In conducting the
( condemnation proceedings, the City authorizes the City Attorney to
; enter into stipulations in order to minimize damages, which
( stipulations may include, but not be limited to, size and
;; dimensions of the Property condemned, construction easements and
i
'; other property interests .
Section 6 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
;, effect and be in force thirty ( 30) days from and after its
1 passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
i
;j
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
I
( ATTEST:
I �
i
i
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
II
- 2 -
i
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO.
Parcel No 145701.
That portion of Lot 33 Cambridge East Division #1 as
recorded in Volume 100 of plats, page 90 in King County,
Washington described as follows:
A strip of land 10. 00 feet in width in which the
centerline of said strip begins on the southerly line of
said lot at a point 1.97 feet westerly of said lot' s
easterly corner being the True Point of Beginning of
centerline herein described; thence North 09 °04111" West
a distance of 107. 38 feet to a point on the northerly
line of said lot being the terminus of said 10. 00 foot
strip.
Containing 1009 . 80 square feet.
EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO.
Parcel No. 147231.
That portion of Lot 26 Cambridge East Division #3 as
recorded in Volume 109 of plats, pages 74 and 75 in King
County, Washington. A strip of land 10. 00 feet in width
in which the centerline of said strip begins at a point
on the northeasterly line of said lot which point lies a
distance of 62 . 58 feet southeasterly from the most
northerly corner of said lot being the True Point of
Beginning of said strip; thence South 9004111" East a
distance of 63 .25 feet to a point on the southerly line
of said lot and the terminus of said centerline.
Containing 632 . 54 square feet.
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 6
was an inquiry as to how the boundary of this annexation was
developed. Wickstrom indicated that the Public Works Department
looked at what would be a reasonable boundary to consider without
splitting properties. Dowell asked about the status of the
272nd/277th corridor and whether the Council will be hearing some
discussion on it soon. Wickstrom explained that the EIS has to be
completed and any appeal process finalized before it can be brought
before Council. Wickstrom stated that the traffic modeling has
been completed and the draft EIS should be completed in
approximately three months. A member of the audience indicated
that the corridor would definitely be an informational issue that
those impacted by this annexation will want to know about. Leona
Orr moved that the Public Works Committee recommend proceeding with
the East Hill annexation with the boundary modification as
recommended by the Public Works Director and subject to the City' s
existing indebtedness . The Committee unanimously agreed.
Jim White asked Roger Lubovich his opinion about what Council can
or can not hear on the corridor project. Roger Lubovich indicated
that his predecessor had issued an opinion that no Council member
could communicate with residents in the community regarding the
corridor because of the SEPA process. He continued that he will be
reviewing that opinion in that it is his understanding that case
law indicates that only at such time as there is an appeal pending
should this communication be restricted. He stressed the case
isn 't real clear so he wants to look at it again and provide the
Council an opinion at the next Committee meeting.
Authorization for Condemnation - Dover Court Storm Drainage
Wickstrom explained that we have a project designed to reroute the
drainage system in the Dover Court area to relieve an erosion
problem. We have been unable to obtain two of the necessary
easements in order to proceed with the project. Wickstrom
explained that we will continue to negotiate with the property
owners but are requesting authorization to condemn if negotiations
are not successful . The Committee unanimously recommended
approval.
Authorization for Condemnation - LID 3.38 - Westview Terrace
Wickstrom explained that we have been unsuccessful in obtaining an
easement on one parcel in order to proceed with this sewer LID. We
would like authorization to proceed with condemnation if we
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 12, 1991
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom )�A;
RE: Authorization for Condemnation - Dover Court storm
Drainage
The Public Works Department is designing a storm drainage outfall
system for the Dover Court area which is intended to relieve a
hillside erosion problem.
We have been unsuccessful in securing the necessary storm drainage
easements for the two properties delineated on your attached map.
We are continuing to negotiate with the property owner but in order
to proceed with the project, we are requesting authorization to
proceed with condemnation if those negotiations continue to prove
unproductive.
�
\ � AVvV AvA\VQV\\V 1VA ZF a' v - i ( 1V� � �.
`V i m
;•.avwv
n �
4 I
� m
S 263 R D ST i
f-- —— --�, m
__nn U
Ej C7 F
4�� � 1 ��� c�L� C� �� ,v,yi�aglwvl\vv,�I'I�d, o _ ❑ � - -_�'v
KENT CT'
FUT R 1 �
SOMER CT
CD
AMP,AS/(,C _ �. �ii1q, ` \�' G� vA�V�v1�V1V
WAY
CD
> C/? �.it �I E-1
I (U
�Z �
J \� \ I o f vA;d'�
v
rl
CITI
J>fTlco
C �r nl. (�_ �, �C7 V�1 v1,y V V �• o
lCJi` II1\ \ , 1 � VI
L\
� �M �
_. (�'J \�lt� �`�� / �i�✓ /%/ l ll,i it \ , \1,1\
m0
I o��li,liv I,�, i, v
n ___-e y
IT1
war \- ��(•• v
i!11 \'!\\•
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1, 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: TOWING AND IMPOUND OF VEHICLES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance ?0(' d setting out
procedures as to when a vehicle may be impounded without prior
notice, with notice, and how the impound is to occur. Cars will
be towed when abandoned.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety and Kent Police Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
- i
i
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to the towing and
impoundment of vehicles, authorizing local
impound situations upon the public right-of-
way or other publicly controlled property,
establishing a written form of the City' s
authority to impound, and directing the
adherence by towing operators of all other
procedures related to towing, impound,
storage, redemption and sale of impound
vehicles as set forth in Chapter 46. 55 RCW.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
; ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title and Purpose. This ordinance shall be
'Iknown and cited as the Kent Towing Ordinance. The purpose of this
ordinance is to set forth certain situations in which unauthorized
or illegally parked vehicles shall be towed and impounded. This
ordinance shall supplement the authority granted to police officers
; under Chapter 46. 55 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) .
i
I
Section 2 . Definitions. The definitions set forth in
; this section will apply throughout this ordinance:
A. "Abandoned vehicle" means a vehicle that a
registered tow truck operator has impounded and held in the
; operator' s possession for ninety-six consecutive hours. I
I�
i
I
i�
I�
i
i
I �
jI
� B. "Impound" means the removal of a vehicle to a
i
Storage facility upon the direction of either a public officer or
authorized agent of the Kent Police Department or by a contractor
for towing and storage in response to a request from a public
lofficer or authorized agent of the Kent Police Department.
I
C. "Vehicle" shall mean every device capable of being
moved upon a street or alley and in, upon, or by which any person
or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a street or
, alley excepting devices moved exclusively by human or animal power
,ior used exclusively upon stationary tracks or rails .
i!
Section 2 . When a Vehicle May be Impounded Without Prior
! Notice. A vehicle may be impounded with or without citation and
without giving prior notice to its owner as required in Section 5
lof this ordinance only under the following circumstances:
A. When the vehicle is impeding or is likely to impede
the normal flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or whenever a
' police officer finds a vehicle standing upon the roadway in
violation of any of the provisions of RCW 46 . 61 . 560 (or as it may
; be hereafter amended) , the officer may provide for the removal of
the vehicle or require the driver or other person in charge of the
': vehicle to move the vehicle to a position off the roadway; or
,I
B. When the vehicle is illegally occupying a tow-away
zone, fire lane, loading zone, bus, hooded-meter, taxi, or other
[ similar zone, where, by order of the Director of Public Works, or
Chiefs of Police or Fire, parking is limited to designated classes
I
Hof vehicles or is prohibited during certain hours, on designated
I days or at all times, and where such vehicle is interfering with
lthe proper and intended use of such zones ; or
I
it 2
�I
i
�I
l
II I
I i
I
C. When the vehicle poses an immediate danger to the
public safety; or
II I
D. Whenever a police officer finds an unattended
!, vehicle at the scene of an accident or when the driver of a vehicle
Ilinvolved in an accident is physically or mentally incapable, or too
!I
;! intoxicated, to decide upon steps to be taken to protect his or her
;; property; or
t
I
I� E. Whenever the driver of a vehicle is arrested and
1taken into custody by a police officer, and the driver, because of
,! intoxication or otherwise, is mentally incapable of deciding upon
steps to be taken to safeguard his or her property; or
it
I
F. Whenever a police officer discovers a vehicle that
':' the officer determines to be a stolen vehicle; or
i
j G. Whenever a police officer has probable cause to
believe that the vehicle constitutes evidence of a crime or
;; contains evidence of a crime, if impoundment is reasonably
I
I;' necessary in such instance to obtain or preserve such evidence; or
!i
i
I
H. Whenever a vehicle without a special license plate,
; card, or decal indicating that the vehicle is being used to
�I transport a disabled person pursuant to RCW 46. 16. 381, is parked in
'i
ja stall or space clearly and conspicuously marked under RCW
i
46. 61. 381 which space is provided on private property without
I
charge or on public property; or
i
it I
3
I
f
1
i
I. Whenever a police officer directs impoundment
pursuant to a court order; or
I i
J. When the unauthorized vehicle is parked on private
, residential property, and the owner or his/her designee authorizes
;fits removal in writing; or
I
K. When the unauthorized vehicle is parked on private,
i! nonresidential property, which has been properly posted pursuant to
RCW 46. 55 . 070.
L. Nothing in this section may derogate from the powers
of police officers under the common law. Nothing in this section
, shall be construed to authorize seizure of a vehicle without a
, warrant where a warrant would otherwise be required.
Section 3 . When a Vehicle May be Impounded After Notice.
A vehicle not subject to impoundment under Section 2 of this
ordinance may be impounded after notice of such proposed
impoundment has been securely attached to and conspicuously
; displayed on the vehicle for a period of twenty-four (24) hours
,', prior to such impoundment, for the following reasons:
A. When such vehicle is parked and/or used in violation
., of any law, ordinance or regulation; or
B. When such vehicle is so mechanically defective as to
be unsafe for operation; provided, however, that this section shall
not be construed to prevent the operation of any such defective
), vehicle to a place for correction of the equipment defect in the
lmanner directed by any police officer; or
l
4
it
i
I
i
i
i
I
�I
I
�I
I
C. When such vehicle has been abandoned or left
unattended on a highway and tagged as described in RCW 46. 55. 085;
or
I
D. When such vehicle has been parked or stored on
private, nonresidential property, which property has not been
Ilposted in the manner described in RCW 46. 55. 070.
Section 4 . How Impoundment is to be Effected.
A. When impoundment is authorized by this ordinance, a
j vehicle may be impounded either by an officer, an authorized agent
of the Police Department, other public official with jurisdiction,
for by a contractor for towing and storage acting at the request of
such officer or official .
I
II
B. The officer, authorized agent of the Police
Department or public official of the City requesting the impound
shall provide a signed authorization for the impound at the time
! and place of the impound to the registered tow truck operator
( before the operator may proceed with the impound.
I
�j Section 5. Owner of Impounded Vehicle to be Notified.
i
At the time of impoundment, the towing operator shall
;''; notify the vehicle ' s owner and the Police Department, all as
i
!! provided in Chapter 46. 55 RCW.
I
II
Section 6. Redemption Abandonment and Sale of Impounded
( Vehicles. Vehicles impounded by the towing operator shall be
I
' redeemed or sold as set forth in Chapter 46 . 55 RCW.
!I I
i
�! 5
�i I
II
II
III
Section 7 . violations Constituting Abandoning
Evidence -- Penalty.
A. No person shall wilfully leave an abandoned vehicle
on private property for more than twenty-four (24) hours without
i the permission of the person having the right to possession of the
property, or a wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or
lautomobile hulk on a street, alley or way open to the public for
twenty-four (24) hours or longer without notification to the Chief
of Police of the reasons for leaving the motor vehicle in such a
( place. Any such vehicle or hulk may be cited, towed and impounded
H, as provided for in this ordinance. For the purposes of this
i
; section, the fact that a motor vehicle has been so left without
ipermission or notification is prima facie evidence of abandonment.
j
i
B. Any person found to have abandoned a vehicle or hulk
shall, in addition to any penalty imposed, also be assessed any
ii costs incurred by the City in towing or disposing of such abandoned
. vehicles or hulks, less any monies accruing to the City from such
disposal .
Section 8 . Severability. The provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion
of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to
'i
any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to
i
other persons or circumstances.
I
j
.I ii
it 6
I
I
I
I
i
i
� I
I
I�
I
i
Section 9 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take I
effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and
publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
'I
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I
i
I
Ij �
i11APPROVED AS TO FORM:
!
i
:iROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
; PASSED the day of , 1991.
' APPROVED the day of 1991.
PUBLISHED the day of 1991.
�i
jI hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of j
Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of
; Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as j
hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
j; towing.ord
ii
I
II 7
I
I,
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT AIDE DUTIES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance allowing the
Parking Enforcement Aide to cite and authorizing the towing of
illegally parked vehicles .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Police Staff and Public Safety Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended_
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I4
it
i
i
i
I
i
I
II
i
i
if ORDINANCE NO.
j�
AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending
Ordinance 2045 to expand the powers
and duties of the Parking
Enforcement Aide to include the
jl necessary ability to authorize
towing of vehicles.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent has adopted an ordinance
relating to towing of vehicles, setting forth the circumstances
lin which vehicles parked in violation of its provisions shall be
towed (Ordinance No. ) ; and
ii
WHEREAS, the ordinance allows certain City officials,
j officers, or employees to authorize the towing of vehicles under
those limited situations; and
i
WHEREAS, the duties and powers of the Parking
Enforcement Aide, as set forth in Ordinance 2045 do not include
lithe ability to authorize the towing of vehicles parked in
ii
violation of the City' s parking regulations; NOW, THEREFORE,
i
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
+! HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
I
Section 1. Section 4 (Kent City Code Section 4 . 23 . 040)
i
•, of Ordinance 2045 is hereby amended to read as follows:
i
l
it
4
ij
i
!i
i
Section 4 . DUTIES. The duties of the
Parking Enforcement Aide shall include
patrolling assigned areas of the City to
detect violation of the City' s parking
regulations, to issue citations to violators
parking regulations and authorize towing of
vehicles parked in violation of parking
regulations, to appear in court to testify
when so required, and to perform related work
as assigned.
•I
!; Section 2 . Section 5 (KCC Section 4 . 23 . 050) of
( Ordinance 2045 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 5 . POWERS . The Parking Enforcement
Aide shall not have the power of arrest, but
shall have authority to issue and serve
citations and complaints for violation of
ii City parking regulations; provided, that a
copy of any such complaint shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court of Traffic
Violations Bureau within forty-eight hours
after its issuance. In addition, the Parking
Enforcement Aide shall have the ability to
authorize the towing of vehicles parked in
violation of parking regulations.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
, effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and
, publication as provided by law.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ii
i
II
;I
i
2
i
.i
iI
I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CANYON DRIVE - CHANGE OF SPEED LIMIT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance reducing the
speed limit on Canyon Drive from 40 mph to 30 mph because of
construction between Hazel Avenue South and 94th Avenue South.
4-(%
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner. , Commission, etc. )
Note - to be considered by the Public Works Committee,
October 1, 1992 .
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J)�
ii
i
I
i.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, relating to speed limits, amending
Kent City Code Chapter 10. 08 relating to Canyon
Drive (SR 516) (0. 2163 , §5 ; 0 . 2265, §2 ; 0 . 2405,
§1 ; 0 . 2821, §1 ; 0 . 2845 , §1)
WHEREAS, the City of Kent and the Washington State �
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have previously set the
i
! maximum speed limit on the Canyon Drive (SR 516) from the
Ii
lintersection Hazel Avenue to the intersection of 100 Avenue S.E.
Ito be 40 miles per hour, (Kent City Code [KCC] 10 . 08 . 081) ; and
i
j WHEREAS , The City is now engaged in construction and
! improvement of a portion of the Canyon Drive (SR 516) between
' Hazel Avenue S . and 94 Avenue S . , an area covered by the above
, speed limit; and
WHEREAS , as a result of the construction, conditions have
' been created on the roadway warranting a reduction in the speed
'llimit from 40 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour for safe and
:; reasonable vehicular operation ; and
j
WHEREAS, restoration of the original speed limit is
!: contemplated after the completion of construction and installation
of traffic control devices, or in approximately three month's
time; and
ii
WHEREAS, RCW 47 . 48 . 010 authorizes the governing body of a !
i1city to declare a lower maximum speed limit during periods of
: improvement and construction on city streets; and
I
I
i
li
j WHEREAS, this portion of the Canyon Drive (SR 516)
satisfies the definition of a 'city street' as set forth in RCW
i
47 . 04 . 010 (6) , as a portion of a highway partly located within the
limits of the city of Kent; and
WHEREAS, notice of the effective date of the speed
iireduction on this portion of the Canyon Drive (SR 516) has been
published in one issue of a newspaper of general circulation, to
comport with the notice provisions of RCW 47 . 48 . 020 ; and
I; WHEREAS, this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate
preservation of public peace, health and safety, therefore the
! support of City government at its existing public institutions and '
' by reason of the facts above stated is necessary and an emergency
'' is hereby declared to exist in accordance with RCW 35A. 11. 090 ;
I; NOW, THEREFORE,
I'
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
; HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1. Chapter 10 . 08 of the Kent City Code relating
:Ito speed limits within the City of Kent is amended as follows:
j
10 . 08 . 020. INCREASING OR DECREASING SPEED LIMIT IN
CERTAIN ZONES. It is determined on the basis of an engineering
land traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law
i
jupon some of the following streets is less and, in some cases,
;', more than is necessary for safe operation of vehicles thereon by
; reason of the designation and sign posting of said streets as
I
H arterial highways, and by reason of widely spaced intersections
and by reason of traffic thereof as disclosed by studies, and it
t
is declared that the speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth
on those streets or parts of streets herein designated, at the
it
i
- 2 -
I
r
times specified, when signs are erected giving notice thereof, but
jin no case shall the speed limit exceed fifty-five miles per hour. )
The streets and/or part of streets, speed limits and
i
.! times referred to herein are as follows:
i
Name of Street or Speed
Portions Affected Limit When
10. 08. 021 Pacific Highway South
(SR 99) from a point
i
530 feet south of the
intersection of South
252nd Street to the
intersection of
Kent-Des Moines Road 45 mph At all times
j 10. 08 . 022 Military Road south-
bound from Kent-
Des Moines Road to
the intersection of
South 250th Street 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 023 Military Road from
the intersection of
South 250th Street
to the intersection
of South 268th Street 40 mph At all times
10. 08 . 024 Military Road from the
intersection of Kent-
Des Moines Road to a
point 2110 feet north
of the intersection of
Kent-Des Moines Road 40 mph At all times
i
10. 08 . 025 Reith Road from the
intersection of Kent-
Des Moines Road to the j
intersection of
Military Road 35 mph At all time!
10 . 08 . 026 Lake Fenwick Road from
the intersection of
Reith Road to the
intersection of South
264th Street 35 mph At all times
' I
3
it
10. 08 . 027 Lake Fenwick Road south-
bound from the inter-
section of South 264th
Streets to Section Line
27-22-4 35 mph At all times
i
10. 08 . 028 Frager Road from the
intersection of South
212th Street to the
intersection of South
204th Street 25 mph At all times
i
10. 08 . 029 Russell Road from the j
intersection of Kent-
Des Moines Road to the
intersection of South
196th Street 25 mph At all times
I
10. 08 . 030 62nd Avenue South from
the intersection of South
190th Street to the
intersection of South
196th Street 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 031 54th Avenue South from
the intersection of
South 228th Street to
the intersection of
South 212th Street 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 032 58th Avenue South from
the end of the street
to the intersection of
I
South 212th Street 35 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 033 64th Avenue South from
the intersection of
South 190th Street to
the end of the
street (SR 516) 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 034 66th Avenue South from
the intersection of
South 190th Street to
the intersection of
South 196th Street 35 mph At all times
i
i
4 -
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
i
10. 08 . 035 West Valley Highway
i (68th Avenue South)
northbound from a I
point 370 feet north
of the intersection
of South 190th Street
to the south right-of-
way line of South 180th
j Street 50 mph At all times
i
10. 08 . 036 West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South)
from point 583 . 7
�j feet north of the
�I intersection of Morton
Street (S . 238th) to
i the intersection of
S. 212th St. 35 mph At all times
I I
West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South)
from the intersection
of S. 212th St. to a
point 370 feet� p north
i
of S. 190th St. 50 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 037 West Valley Highway
(Washington Avenue)
from a point 583 . 7
feet north of the
intersection of Morton
Street to the inter-
section of Meeker
Street 35 mph At all times
I� 10. 08 . 038 West Valley Highway
(Washington Avenue)
�j from the inter-
section of Meeker
Street to a point
180 feet north of
�I the intersection
of South 262nd
Street 40 mph At all times
I I
i
li I
I I
I
5 -
i
i
�I
i
I
j
i
10 . 08. 039 West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South)
northbound from a
section corner
25-22-4 to a point
i
180 feet north of
the intersection
of South 262nd
Street 50 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 040 West Valley Highway
j� (68th Avenue South)
northbound from
section corner
25-22-4 to the
north right-of-way
line of South
277th Street 50 mph At all times
I!
10. 08 . 041 70/72nd Avenue South
from the intersection
of South 228th Street
I to the intersection
of South 180 Street 35 mph At all times
I
10. 08 . 042 74th Avenue South from
the intersection of
SR 516 to the Union
Pacific Railroad
1 Bridge on South
259th Street 35 mph At all times
I
10 . 08 . 043 76th Avenue South from
it the intersection of
South 228th Street
to the intersection
of South 212th Street 35 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 044 North Fourth Avenue
from the intersection
of South 228th Street
to the underpass of
SR 167 35 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 045 North Fourth Avenue
from the underpass of
+I SR 167 to the inter-
section of Willis
Street 30 mph At all times
- 6 -
I� '
!i I
i
!I i
i
10. 08 . 046 80th Avenue South from
the South right-of-way
line of South 180th
! Street to the inter-
section of South 196th
Street 35 mph At all times
Ij 10 . 08 . 047 80th Place South from j
80th Avenue South to
the intersection of
84th Avenue South j
(190th Street) 35 mph At all times
j
10. 08 . 048 77th Avenue South from
South 212th Street
to the end of the
ii Street) 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 049 Frontage Road from the
intersection of South
262nd Street to the
intersection of South j
277th Street 35 mph At all times
!
10 . 08 . 050 84th Avenue South from
the south right-of-way
line of South 180th
Street to the inter-
section of South
224th Street 40 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 051 84th Avenue South from
the intersection of
South 224th Street to
the intersection of
South 228th Street 35 mph At all times
i
10 . 08 . 052 Central Avenue from
James Street to
Willis Street 30 mph At all times
i
!, 1
10 . 08 . 053 North Central Avenue
from the intersection
of South 228th Street
jto the intersection of
of James Street 35 mph At all times
j
10. 08 . 054 South Central Avenue
from the intersection
! of Willis Street to
the Green River Bridge 40 mph At all times
7
i
I�
I
Ili I
it
'I
i
I 10. 08 . 055 88th Avenue South from
the intersection of
South 228th Street to
the east City limits 25 mph At all times
10. 08 . 056 Reiten Road from Titus
Street to Maple Street 30 mph At all times
10. 08 . 057 Maple Street from Reiten
Road to Tilden Avenue 30 mph At all times
III
10. 08 . 058 Woodland Way South from
Tilden Avenue to the
intersection of SE 267th
Street 30 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 059 SE 267th Street from the
intersection of Woodland
jWay to a point 30 feet
east of 102nd Avenue SE 30mph At all times
10. 08 . 060 101st Avenue SE from the
intersection of SE 256th
Street to the inter-
section of SE 260th
,I
Street 30 mph At all times
10. 08 . 061 104th Avenue South
(SR 515) southbound
from a point 492 feet
i
north of the inter-
section of SE 236th
Place to a point 100
feet north of the
j� intersection of SE
236th Place 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 062 104th Avenue South
n
(SR 515) from a point
� 100 feet north of the
intersection of SE
236th Place to a point
i
659 feet south of the
intersection of SE
260th Street 35 mph At all times
!� 10. 08 . 063 On 108th Avenue SE from
Kent-Kangley Road to
the City Limits 35 mph At all times
I �
j - 8 -
i
I
I
i
10. 08. 064 116th Avenue SE from
the north City limits
to the intersection of
Kent-Kangley Road
(SR 516) 35 mph At all times
I
10. 08. 065 South 190th Street from
the intersection of West
Valley Highway (68th
Avenue South) to the
intersection of
it
62nd Ave. South 35 mph At all times
11 10. 08 . 066 South 194th Street from
the intersection of
66th Avenue South to
the intersection of
i
Russell Road 35 mph At all times
10 . 08. 067 South 196th Street from
the intersection of
West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South) to
the intersection of
58th Place South 35 mph At all times
j 10. 08 . 068 South 208th Street from
the intersection of
84th Avenue South to
the west quarter of
Section 6-22-5 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 069 South 212th Street west
city limits to the
east City limits 45 mph At all times
10 . 08. 070 South 216th Street from
the intersection of
64th Avenue South to
the intersection of
72nd Avenue South 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 071 South 220th Street from
the intersection of
West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South) to
the intersection of
72nd Avenue South 35 mph At all times
�I
� I
- 9 -
I
I
10. 08 . 072 SE 228th Street from
the intersection of
Central Avenue to the
end of the street 25 mph At all times
I�
10. 08 . 073 South 228th Street from
the intersection of
Russell Road to the
i; intersection of West
Valley Highway (68th
III Avenue South (0. 2660) 35 mph At all times
I� 10. 08 . 074 South 228th Street from
jthe intersection of
West Valley Highway
(68th Avenue South) to
the intersection of
84th Avenue South 40 mph At all times
10. 08 . 075 James Street from the
intersection of Russell
Road to a point 558 feet
east of the intersection
of 116th Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 076 Smith Street (SR 516)
from the intersection of
Lincoln Avenue to the
intersection of Hazel
Avenue 30 mph At all times
10. 08 . 077 Meeker Street from the
intersection of Kent-
Des Moines Road to a
point 500 feet west of
the intersection of
West Valley Highway
(Washington Avenue) 40 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 078 Meeker Street from a
point 500 feet west of
the intersection of
West Valley Highway
(Washington Avenue)
it to the intersection
State Avenue 30 mph At all time
I�(
I! �
' - 10 -
i
j
I
10. 08. 079 Gowe Street from a
point 100 feet west
of the intersection
of Sixth Avenue North
to the intersection
of Kennebeck Avenue 25 mph At all times
I
10 . 08 . 080 Willis Street from the
� intersection of North
Fourth Avenue to the
intersection of South
Central Avenue 30 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 081 eanyen-Br4:de-{SR-516}
li €rem-the-in€erseehien
I e€-HaEe�-A�enxe-fie-the
�i in�e�seehien-e€-�96�h
Avenge-SE 35-mph h�-a��-himes
Canyon Drive (SR 516)
from the intersection I
of Hazel Avenue to the
intersection of 100th
Avenue SE 30 mph At all times
10. 08 . 082 97th Place South from
the intersection of
!' Canyon Drive to the
intersection of Crow
(100th Place SE)
Street 30 mph At all times
�j
I� 10. 08 . 083 Crow Road from the
intersection of SE
i 260th Street to the
intersection of SE
264th Street 30 mph At all times
i
10 . 08 . 084 SE 256th Street from !
the intersection of 100th
Avenue SE to a point
Ij
340 feet west of lllth
Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 085 SE 256th Street from
the intersection of
Kent-Kangley Road to
the intersection of
Ii 116th Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
- 11
I
i
j
i'
10. 08 . 086 Kent-Kangley Road
! (SR 516) from the
intersection of SE
256th Street to a
point 550 feet south-
east of 110th Avenue
SE 35 mph At all times
10. 08. 087 Kent-Kangley Road
(SR 516) northwest
bound from the west
right-of-way line of
116th Avenue SE to a
point 550 feet east
of 110th Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
i
10 . 08 . 088 South 248th Street from
the intersection of
94th Avenue South to
the intersection of
116th Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 089 SE 260th Street from
the intersection of
97th Place South to
the intersection of
108th Avenue SE 30 mph At all times
10. 08 . 090 SE 264th Street from
the intersection of
100th Place SE to the
intersection of 108th
Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
10. 08 . 091 SE 264th Street from
the intersection of
Crow Road to the
intersection of 108th
Avenue SE 35 mph At all times
10 . 08 . 092 Kent-Des Moines Road
it (SR 516) eastbound from j
j a point 50 feet west of
27th Avenue South to
!j the intersection of
j 30th Avenue South 35 mph At all times
!i
Section 2 . The improvement and construction by the City
on a portion of the Canyon Drive (SR 516) between Hazel Avenue and
- 12 -
i
i
it I
it
I
j�
ji
94 Avenue South have caused conditions warranting an emergency
jreduction in the set speed limit from 40 to 30 miles per hour, in
�jorder to protect and safeguard the public health and safety. This '
'! speed limit reduction shall be in effect for a period of
Ijapproximately three months from the day a notice is posted
;' informing the public of the speed limit reduction on the affected
;; portion of the Highway, or until completion of construction,
whichever occurs first.
Section 3 . The City Traffic Engineer (CTE) is hereby
authorized to immediately post a notice of the reduction of the
i
speed limit in a conspicuous place at each end of the affected
! portion of the Canyon Drive (SR 516) , as contemplated by RCW
i
j; 47 . 48 . 020, and at other locations, as appropriate. The CTE is
- also authorized to communicate this action to the appropriate
!; office of the WSDOT District One Office, both for coordinative
;. purposes and supporting action by that agency.
Section 4 . Any act consistent with the authority and
, prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified
band confirmed.
i
Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance are declared ',
Ito be separate and severable. The invalidity of any portion of
'' this ordinance shall not affect the remainder, or the validity of
! its application to other persons and circumstances.
Section 6. Effective Date . This emergency ordinance
i
shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from the time of
its final passage and after such time of its final passage as
'' provided by law and the CTE has completed the posting as described
I! in Section 3 herein.
I '
I
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
J t
- 13 - I
'I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PARKSIDE WETLANDS PURCHASE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization for the Mayor to sign an
earnest money agreement in the amount of $118, 000 to purchase
Lots 1 through 6, and one in the amount of $13 , 500 to purchase
Lots 18 through 25, Block 22 , Interurban Heights, 3rd Section,
t , as part of the West Hill Parkside Wetlands project, (i
authorization for the Parks Department to continue to acquire
the individual parcels within the project site, staying within
the 200, 000 budget. This action was approved unanimously by
the arks Committee at their September 24 meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter from the Mayor, letter from Karen Waalkes,
map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT'_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $131 , 500
SOURCE OF FUNDS: $ 65 , 750 West Hill CIP
$ 65 , 750 King .County Conservation
Futures Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K T
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 1991
TO: Steve Dowell, Parks Committee Chair
FROM: Dan Kelleher, Mayor ' ,,
SUBJECT: Purchase and Sales Agreement for Land Adjoining Parkside Wetlands
I would like to take this opportunity to express my support of the acquisition of the property
adjoining Parkside wetlands. This park is representative of the leading role the City of Kent has
taken in preserving and protecting wetlands.
The City has made a commitment to this project not only by budgeting $200,000 for this park, but
by acceptance of$100,000 in matching funds from King County. I would ask the Parks Committee
to consider all costs involved with purchase of the land as well as any future maintenance of
buildings acquired. If your inquiries discover expenses over the budgeted amount, please explore
the possibility of delaying acquisition until such time as the City's budget situation improves.
I am hopeful this project will be able to be completed in the near future. This project is an example
of how adjoining cities and the county can work together to help preserve the natural beauty of
the northwest. This proposed park will help fulfill the need for parks in the West Hill area of Kent
as well as allowing all Kent citizens to see first hand the existing wildlife habitat.
September 24 , 1991
Kent Parks and Recreation Committee
Dear Sirs:
I am writing this letter out of concern for the nature park in the
Saltair Hills area which was approved previously.
The project was promoted as an alternative to the Landfill Park
deeded by the Romano family 30 years ago. That land was -given to
Seattle by Kent.
Too much effort and time has gone into the project to cancel it -
now. It is a project that brought hope to me . First , for
preserving our natural environment; second, it was a grass roots
effort by citizens with city support. Third, it was a cooperative
effort between two neighboring cities who have often been at odds
over the years.
This park was the brainchild of the community , Kent Parks and
Recreation, along with the fine work of Larry Minkler of Wildlife
Heritage Foundation doing the work on getting the grant.
I beg you, please don't let this project fall through the cracks
and destroy public confidence in our local government.
Sincerely,
.� -
Karen Waalkes
CC : Dan Kelleher, Mayor - City of Kent
Kent City Council
hi Lk,LQ0o SC7 — -----— — _
g
�l I
W
PLACE SOUTH nor
i F1111 -4
I I T I I I I i I I I I
I W
O I I V � �
Y
yy 4 1 b A I h i
Y I Y Y ^ a
I I I 01,
I
• I •; - r Ir' I I I I r l
,� /�1 S Ct7A77J'E Q 61SJ/-
I N
0
6 A SOUTH >�w k 4�
I I I 1 i l - I n��i I Q. r•1 I I :__
i 1 / I } / o l I ti I b I I -
'Fj Y I h i ♦' �-4I q I I I ! `rl Y�t� I w I � I 0 ..
1 SSA++ 1 { I I !'7 I I 1 1 1 I- *�
o
!' ( ,Cri
I I I
I+Im�
I 1 I I '►•�'1 I I I ti
�` I - q�h 1-I I 11 0 l q fh b i n �I l Y 1
..64 ` j T• I I 1 I � I / I 1 i I I I I I
�I/
1 I I I 11 I ` I I /1 I+
1 1 I 1 1 I ti 't
S COW'07"f 61O1Y _ 1
0
_ F
/fi 1 25L I E SOU7N +
/
I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I I 1 { I I �� I I + +I I I _ _
I 1 I
IL
� S Ill✓J`- �--�--� - �--�--r---�--�- - � �s
1 i S4 ■ 1 I �+J
t I +h I 1 I I ♦ I h l '�11 '+ I h I I h l Y l h l q t l h l Y Is Y I Y 1 4 1-- - G
24th AVENUE_ SOUTH ewer_ Kev to Ownerships K'
lA 1B, & 1C: Long/Sandin {
2: V. Long
$ 1 { 1 3: Michelson +
4: Briest 4
1 1 /
5; Landon
g; Pemberton
71ruce C. Allen &Associates, Inc.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1, 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CANTERBURY FINAL PLAT NO
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider an application
for the Canterbury Final Plat No. SU-89-3 . The property is
approximately 4 . 34 acres in size and is located on the northeast
corner of 100th Avenue S.E. and S . E. 248th Street. All
conditions of the preliminary plat have been met.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map, City Council minutes of 10/17/89
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember r moves], Countar-1-member - seconds
to approve the staff recommend-ed approval far Canterbury Final
Plat No. SU-89-3 . '
DISCUSSION•
ACTION-
Council Agen a
Item No. 4A V
CITY OF J" j11 ZS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
Q�+vu cam MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CANTERBURY FINAL PLAT SU-89-3
On October 17, 1989 the City Council approved the Canterbury
Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-3 , an 18-lot single family
residential plat. The site is approximately 4 . 34 acres in size and
is located on the northeast corner of 100th Avenue S.E. and S.E.
248th Street. The property is zoned R1-7.2 . Eight conditions were
part of the Council's approval. The applicant has now complied
with these conditions as listed below:
1. A. Prior to Recordation of Plat:
1. Increase lot widths for proposed lots 6, 91 10 and
18 so that these lots meet the minimum lot width of
70 feet and can adequately accommodate the
additional side yard setback required on a corner
lot.
2 . Note on final, plat linen that all lots must conform
to the solar access setback regulations of the
Zoning Code.
3 . Note on final plat linen that vehicular access from
any lot within this plat to SE 248th Street shall
be prohibited and that lots with more than one
street frontage (lots 1, 91 10 and 18) shall have
only one street access.
4 . Obtain City approval of detailed encrineerina
drawings for the following improvements and either
construct and/or bond for the same:
a. Storm System. Provide on-site storm water
detention in accordance with City Drainage
Code and provide public storm drainage
facilities within all public roadways and
roadway improvements required as a condition
of this subdivision.
CANTERBURY FINAL PLAT ISU-89-3
October 1, 1991
Page 2
Detention Pond. The applicant
shall provide information on
the detention pond landscaping
and fencing to the Planning
Department for their approval,
and shall work with City staff
to ensure an aesthetically
pleasing facility. Ownership
and maintenance information for
the pond shall also be provided
for City review.
b. Sanitary Sewer. Provide city gravity sanitary
sewer system to service all lots. Extend
sanitary sewers from SE 248th Street along
100th Avenue SE to the north property line of
the plat.
C. Water. Extend the City water main on SE 248th
Street to the north property line of this
plat. The size thereof shall be in accordance
with that specified in the City Water
Comprehensive Plan. Extend the City water
main internal into the plat to provide
domestic water service and fire flow
capabilities to all lots. A minimum six inch
main is required.
d. Internal Streets. Improve internal roadway
system to residential access road standards
(i.e. , curb and gutter, minimum 5 foot
sidewalks, street lighting, asphalt pavement
(minimum roadway width 28 feet curb to curb) ,
underground utilities, drainage, street signs,
and related appurtenances) . Dedicate adequate
right-of-way to accommodate 25 foot radius
curb returns at intersections and 45 foot curb
returns for cul-de-sacs, 50 foot right-of-way
minimum in tangent sections.
e. 100th Avenue SE. Dedicate sufficient right-
of-way to construct improvements required
under SEPA. A 35 foot curb return radius is
required at the intersection with SE 248th
Street.
CANTERBURY FINAL PLAT #SU-89-3
October 1, 1991
Page 3
f. SE 248th Street. Improve to collector street
standards. Half street pavement width shall
be 18 feet as measured from the centerline of
the right-of-way. The westbound lane shall be
widened and overlain with asphalt pavement
such that its minimum width shall be 12 feet.
Included in the half street improvements shall
be curb and gutter, cement concrete sidewalk,
street lighting, undergrounding, storm
drainage and other related improvements.
B. Prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of any
development permit:
1. Provide a comprehensive, accurate tree plan for
each lot, showing all trees of six-inch caliper or
greater. The plan should also show the trees in
relationship to any proposed structure.
2 . Provide minimum fire flow of 1, 000 gallons per
minute at 20 psi at approved locations. Fire
hydrants shall meet the required 600 foot spacing.
3 . Install street identification signs with location,
size and message as approved by the Building
Department.
2 . The area identified on the Preliminary Plat as the "Detention
Pond" must allow for recreational use as well as meeting
drainage needs, if possible, in order to provide some
recreational opportunities for children that may live in the
subdivision if it is developed.
JPH/mp:c: su893 .mem
}U \ TRACT 18
S 89'17'35" E 300.87'
1 ! 70.00' 70.00' 103.67'
t0, 57.20' CITY OF KENT
_ 12' NATURAL DRAINAGF
x �\� EASEMENT .
w q v � 16 ^ <%
vi 18 17
m 15
4 FIRE HYO o
1 EhSM'T v,
C23 Elan
p7 f
C2M1 / OS6
45.00' h7
C22 6 I
O C26 37.UG' C25 N� q8 g0
I n N S 89'27'12' E 195.65' CZt 14 l a
S.E. 246TH PL. a
� of 15' DRAINAGE
S EASEMENT I N
44.95' 39.13' \ 8Z1
C7G c17 N\8?T•
1\ 8558,`f(R
sg J J
CIB 1 C20 ^ 0\4•W� \
w G9
s 1
10
•c n . '° SHiTH'ii iiiii:i!ti ii i:•
J
12 0 • �. I.v ..;: t:T'f ., .:; TO ::f::_;-
N
n 1n I
u _ 5 89'17'35" E 103.66' 56.77'
N 69.95' 70.03' 106,93' 53,50' CITY OF KENT
� 12' NATURAL DRAIIAGE
w �
EASEMENT
3 4 0
7
N a
z FRE1 Ui� o N I 2�ry 2
�l
EASM'T .n z 6
J--- C12 1Y 40 AS io
C13 Cli Bb 6d Ati 9 a1
C15 ,p6CI I n
44.95' 3}.T7. C74 m o0
o ✓i
I moo, N 89'27'12" W 159.69'
CIO 5 I
-In 247TH PL. S ,,.
3.I T N ,T 461
Zo f(R)I
I 51.29'
CS CG 96 B
C9 8'
3 C7
C CR
4
w 4 I
e
N /I
'� O !� O Y, �' \?P Ul•
N ill N j Z l c�- W
-
EXI_.....-. I N _N 8927'12" W
11U m n\f WSJ n .
STINNSEG
3 74.05' I
i ' \ CITY OF KENT
ry 13,875 sy. tt.
g m _ E NATURAL DIt AINAGF
JO LI 25 TRACT A s 695p'0g9, 6. EASEMCNT
DETENTION POND e\' ' ___ _ z3o'
LANDSCAPING AND FENCING OF THIS 56.96'
TRACT TO BE RESPONSIBILITY OF PLATTOR, S 89-17'11"
C3 HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, E
.... 30' 49.93' d
— - - 249.91' n
299.84' _ -- ---'
~ /4r S.E. 248TH ST. n
msT 114_ CANTERBURY FINAL PLAT
_CRNER OF
SEC TIC", 2u SU-89-3
Not to Scale
October 17 , 1989
SEWERS Reha ilitation Project and release of retainage
after eceipt of the required releases from e
State.
STREETS (CONSENT C ENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Willis Up
- Central Street Im ro ment. ACCEPT
as complete 'th contract with Gary erlino
Construction fo the final contr t cost of
$322 , 285. 92 for t e Willis Str t Improvement
Project and releas of retai ge after receipt of
the required release from e State.
STREET VACATION (PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM )
Hawkrid a Street Vac io No. STV-89-5. This public
hearing will consid a re est by Thomas Drangsholt
to vacate a porti of a str et lying 262 . 35 ft.
westerly of Woo and Way and , lying
southerly of So.
262nd Place fo which proper le 1 notice has been
given by the ity Clerk.
The Mayor declared the public hearing open. There
/thatt
omments from the audience and WOODS MOVED
public hearing be closed. Johnson seconded
otion carried. WOODS THEN MOVED to approve
idge Street Vacation No. STV-89-5 with one
, as recommended by the Planning
t, and to direct the City Attorney to
he required ordinance upon approval of the
Hawkridge final plat.
PRELIMINARY (OTHER �BUS INESS:,- ITEM�4A).
SUBDIVISION Canterbury-Preliminary tSubdivision'No. SU-89-3,.
This meeting will consider the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of conditional approval of the
application by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. for an 18 lot
single family residential subdivision. The property
is located on the northeast corner of proposed 100th
Ave. S . E. and S .E. 248th St. There were no comments
from the audience and WOODS MOVED to accept the
findings of the Hearing Examiner and to concur with
the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval of
the Canterbury Preliminary Subdivision No. -SU-89-3
with 8 conditions. Johnson seconded. Motion
carried.
4
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 . 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EASTWOOD FINAL PLAT NO. SU-89-1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider an application
for the Eastwood Final Plat No. SU-89-1. The property is
approximately 4 . 36 acres in size and is located on 100th Avenue
S .E. and S .E. 244th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, map, City Council minutes of 6/6/89
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT:_ NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
I
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: , $
SOURCE OF FUNDS ,
d
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ,
Councilmember �: ' moves', Councilmember ; `�,t. " ` second9l
to approve the-staff re-c&mmended approval -for Eastwood Final
Plat SU-89-1 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: ----
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B+X
CITY OF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
VR&VgvT-f- MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: EASTWOOD FINAL PLAT SU-89-1
On June 6, 1989 the city Council approved the Eastwood Preliminary
Subdivision No. SU-89-1, a 21-lot single family residential plat.
The site is approximately 4 .36 acres in size and is located on
100th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 244th Street. The property is zoned R1-
7.2 . A number of conditions were part of the Council ' s approval
prior to recordation of the final plat. The applicant has now
complied with these conditions as listed below:
1. Solar access setback regulations shall be applied to all lots
developed within the proposed subdivision. The final plat
linen shall bear a notation stating that development on all
lots must conform to the solar access setback regulations of
the Kent Zoning Code (15. 08 . 230 et seq. ) .
2 . The area to the west of Lot 1 on the preliminary plat map
currently designated as "pond" and consisting of 4 , 248 square
feet shall be preserved and enhanced to provide habitat for
wildlife that may presently inhabit the undisturbed woods.
3 . A comprehensive, accurate tree plan for each area to be
developed shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to
the Planning Department prior to any grading, filling or
construction. The Planning Department shall make a
determination of which trees shall be permitted to be removed
and shall ensure the retainage of the maximum number of trees.
4 . Access to the proposed subdivision development shall be
resolved prior to final plat approval. South 245th Place
shall not be used for primary access to the proposed
subdivision development. Lots #8 , 91 17 and 18 on the
Preliminary Plat map shall not have vehicular access onto or
from 100th Avenue.
5. City approval of detailed engineering drawings for storm
system improvements (including dedication to City of detention
pond) , sanitary sewer system (including extensions north to SE
244th Street and east along SE 244th Street to the easterly
property line of the subject property) , water improvements
EASTWOOD FINAL PLAT #SU-89-1
October 11 1991
Page 2
(including a 10-inch main along the entire frontage of 100th
Avenue SE and a minimum 6-inch main for cul-de-sacs) , and
street improvements (including dedication of all necessary
right of way to construct roadway improvements including curb
and gutter; minimum five foot sidewalks; street lighting,
signs, and barricades; five foot wide gravel shoulder on west
side of 100th Avenue and north side of SE 244th Street; and
asphalt pavement of 28 feet curb-to-curb) is required prior to
recordation of final plat.
JPH/mp:c:su891.mem
Tu.4f:T s,r.
0
n
--- - 1 S 89'17'59"1! 331.95'
S.E. 2441-H ST. a
T.L. 207 301.90'
47.82' 75.00' 75.00' 75.00'
C22
3 - y :If( Or Yrl'll
12' VAJI i<AI. M(AIII
�- FASI HE.IIT
18 oim 19 i 20 min 21
fl O
W N
N
N
a
N n 76.74' 75.00' 75.00'
75.00'
70.00 0.00 7 '
N z S 89'17'59' E 770.74'- 51.00'
L
_ ---- — µ 17 16 15 "o
ro n i v m ,�,,.�s, 14
Ia h I r.
Woo
- � FIRE IIYO, z f,1B
-I EASEMENT
c19 a 3� al
czI cn 3 �,
o 45.00' dgA3„ C20 d 6 96 g9
R50.50'
I"
^' S 89-27 12' E 167.00'
S.E. 245th CRT c1s
rL. :r.$) �o
N 13
I� n
45.00'
40.43' S
Cil C72
C13 C5 �� F
9y7 p (R�
CI4
n J 3 J 1 2 "
W m 9 0
T pTA.. (.It " 10 non B N N
� r
a n cl
i 70.00__ 70.00' S 89'17'59' E 108.20' P 53.10'
113.89' - 47.41' ,
Y
W W N
1,1 Y R 1'1 N
N l l ' /'� • 1' O
I.• 7 � O ll
10'x10' T'I h z "i 1:111' OF KI JI I
-- --- --- ---'-- -1 FIRE HYD. n 2 - 12' NATIII<41. ld<AIIIj1.
< C7 F_ASCLI[N!
n O -J�F_ASF_IAF.Ilf 'l ,
00 CIO r9 CH CB 1ii Ah
45.00' 40.45 N 9q h9
S. 245TH PL.
R50.50'
89'27'12" E 167.00'
T.i.
S.E. 245th PL. 4
N
7 I .36' 7o.or
s
I°' UN AInA:a. E.;f Ltr 111
Q Ot
/ \1,,Q an
i, 2 m 3
In
30• 30'
_. 40.38' 70.07'
SI10.H%�
EASTWOOD FINAL PLAT II ,,.
SU-89-1
!hl
Not tO Scale /
June 6, 1989
SUBDIVISION a shorter form of he .prdinance. Upon a show of
CODE hands, the motion t adopt Ordinance 2849 ds amended
carried with Woo , Jo�frtson, Mann and White voting
Lot Line in favor and --Dotoell , Houser and Biteman voting
Adjustment against.
Ordinance
PRELIMINARY Eastwood Preliminary Subdivision No. SU-89-A This
SUBDIVISION public meeting will consider the Hearing- Examiner' s
recommendation of conditional approval of a 21 lot
single family residential subdivision submitted by
W. F. Holmberg. The property is 4 . 36 acres in size
and is located at 100th Ave. S . E. and S . E. 244th St.
Mary Duty of the Planning Department noted that all
lots meet or exceed the 7200 square feet lot size.
WOODS MOVED to adopt the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and to concur with the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommendation of approval of Eastwood Preliminary
Subdivision No. SU-89-1 with five conditions as
t clarified. Dowell seconded and the motion carried.
EAST VALLEY East Valley Zoning Implementation No. CPZ-89-1.
IMPLEMENTATION White noted that this item has been removed from the
agenda by Planning Director Harris. Harris noted
that a quorum was not present at th/last Planning
Commissi g, meeting, so no action d been taken on
this item. Nn
Commission, co isting of nine
members, res five memb s for a quorum. This
has become ' cult sinc at present two
commissiona are cant. White asked that
City Admintor check into the possibility
of modifyiann ' Commission rules regarding
quorum. Uo 1 ' question, Driscoll pointed
out that tnning mmission must make certain
findings ot before e necessary resolution and
ordinance to the Cou il .HOUSING AND (CONSENT CAR ITEM 3I)COMMUNITY Sidewa D ment Project. ACCEPTANCE as
DEVELOPMENT comp to oJuarez Construc ion contract for the
Hou ng and Community Development sidewalk
im rovement project and release of retainage after
receipt of release from the state.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 , 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EAST HILL ANNEXATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
meeting with the petitioners of the East Hill Annexation. Those
petitioners have been notified of this meeting. The Public
Works Committee has recommended proceeding with the annexation
with the boundary modification as recommended by the Public
Works Director and authorizing the circulation of the 60 percent
petition subject to the City's existing indebtedness.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and
supporting material , boundary map showing proposed boundary
modification
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember �`ti, moves, Councilmember seconds
that the City proceed with the annexation modifying the boundary
as recommended by the Public Works Director and authorizing the
circulation of the 60 percent petition subject to the City's
existing indebtedness.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: --..
Council Age da
Item No. 4C
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 4
resolution to make application for an extension of water and sewer
service then that can be allowed. Wickstrom clarified that if they
do not proceed with the L. I.D. process, then we would not be able
to address service with a new request. Mr. Sharp stated that on
March 6 an application was made for a water meter hookup for
property owned by Doris Ramsted. There was a misunderstanding in
what was being requested and while the issue was being cleared up,
the resolution was adopted. Wickstrom explained that the hookup
being requested by Ms. Ramsted requires a main line extension to
service a piece of her property. Mr. Sharp explained that Mrs .
Ramsted is proposing to sell this five acre portion of her
property. It was further clarified that the original application
was for a hookup to the main which is already at her property line.
Carol Morris explained further that hookups are not addressed in
the resolution only extensions. So if her request was for a
hookup, even though it required an extension, we would have to
approve the application. The Committee unanimously approved
allowing the hookup. After some further discussion, it was
determined that the Attorney's office should issue a legal opinion
on this matter.
East Hill Annexation
Wickstrom stated this matter was referred to the Public Works
Committee for a recommendation to the Council at the time they meet
with the petitioners. Wickstrom indicated that moving ahead with
the annexation would give us some control over implementation of
the 272nd/277th corridor project and it also honors the position we
have with the Boundary Review Board. In the 70 ' s, the Boundary
Review Board denied our servicing outside the City limits as they
thought we should not just take the utility revenue but provide the
other services as well. Through negotiation, they agreed to allow
us to service outside the City limits as long as we secured
covenants supporting annexation. Should the City deny this
annexation, the Boundary Review Board may reconsider their past
position. If we can 't service it because they are denying our
services then you open the area up to other utility districts .
This area in particular is not so amenable to other districts but
the entire eastern franchise area has potential of being serviced
by other sewer and water districts. The costs are relatively
realistic as to the revenues generated and what we anticipate it to
cost to service the area. Wickstrom continued that when the
impacts of the overburdened Kent Kangley and Canyon Drive are
considered, implementing the corridor project would relieve a
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 5
significant amount of the congestion. The cost to service the
proposed annexation area becomes pretty small when it is compared
to what it costs the City to mitigate impacts on Canyon Drive.
Wickstrom added that he would also recommend modifying the boundary
as shown on the map included in the Committee ' s packet to include
a parcel that originally was not within the proposed annexation
boundary but is under the same ownership as its abutting parcel.
Thus, this would avoid splitting the parcel. He would also
recommend the annexation area be subject to the City' s
indebtedness. Items to be considered are whether to proceed with
the annexation at all, the boundary and whether you want to adjust
it, and whether the area should assume the City' s existing
indebtedness. Jim White asked what assuming the City ' s
indebtedness would do to the property taxes. Wickstrom -explained,
referring to the information in the Committee' s packet, that the
overall effect of annexation to the City versus remaining in the
County is almost a wash. Overall, the property owners would save
$1. 34 per $100, 000 valuation by being in the City. Dowell asked
about fire and police coverage. The area is currently served by
Fire District 37 . In an emergency, responses by both police and
fire would be whomever can get there the fastest. The costs shown
for Police are based on a cost per call . Mr. Pawlowski wanted to
know if there was a law which prevented a city from annexing
property to put a road through. Tom Brubaker indicated these were
two separate issues. Once an annexation occurs, the city has
jurisdiction over the area. A second process can take place then
for approval of the road project. The annexation does not
guarantee that the road project will occur. It was noted that when
properties are annexed into the City they come in automatically as
residential, 20, 000 square foot lots. The Planning Director
reviews the area and makes recommendations as to appropriate zoning
for the area within one year. Dowell inquired about the funding
for the corridor. Wickstrom responded that the funding package for
the corridor includes money from State grants, the $5 million in
Councilmanic bonds and the mitigation agreements that have been
executed by developers to mitigate their impact to the City ' s
transportation system. Wickstrom indicated for Dowell that on a
best case scenario it would be approximately three years before
construction could start and the project would take approximately
two to three years to construct. Mr. Kiefer commented that he felt
that the people in the area should be notified as to what is taking
place with the annexation. Tom Brubaker indicated that during the
process of collecting the 60% petition, there will be community
meetings held explaining all the elements of the annexation. There
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 6
was an inquiry as to how the boundary of this annexation was
developed. Wickstrom indicated that the Public Works Department
looked at what would be a reasonable boundary to consider without
splitting properties. Dowell asked about the status of the
272nd/277th corridor and whether the Council will be hearing some
discussion on it soon. Wickstrom explained that the EIS has to be
completed and any appeal process finalized before it can be brought
before Council. Wickstrom stated that the traffic modeling has
been completed and the draft EIS should be completed in
approximately three months. A member of the audience indicated
that the corridor would definitely be an informational issue that
those impacted by this annexation will want to know about. Leona
Orr moved that the Public Works Committee recommend proceeding with
the East Hill annexation with the boundary modification as
recommended by the Public Works Director and subject to the City' s
existing indebtedness. The Committee unanimously agreed.
Jim White asked Roger Lubovich his opinion about what Council can
or can not hear on the corridor project. Roger Lubovich indicated
that his predecessor had issued an opinion that no Council member
could communicate with residents in the community regarding the
corridor because of the SEPA process. He continued that he will be
reviewing that opinion in that it is his understanding that case
law indicates that only at such time as there is an appeal pending
should this communication be restricted. He stressed the case
isn't real clear so he wants to look at it again and provide the
Council an opinion at the next Committee meeting.
Authorization for Condemnation - Dover Court Storm Drainage
Wickstrom explained that we have a project designed to reroute the
drainage system in the Dover Court area to relieve an erosion
problem. We have been unable to obtain two of the necessary
easements in ' order to proceed ' with the project. Wickstrom
explained that we will continue to negotiate with the property
owners but are requesting authorization to condemn if negotiations
are not successful. The Committee unanimously recommended
approval.
Authorization for Condemnation - LID 338 - Westview Terrace
Wickstrom explained that we have been unsuccessful in obtaining an
easement on one parcel in order to proceed with this sewer LID. We
would like authorization to proceed with condemnation if we
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
September 13, 1991
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: East Hill Annexation
Per the above subject annexation, attached is the information that
was included in the September 3rd Council agenda packet.
As we have stated, with respect to. an earlier proposal presented to
the Committee, we recommend pursuing this annexation as it will
establish some City jurisdiction per the 272nd Corridor project.
It should be noted that while the cost to service the area is
slightly more than the revenues received, the difference is
insignificant when you consider the expenses associated with
delaying or foregoing the 272nd Corridor project. The overburdened
SR 516 route costs both the City and its citizens dearly. We just
awarded a $725, 000 construction contract thereon for safety
improvements. The accidents occurring on the route demand much
City manpower (police, fire, public works and legal) not to mention
personal property damage, injuries and deaths .
A second issue relates to providing utility service to the
unincorporated areas. While the City has a County franchise to do
so, final approval rests with the Boundary Review Board. Presently
the Board allows us to service the unincorporated areas subject to
execution of annexation covenants. Their present position resulted
from a negotiated process . In the mid-70 ' s the Board was outright
denying our requests to service the unincorporated areas based on
their belief that such areas should have the benefit of all City
services . The Board compromised to this present position on the
premise that the City would proceed with annexation once sufficient
covenants were received. Were we not to proceed with this
particular annexation, the Board would have grounds to revert back
to their original position of once again denying all service
requests.
While this may seem to be a method for controlling growth, our
franchises are not exclusive. Such a situation would open the
doors to our neighboring sewer and water districts to service the
areas and, thus, any control by the City would be lost.
As we indicated earlier, we support proceeding with this
annexation. We recommend that the City' s indebtedness be a
condition thereof and that the boundary be modified as reflected on
the attached map. The purpose of the boundary modification is to
include all parcel ownership within the annexation versus splitting
the parcel.
// Il7 'k✓r �% '%%//// 2 / ri %r Wit' '�r b` .tom' %i /i/. rr i n -�I �li`r i[7' .N
-
/�
%/Y
fG• �' ���`tY iy d+,'taY`„h�`��.$� e�y�T.r7��1 Il tl ¢ \ rv� � S 3"al� A�� . � i
26$T T
ST
y - DETENT] W,
ii y A t7? t SE �_.
1 Grp NDai/� � S w � �.;
i lj
^I
..(l
�. y'
ED .x� �1274T'� ,'w
OJ)oMi aR _- f7 I Y Ty T�
4R �IEZ „ SE z74TH sr
tA� 9 a t "� m }se
F
� o�o o:
PROPOSAL BOUN ARY $ "
277TH PL
— —SCHOOL
TREE EL f W.
39 SE 2815T ST
r I - ,
w
N
SE. ':264TN'ST _JnSE284'1?h5T
Uc ,
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
EXISTING CITT LIMITS
NORTH1y,tUt
EXECUTED ANNEXATION COVENANT
i. (EQUALS 85.9'L TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA] f
CEiv:3 �•T�r
". 107. PETITION SIGNEE �
x`
MATERIAL FROM SEPTEMBER 3RD COUNCIL PACKET
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
August 29, 1991
TO: Mayor Kelleher and City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom� )�
RE: East Hill Annexation
On August 6th, the City Council was presented with an annexation
petition. The Public Works Department has verified that the
signatures thereon represent approximately 14% ($5, 740, 165) of the
total assessed value ($40, 701, 706) of the proposed annexation area.
In accordance with State law, the next step would be to hold a
public meeting with the petitioners. At the meeting, Council would
determine whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the
proposed annexation. Also, whether to require the assumption of
all or any portion of the City' s existing indebtedness . State law
requires that the public meeting be held within 60 days of receipt
of the annexation petition. As such, the Public Works Department
recommends that Council hold said public meeting at their regularly
scheduled October 1st Council meeting. This is the last Council
meeting by which Council action must occur on this matter. In the
interim period, Council may want to refer the matter to the Public
Works Committee for a recommendation thereon.
For Council ' s convenience, enclosed is the following pertinent
information:
a) Annexation Procedural Summary;
b) Map of proposed annexation area denoting proposed
boundary thereof, outstanding annexation agreements and
properties who have executed the 10% petition;
c) Map denoting existing County zoning for the area;
d) Tables 1-3 reflecting financial impact to the City;
e) Table 4 reflecting financial impact to residences within
the area.
ANNEXATION BY PETITION METHOD
Procedural Summary
1) Receipt of a petition for annexation signed by property owners
therein representing 10% of the assessed value thereof.
2) City verifies that the signatures represent lob of the
assessed value of the proposed annexation area.
3) Within 60 days of receipt of a petition, Council must hold a
public meeting with the petitioners. The purpose thereof is
to determine whether to accept, reject or geographically
modify the proposed annexation. Also, whether to require the
assumption of all or any portion of the City' s existing
indebtedness and, if so, the meeting minutes and the
authorized petition shall clearly denote same.
4) Upon Council approval of the proposed annexation boundary and
indebtedness issue, the petitioner ' s circulate the 60%
petition for signatures.
5) Council receives the authorized annexation petition signed by
property owners therein representing 60% of the assessed value
thereof .
6) City validates that the signatures represent 60% of the
assessed value of the proposed annexation area.
7) Requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) are
satisfied.
8) Proposed annexation is submitted to Boundary Review Board for
their review and approval.
9) After receipt of Boundary Review Board approval, Council holds
a public hearing on adoption of ordinance annexing the area to
the City.
10) Ordinance annexing area is filed with King County.
TABLE 1
Proposed Annexation Estimated Annual Revenue Impact
at Present Development Level
FUND/REVENUE
General:
General Property Tax @3 . 064491 $ 124 , 730
Elec. & Nat. Gas Util. Tax @3 . 5% 6 , 542
Water Utility Tax @3 . 5% 1, 130
Sewer Utility Tax @3 . 5% 1, 133
Drainage Utility Tax @3 . 5% 1, 109
Phone Utility Tax @3 . 5% 1, 349
Garbage Utility Tax @3 . 5% 759
Auto Excise 91740
Liquor Excise 21057
Liquor Profits 5 , 632
Total General Fund $ 153 , 181
Street:
Vehicle Registration Fee' $ 5 720
Gas Tax @20 . 24 Per Capita 4 , 065
Total Street Fund $ 9 , 785
Environmental:
Garbage Utility Tax @3 . 0%4 $ 707
Water:
Loss of Revenue Due to Rates $ (7, 089)
Storm Drainage:
Revenue Due to Annexation $ 3 , 122
Total Estimated Revenue Impact $ 169 , 491
1) Includes City's Excess Levy
2) Can only be used for capital improvements on streets
3) Council has reserved about one-third for corridor improvements
and one-half the remaining balance is restricted for capital
improvements on the arterial system. The remainder is
available for M&0 but traditionally Council utilized all the
gas tax money for street improvements .
4) Presently reserved for recycling expenses, consultant services
for landfill oversight and reserve for landfill remedial
action responsibility.
5) City's outside water rate is 22% higher than rate for inside.
TABLE 2
Proposed Annexation Estimated Annual Expense
at Present Development Level
Area (acres) 608 . 5
Population (estimate) 982
Street (miles) 4 . 81
Assessed Value .($1, 000) 40, 701
Operational Cost Immediate Annual
Street
Paving/Oiling Program $ 62 , 400 $ 20, 0001
Road Maintenance 27, 500
Signs & Pavement Marking 420 2 , 050
Vegetation Management 2 , 500 9 , 970
Street Lighting 240 5 , 491
$ 65, 560 $ 65, 011
Drainage $ 9 , 450
Recycling Program 402
Police' 48 , 034
Fire` 49 , 500
$ 65 , 560 $172 , 397
a) Projected that in 5 years $100 , 000 (today' s cost) will be
needed for overlaying.
b) Based on a Police-developed cost estimate of $204 . 40 (1990 $)
per call for service.
c) Fire District #37 presently services the area. As such, these
figures reflect the replacement of the lost revenue to the
District and no service level change.. The Fire Chief
estimated another $370, 000 would be required to deliver a more
appropriate level of service.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
REVENUE VS EXPENSES
EXPENSE REVENUE NET
Annual
General Fund
Street $ 65, 011
Police 48 , 034
Fire 49 , 500
$162 , 545 $153 , 181 $ (9 , 364)
Recycling Program $ 402 $ 707 $ 305
Drainage $ 9 , 450 $ 3 , 122 $ (6, 238)
Water $ 0 $ (7 , 089) $ (7 , 089)
TOTAL $ (22 , 386)
One Time Only
Street $ 65, 560 $ 1, 355
Street Capital $ 8, 430
TABLE 4
Approximate Tax Comparison for Annexation
East Hill Area
Actual 1991 Levy Rates Paid
city County
Property Taxes Total Total Difference
State 3.38348 3.38348 0
County 1.73030 1.73030 0
County Road District 1.48207 (1.48207)
City Regular Levy 2.52618 2.52618
City Voted Excess
Levy GO Bonds 0.41558 0.41558
Fire District #37 1.21540 (1.21540)
Library . 0.48921 (0.48921)
Hospital 0.17485 0.17485 0
Kent SD #415 4.35283 4.35283 0
Port of Seattle 0.32332 0.32332 0
EMS 0.19911 0. 19911 0
SUBTOTAL 13.10565 13.35057 (0.24492)
Property Taxes
for $100,000 Home $ 1,310.57 $ 1,335.06 $ (24.49)
Utility Taxes
.Yearly Avg
Billing City Yrly County
Tax Yrly Tax Difference
Elec/Nat
Gas $ 924.00 $ 32.34 0 $ 32.34
Phone 186.36 6.52 0 6.52
Water 115.32 4.04 0 4.04
Sewer 230.40 8.06 0 8.06
Drainage 27.00 0.95 0 0.95
Garbage 108.00 7.02 0 7.02
T o t a l
Average
Utility $1,591.08 $ 58.93 0 $ 58.93
DUE TO ANNEXATION
city County
Total Total Difference
Reduction in Water ( 32.89) ( 32.89)
Rates
Drainage Utility Charge 27.00 27.00
S u r f a c e W a t e r
Management Fee _ 29.89 ( 29.89)
Total Due to Annexation ( 5.89) 29.89 ( 35.78)
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX, UTILITY TAX
& OTHER 1,363.60 $1,364.95 ( 1.34)
Additional Savings
0 Drainage: County's rate is to increase to $86-100 per year.
Kent's rate is a function of the drainage basin.
As such, it will be between $21-53 per year.
Minimum savings $33-65 per year.
0 Free Residential Recycling Service
%�% „
/ � •��_.`�'.a oar:
o >
o-0
�} 0 •0-1.1 pJ � .'-1
RM 1800 \ a o
/ 17....
SR 7200 0�
����a! ��..-�' ,q I ❑ , Ili � 7. o00 - -I
i
SR (15,000) /ia000 a .,
F S 7200
G�G �a cFipl- G �lCl i
7
_ o
6;00� p I�p� a: 1 SSe8600 — � '°t�? G+ + 0 b
�n
1. -�-� �❑ aaG��
_ �?
o
P
o
+ 0
RS 15000 Q 'JPROPOSAL B0�N AR o ❑-�� 4t �� IULI
\ il
I
I )
F
. --___. . � _ � !' '.. •L,...L__.� __ r -T ¢-it �-- :F-�
T - -
� __ '.-_ rU h�
LS [� o �1Y Ih -7 �-I � yell-
I I 7 _
-� � ill I -- � --I D L� .._ io ' ,7 ❑ I I I'
T-r--
\
r.. r -
\
LMMJ
rob -
c T
k 2
PROPOSED ANNEXATION-
EXISTING KING COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS
ZONING DESIGNRTION RRER (RCRES)
RC SE00 17.5
RM 1900P 16.9
RM 2103 6.7
NORTH RS - 15,000 lie.9 °4
j�j EXISTING CITT LIMITS SR. C 5.000) I3U.9
/ rJ11 SR IRM 24001 33.5
SR 7?or 160.6 l _
SR 950C 100.7
�;,wTess
ep
KY D� \\
..lh�
NX -11
a a o� DU
�yA� f -
0
O aj
6E D N�
°971
t n }p«
a -
\ 11. -� �J�6• .° + �, .i .-.i _.� _... 9-'� ➢.7f �l L�8'l.1T 1{, oci1,
Lo 4TH ST S6 27 a S�'
J
J L_ °t•!1 u� n1
�c,.tz e a
_ PROPOSAL BOUNDARY, uo
� G`
I IF
r n
EL M IH I ,
a
L J-
w
T I
Id
IY r3 i C
L SE 2HI53 ST
01 aI N a
f
R r
-
Vw�� rc = ,` 5EU
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
/ EXISTING CITT LIMITS
NORTH ��-�r�lc'y. Pr.
EXECUTED RNNEXRTICN COVENRNT
[EOURLS 95.9% TOTAL RSSESSEO VRLUE
OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION RRER).
y� 10% PETITION SIGNEE
d1i`:.tls�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1, 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the
recommendation of the City Council Planning Committee that Kent
not support the proposed King County/METRO Merger. This
recommendation was made on September 17 , 1991 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Council Planning Committee minutes of 9/17/91
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt the Council Planning Committee's recommendation not to
support the proposed King County/METRO Merger.
DISCUSSION: -
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
CITY OF LU�� ZS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
��rrr¢c�etr� MEMORANDUM
October 1 , 1991
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS/ PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: PROPOSED KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER
At their September 17 , 1991 meeting, the council 's Planning
Committee voted to recommend that the full City Council go on
record as opposing the proposed King County/METRO merger. After
discussion by the Committee, it was felt that the proposed merger
was different from that which was agreed upon by the City of
Seattle and suburban cities at the earlier Summit meetings.
FS/mp:a:merger
cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
CITY Of O\L22�
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
V&'m10qM- September 17 , 1991 4 : 45 PM
Committee Members Present . City Attorney's Office
Christie Houser Roger Lubovich
Jon Johnson, Chair Carol Morris
Leona Orr
Planning Staff Other CitV Staff
Sharon Clamp Norm Angelo
James Harris May Miller
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom
Other Guests
Bill Doolittle
Linda Van Nest
Judy Woods, Council President
KING COUNTY/METRO MERGER (J. Johnson)
Chair Johnson stated that the Suburban Cities Association has taken
the position that it will not now support the King County/Metro
merger. He stated that if the vote on the merger fails, the
suburban cities, City of Seattle, and King County would have to get
together and agree on new language prior to the state legislature
convening. There needs to be some common language which could be
taken to the state legislature for them to pass a law merging the
two entities. If the legislature fails to deal with the issue,
then Judge Dreyer will make the final decision.
Councilmember Orr MOVED and Councilmember Houser SECONDED a motion
to recommend that the City Council take a position against
supporting the King County Metro merger . Motion carried. The
Committee directed that this item go to full council on October 1
under other business.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. Ball)
No report was given.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1 . 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: SEATAC BOUNDARIES RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Council
Planning Committee' s recommendation to adopt a resolution
regarding an annexation boundary for the northwest area of the
City. This proposed boundary is located along South 200th
Street and extending westerly along said street from the Green
River to Interstate 5 (I-5) , then southerly along I-5 to
Military Road to the existing City of SeaTac boundary.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, resolution, map and City Council Planning
Committee minutes of 9/17/91
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Resolution regarding an annexation boundary for
the northwest area of the City, as recommended by the Planning
Committee.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
CITY OF L"L122 r T
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
°71�? s� MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS
SUBJECT: PROPOSED NORTHWEST BOUNDARY FOR KENT
The City Council Is Planning Committee, on September 17, 1991, voted
to recommend to the City Council that the northwest boundary of the
City should be located along S. 200th Street and extending westerly
along S. 200th from the Green River to I-5 and then southerly to
the existing boundary of the City of Sea Tac.
This proposed boundary lies within the City' s amended sphere of
interest and would be a logical extension of the current City
boundary which is located at S. 204th Street.
JPH/mp:nwbd2 .
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, adopting an annexation boundary
for the northwest area of the City.
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1972 , the City Council of the
City of Kent, by Resolution 718A, adopted a report entitled
"Kent ' s Sphere of Interest" , and adopted amendments to such
report on December 4 , 1978 and December 19, 1983 ; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 1987 the City Council, by
Resolution 1150, adopted annexation policies and amended the Kent
Sphere of Interest report; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 1989 the City Council , by
Resolution 1199, adopted a priority annexation map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent has been
informed that the City of Sea Tac has shown an interest in
annexing certain lands that lie within Kent' s adopted and amended
Sphere of Interest in the northwest area of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kent' s City Council Planning
Committee, on September 17, 1991, reviewed a recommendation made
by the City of Kent administrative annexation committee
concerning where a logical Kent city boundary might be located in
the northwest area of Kent; and
WHEREAS, this proposed city boundary lies within the
City of Kent's Sphere of Interest; and
WHEREAS, the said Council Committee voted to recommend
to the Kent City Council as a whole that Kent's City boundary in
the northwest section of the City would best be located along S.
200th Street and extending westerly along said street from the
Green River to Interstate 5 (I-5) then southerly along I-5 to
Military Road to the existing City of Sea Tac city boundary; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Potential Annexation Map setting forth
proposed annexation boundaries for the northwest section of the
City of Kent, as set forth in Exhibit A as attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.
Section 2 . Any proposed annexations by neighboring
municipalities which extend beyond the annexation boundaries and
into proposed annexation areas of the City of Kent as set forth
in Exhibit A are hereby opposed.
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
AF
rl�� � E • ,'- 1
ON N -
�-
N o
04
N
Ul
\•
\ <'?�t,*-� i . \ � (i''��\ � � ems-• � / I I t .;/ -
1�•l 1 i •• `•d � ♦ "q ���\��\ �. �, \/ � _ p � !sue'\� �fJ` S\`\./� � J �//i/�.5:
j. `C \ J /
\ Av\A. •�( �,- ��..� �V �1..�/ f r` ?Y/�A testy-/o ;' a- �
Q1 11 jl Lire
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
PAGE 2
SATELLITE SEUM IN KENT ff, Van Nest
Linda Van Ne , President of the White River Valley Historical
Society, discu ed the possible siting of a atellite historical
museum in the Ci of Kent.
Ms. Van Nest stated ark Orchard Eleme ary School has agreed to
donate a 1876 repli a log cabin, onstructed for the State
Bicentennial, which mu be moved om their grounds in order to
expand a playfield. The og cabi is approximately the size of a
portable classroom. Ms. V Nes is in the process of talking with
Kent School District off* i s to surplus the cabin. The
historical society is inter ted in moving the log cabin to a
downtown Kent location wi sy pedestrian access. Possible
museum sites might includ the B lington Green (near the gazebo) ,
the municipal parking to where It Saturday Market is held, or the
small park located at he corner o st Avenue and Titus Street.
Assistant City Attorn y Morris indicat another option for siting
the museum is to off r tax reductions to property owner who would
be willing to fr eze their property in erpetuity with this
building on it as a historical feature.
Planning Direc r Harris indicated staff would complete a financial
analysis for owing and siting the cabin. Ms . Van Nest suggested
contacting d Robbins who moved the Burke house and moves the
school port le buildings .
SEA TAC BOUNDARIES (J. Harris)
Planning Director Harris stated that in response to the City of Sea
Tac ' s proposed annexation of 350 acres which lie outside of Sea
Tac, Kent and Tukwila, the Staff Annexation Committee has
recommended the boundary be set at S. 200 Street and west along
200th to the brow of the hill, but not to include Military Road.
Fire Chief Norm Angelo stated the crucial issue from the Fire
Department standpoint is speed of service to Military Road and down
the hill . The Sea Tac Fire Department could better serve Military
Road, while the Kent Fire Department could better serve the area to
the brow of the hill.
Councilmember Houser MOVED and Councilmember Orr SECONDED a motion
to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution stating the City
of Kent ' s ultimate boundary should be S . 200 Street on the north,
westerly along 200th to the brow of the hill , south along the brow
of the hill to were it meets the City of Sea Tac boundaries .
Motion carried.
Councilmember Orr stated representatives from the City of Sea Tac
attended today' s Public Works Committee meeting to discuss the
issue of extending sewer service to a specific 200 acre parcel . The
Public Works Committee passed a motion recommending the City
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
PAGE 3
Council accept only the "engineering concept" that it is possible
for the City of Kent to extend sewer service, but did not take
action on extending the service. The Public Works Committee feels
that from a planning and impact standpoint, the Planning Committee
should make a recommendation on whether or not to approve the sewer
extension.
Councilmember Orr stated it is not in Kent ' s best interest to
extend sewer service to Sea Tac. They have indicated they are
interested in serving only one 200 acre piece of property with the
sewer extension. Sea Tac would not be able to afford to pay for
the sewer extension with just the one project. It would take
massive development in that area to tie into the sewer to help pay
for it, and Sea Tac has talked about building 1500 to 2000
apartments .
Councilmember Houser MOVED and Councilmember Orr SECONDED not to
extend sewer to the City of Sea Tac. Motion carried. The
Committee asked that this item be placed on the Council agenda for
October 1 under other business.
The Committee suggested sending the City of Sea Tac a letter
letting them know of the Committee ' s recommendation not to extend
sewer service, the date the issue will go to City Council, and give
Sea Tac the option to attend the Council meeting to make a
presentation.
ADDED ITEMS
STAFFING SUBURBA CITIES J. John on
Chair Johnson rep ted that uburban Cities has directed its
members to ask the cities to take a position on whether to
provide full time sta fing r Suburban Cities . At the October 1
Committee meeting, Char J hnson will provide the Committee with
the handout Suburban Ci s provided, and he also would like the
Council to take a posit at the October 1 meeting. He pointed
out that the additional fee that would be required for the City to
support the necessary staff e substantial .
KENT 57 APARTMENTS J. Johnson
Chair Johnson s ated there is a eed to review zoning code
provisions that allows apartments as conditional use in non-
multifamily zo es. He is concerned out the potential for
apartments being build in undeveloped Com pity Commercial zones
and other zones that allow apartments as a onditional use. He
stated if we allow this, we are defeating �the purpose of our
original intent which was to try to reduce potential development of
some multifamily in the City.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date October 1, 1991
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PROPOSED SEATAC SEWER EXTENSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Council
Planning Committee's recommendation to disapprove the request to
extend sewer to a specific 200 acre parcel to the City of
SeaTac. On September 17 , 1991, the Council 's Public Works
Committee endorsed only the "engineering concept" of the
proposed extension of sewer and the Committee did not take
action but forwarded this item to the Planning Committee for
action.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Council Planning Committee minutes of 9/17/91
and Public Works Committee minutes of 9/17/91
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT_ NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended_ Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember _seconds
to approve/disapprove the extension of sewer to the City of
SeaTac.
DISCUSSION:
-
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4F
CITY OF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
VZR7=1r�% MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED SEA-TAC SEWER EXTENSION
The City of Sea-Tac has requested that the City of Kent extend
sanitary sewer service in order to serve property within its
corporate limits. The request would involve extending the existing
sewer line on S. 212th Street eastward across the Green River and
along the 212th R/W to the City of Sea-Tac which lies between the
Orillia Road and Interstate 5.
At the Council's Public Works Committee meeting of September 17 ,
1991, the "engineering concept" of the proposed extension was
endorsed by Committee. There was no action by the Committee on the
extension request itself; this matter was forwarded to the
Planning Committee for action.
The Council ' s Planning Committee' s review was also made on
September 17, 1991. Because of concerns about land use impacts in
the adjacent agricultural area as well as the hillside area west of
Orillia Road, the Planning Committee voted to disapprove the
request to extend sewer.
JPH:FS:sea-tac.ext
cc: Fred Satterstrom
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
PAGE 2
SATELLITE MUSEUM IN KENT (L. Van Nest)
Linda Van Nest, President of the White River Valley Historical
Society, discussed the possible siting of a satellite historical
museum in the City of Kent.
Ms. Van Nest stated Park Orchard Elementary School has agreed to
donate� ,a 1876 replica log cabin, constructed for the State
Bicentennial, which must be moved from their grounds in order to
expand a playfield. The log cabin is approximately the size of a
portable classroom. Ms. Van Nest is in the process of talking with
Kent School District officials to surplus the cabin. The
historical society is interested in moving the log cabin to a
downtown Kent location with easy pedestrian access. Possible
museum sites might include,the Burlington Green (near the gazebo) ,
the municipal parking lot where. the Saturday Market is held, or the
small park located at the corner of 1st Avenue and Titus Street.
Assistant City Attorney Morris indicated another option for siting
the museum is to offer tax reductions to a property owner who would
be willing to freeze their property in perpetuity with this
building on it as a historical feature.
Planning Director Harris indicated staff would complete a financial
analysis forImoving and siting the cabin. Ms. Van Nest suggested
contacting Rod Robbins who moved the Burke house and moves the
school portable buildings.
SEA TAC BOUNDARIES (J. Harris)
Planning Director Harris stated that in response to the City of Sea
Tac ' s proposed annexation of 350 acres which lie outside of Sea
Tac, Kent and Tukwila, the Staff Annexation Committee has
recommended the boundary be set at S. 200 Street and west along
200th to the brow of the hill, but not to include Military Road.
Fire Chief Norm Angelo stated the crucial issue from the Fire
Department standpoint is speed of service to Military Road and down
the hill. The Sea Tac Fire Department could better serve Military
Road, while the Kent Fire Department could better serve the area to
the brow of the hill.
Councilmember Houser MOVED and Councilmember Orr SECONDED a motion
to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution stating the City
of Kent ' s ultimate boundary should be S. 200 Street on the north,
westerly along 200th to the brow of the hill, south along the brow
of the hill to were it meets the City of Sea Tac boundaries.
Motion carried.
Councilmember Orr stated representatives from the City of Sea Tac
attended today' s Public Works Committee meeting to discuss the
issue of extending sewer service to a specific 200 acre parcel. The
Public Works Committee passed a motion recommending the City
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 17, 1991
PAGE 3
Council accept only the "engineering concept" that it is possible
for the City of Kent to extend sewer service, but did not take
action on extending the service. The Public Works Committee feels
that from a planning and impact standpoint, the Planning Committee
should make a recommendation on whether or not to approve the sewer
extension.
Councilmember Orr stated it is not in Kent' s best interest to
extend sewer service to Sea Tac. They have indicated they are
interested in serving only one 200 acre piece of property with the
sewer extension. Sea Tac would not be able to afford to pay for
the sewer extension with just the one project. It would take
massive development in that area to tie into the sewer to help pay
for it, and Sea Tac has talked about building 1500 to 2000
apartments.
Councilmember Houser MOVED and Councilmember Orr SECONDED not to
extend sewer to the City of Sea Tac. Motion carried. The
Committee asked that this item be placed on the Council agenda for
October 1 under other business.
The Committee suggested sending the City of Sea Tac a letter
letting them know of the Committee' s recommendation not to extend
sewer service, the date the issue will go to City Council, and give
Sea Tac the option to attend the Council meeting to make a
presentation.
ADDED ITEMS
STAFFING SUBURBAN CITIES (J. Johnson)
Chair Johnson reported that Suburban Cities has directed its
members to ask their cities to take a position on whether to
provide full time staffing for Suburban Cities. At the October 1
Committee meeting, Chair Johnson will provide the Committee with
the handout Suburban Cities provided, and he also would like the
Council to take a position at the October 1 meeting. He pointed
out that the additional fees that would be required for the City to
support the necessary staff are substantial .
KENT 57 APARTMENTS (J. Johnson)
Chair Johnson stated there is a need to review zoning code
provisions that allows apartments as a conditional use in non-
multifamily zones. He is concerned about the potential for
apartments being build in undeveloped Community Commercial zones
and other zones that allow apartments as a conditional use. He
stated if we allow this, we are defeating the purpose of our
original intent which was to try to reduce potential development of
some multifamily in the City.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
September 17, 1991
PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris
Leona Orr Jim Hansen
Steve Dowell John Bond
Don Wickstrom Norm Angelo
Tom Brubaker Roger Lubovich
Doug Sutherland, Bruce Rayburn, Joan Crueger, Mike Sharp, Frankie
Keyes, Jack Wagner, Franklin Teter, Keith Carpenter, Bill
Doolittle, J. Scalzo, J.R. Hoffnauer, John Kiefer, William Joy,
Edward J. Pawlowski, William Carleton
Sea-Tac Sewer Service
Doug Sutherland indicated their request is to provide sewer service
to property within the boundaries of the City of Sea-Tac. He
indicated their original proposal included sizing the main such
that it could serve all of the unsewered property regardless of
whose jurisdiction it eventually becomes. Additionally, the
proposal addressed Kent ' s concerns about development impacts by its
proposed design. Sea-Tac would construct the sewer system at its
expense and would need an easement to connect to Kent ' s sewer stub
on 212th on the east side of the river. Mr. Sutherland stated they
have been working on this request for some time and would like to
be able to move ahead. Wickstrom clarified that Kent would not be
granting an easement for their connection but a franchise which can
have a duration as well as set conditions . Dowell raised questions
about the area to be served by Sea-Tac as well as the zoning of the
area . Wickstrom clarified that the first step was to determine
whether Committee is willing to allow service. The next step would
be to identify what conditions should be tied to the service. Orr
asked that since it appears the line would run through the 392
acres that is currently in the County, would that allow the County
to develop the property using the sewer. Wickstrom stated the
franchise could be conditioned to servicing the existing boundaries
within the City limits of Sea-Tac with any future expansion, either
outside its boundaries or to newly annexed areas, subject to
renegotiation of the franchise. Wickstrom confirmed for Dowell
that the engineering of the project is feasible. Dowell stated he
felt that the Public Works Department would be working on the
engineering end of this but it seems the people who do the planning
for the City of Kent would be the ones to make the determination
whether to even consider it. Carol Morris expressed concerns about
whether conditions on the franchise by which Sea-Tac would restrict
itself from providing services would be enforceable. She indicated
she would like to research the matter. Leona Orr indicated the
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 2
Planning Committee has briefly discussed the request but there have
been concerns raised about how to mitigate the impact to the City
if development is opened up in this area. Dowell stated that if
this is feasible from an engineering standpoint he would have no
problem sending this to the Council for a decision but he felt that
the Planning Committee should be reviewing it first. Orr stated
that it appears this will be a very expensive project to construct
and that doing so for one development does not make economical
sense and she feels that other development will have to occur to
help offset the expense and that could have negative impacts on the
city. Jim White stated he thought that the last time this was
discussed that Administration was asked to develop further
information on the request. Jim Hansen stated that Sea-Tac had
asked to split the issues and address only the sewer connection
request. Hansen stated he felt the issues were inseparable
particularly given the planning implications in two areas - one,
the potential density to support the costs and the other is a
potential contradiction of Council ' s 1983 agricultural land policy.
Dowell suggested that the Public Works Committee recognize that
the project is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Orr stated
she would support such a motion with the condition that this is in
no way a recommendation for approval of this extension. After
further discussion,- Dowell moved to approve the engineering concept
of the project, and the engineering concept only, to the Council
for. the October 1 meeting. The Committee unanimously approved the
motion.
Assistance with Side Sewer Repair
Mrs . Crueger addressed the Committee concerning a side sewer repair
she had to make to her rental property. She asked for assistance
with the cost of the repair since the break in the side sewer was
under the street. The repair of the side sewer required cutting
the road and restoring it. Mrs. Crueger indicated the cost for the
total repair was $5, 637 . She indicated that the rest of the street
is in poor repair. Wickstrom explained that the property owner is
responsible for repair of the side sewer up to the main, including
the tee. Carol Morris and Tom Brubaker clarified that the property
owner has fee title to the property to the middle of the street and
the City has an easement for street purposes so the side sewer is
still on her property. With the existing City ordinance which
requires the property owner to repair the side sewer up to the
main, there is no way we can offer financial assistance without it
being construed as a gift of public funds for private purposes.
qF
October 1, 1991
TO: Mayor Dan Kelleher and Council Members
FR: Tracy Faust
RE: Sea Tac sewer extension
I urge you to reject the idea of extending sewer service to Sea Tac
up the west side of the valley. The area west of the Green River has
been designated as a greenbelt. The City of Kent has made a commitment
to preserving open spaces. Extending sewer service outside our boundaries
will ensure that Kent is surrounded by high densi _y multifamily housing
on the west, defeating the greenbelt intent.
The effect of increased population in that are.3 will have a negative impact
on traffic through Kent, especially 212th and the small roads near it such
as Frager Road.
My neighbors and I are concerned that we would have to pay impact fees
to help pay for the sewer line. Our neighborhood is currently zoned RA-1;
we all have septic tanks. Having to tie in to the sewer line would force
all of us out and turn our neighborhood into a collection of deserted houses.
It is inevitable that the 212th area west of the Green River would then become
commercial strip development and high density apartments. Even a dedicated
line that passes by us without hookups has this potential ,
Kent must grow, but the City has made a commitment to preserving part
of its rural character as well. This sewer is not consistent with that
vision, and I urge you to reject it.
n
�=Cy
CITY Of 1U\��
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
October 1 , 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P: HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF WESTBROOK COMMERCE
CENTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (#SU-86-2 formerly Norpac
Division III)
As noted in the attached letter from Mark W. Stiefel, progress is
being made to accomplish the conditions which were part of the
approval of the preliminary plat and obtain the necessary approvals
from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. However, more time will be
required to obtain the approvals and then finish the work on the
remaining conditions.
The City of Kent' s Subdivision Code allows for the City Council to
grant a yearly extension of a preliminary plat, if progress is
demonstrated towards accomplishing conditions of plat approval.
Staff recommends an extension of one year for the Westbrook
Commerce Center Preliminary Plat (#SU-86-2) ; the extension is to
expire on October 6, 1992 .
CP/ch: su862 .ext
Enclosure
kpff
consulting engineers ��� oF
September 12, 1991
Mr. James Harris
Director of Planning
City of Kent
220 4th Ave. South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Subject: Westbrook Commerce Center SU-86-2
Request for Time Extension
Dear Jim:
On behalf of Glacier Park Company, we request that the City of Kent approve a one year
extension on the preliminary plat approval from October 6, 1991, to October 6, 1992. The
City Council has already granted one extension from October 6, 1990, to October 6, 1991.
On September 4, 1991, we submitted a letter to your office explaining the status of the project
and permits still under review. The applicant has been working with the Seattle District Corps
of Engineers to complete the Section 404(b)1 permit process for authorization to fill over one
acre of wetlands. Recent communications with the Corps indicate they may favorably consider
the project if the amount of wetland fill is reduced to about 3.5 acres.
The Eastbrook Business Park, SU-89-5, which was approved January 1990, is tied to
development of the Westbrook Commerce Center. A comprehensive development plan for both
projects includes centralized storm drainage, water quality and wetland mitigation
improvements.
We believe it is in the best interest of the City of Kent to allow Glacier Park Company additional
time to complete the final plat process. Significant investments of time and resources have
been made to obtain approvals.
Please notify ou, office immediately of any additional information you may need to respond to
this request. If necessary, we would be happy to meet with City staff and the City Council.
Sincerely,
Z�24t�
Mark W. Stiefel, P.E.
Project Manager
MWS:cjs
cc: Marty Sevier, Glacier Park Company
Don Marcy, Cairncross & Hempleman
Ron Kranz, David Evans & Associates
89713.1
1201 third avenue,suite 900,seattle,wa 98101 (206) 622-5822 fax: 622-8130
los angeles portland Seattle
r
CITY OF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
V7HC MEMORANDUM
October 1, 1991
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ADDED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM - VAN DOREN'S LANDING
PHASE I FINAL PLAT NO. SU-87-4
This is a request for the Council to set October 15, 1991 as the
date for a public meeting to consider Van Doren' s Landing Phase I
final plat map. The property is approximately 104 . 5 acres in size
and is located at the southwest corner of 228th Street and West
Valley Highway.
JPH/mp:c:su874 .mem
CONTINUED COMMU14ICATIONS
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 - FAIR HOUSING
v-
r'
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October, 1, 1991
TO: Rent City Council
FROM: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney `
RE: Impact of Fair Housing Act 1988 Amendments on requirement
to limit number of bedrooms
ISSUE
You have asked for an opinion as to whether a developer
can limit the number of bedrooms in a proposed apartment complex in
order to reduce the potential number of children residing in the
complex without violating the Fair Housing Act discrimination
clause.
BACKGROUND
A developer requested a conditional use permit to develop
57 apartment units in a CC, Community Commercial, zone on
approximately 2 . 5 acres of property. The Kent Hearing Examiner
denied the request because the multifamily development would not be
compatible with the multifamily developments already in the area.
The Hearing Examiner said, "Considerations appropriate to this
particular case include the impact of additional residents
(especially school-aged children) (emphasis added) on available
recreational facilities, on existing residents in surrounding
residential developments and on the school district. " The Examiner
then continued in his findings that the permit could be
reconsidered if the development was 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. " The question then becomes whether it is
permissible to limit the number of bedrooms without running afoul
of the Federal and State Fair Housing Act.
APPLICABLE LAW
The 1965 Fair Housing Act (FHA) was amended in 1988 to
expand the categories of discriminatory housing practices to
include discrimination on the basis of handicap or familial status.
There is no comparable state law that includes discrimination on
the basis of familial status although the state statute has always
included handicap. The FHA amendments make it unlawful
To discriminate in the sale or rental, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a
dwelling to any buyer or renter because of
familial status. (Emphasis added. )
Some maintain that the underlined language prohibits
discriminatory land use and zoning controls that restrict or
eliminate housing choices for families with children. Section 807
(b) (2) of the Act makes zoning restrictions that have the effect
of excluding families with children clearly illegal. However, §807
6 (d) provides that the FHA is not intended to limit the
applicability of any reasonable local, state or federal
restrictions on the maximum number of persons permitted to occupy
a dwelling unit. As the Committee on the Judiciary's report
elaborates:
A number of jurisdictions limit the number of
occupants per unit based on a minimum number of
square feet in the unit or the sleeping areas in
the unit. Reasonable limitations by governments
would be allowed to continue, as long as they
were applied to all occupants, and did not
operate to discriminate on the basis of . . .
familial status. (emphasis added)
This provision would seem to allow a municipality to limit
occupancy to a given number of persons per square foot or to two or
fewer persons per bedroom. HUD agrees to some extent with the
Committee's interpretation but says that such occupancy
requirements as number of sleeping areas or bedrooms must be
reasonable. The owner or manager must show however that the
standard does not unreasonably restrict housing for families with
children. Any doubt should be resolved against the landlord. 24
CFR Part 100.
Because the FHA Amendments are so recent there is little
case law on the provision against discrimination based on familial
status. Most of the case law concerns blanket age prohibitions,
not finer distinctions such as number of bedrooms. Two recent
California cases suggest that a rule or provision that limited the
number of housing units available to families is acceptable as long
as there is not a "wholesale" exclusion of children from housing
otherwise open to the general public. Colony Cove Assocs. v.
Brown, 269 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1990) ; Schmidt v Superior Court, 256
Cal. Rptr. 750 (1989) . Given this approach it is clear that a
limitation on units with more than one bedroom would not violate
the FHA as long as the families had some access to housing at the
57 Apartment complex. It should be noted that the two California
cases concerned mobile home parks that excluded children. The FHA
amendments grandfathered in cases where exclusions existed prior to
the adoption of the amendments.
To prove discrimination a potential renter at the 1157"
would have to show either discriminatory intent on the owner' s
part or that the bedroom limitation has the effect of
discriminating against families. Courts have tended in race cases
to apply the effects test. In this situation an aggrieved family
would have to show that the limited number of units with more than
one bedroom was an unreasonable restriction on families and denied
them access to housing. Because there are other units available to
families at the 1157" it would be an uphill battle for a challenger
in this case to show discrimination. Also given the impact on the
school system, parks and neighborhood this may be considered a
"reasonable" restriction. But it is important to remember that any
doubt should be resolved against the landlord.
CONCLUSION
A violation of the FHA amendments would occur if the
Apartment 57 complex were to exclude all families with children.
As long as the complex provides some housing to families with
children it is not likely that the 1157" could be found in
violation.
CITY CLERK
PUBLIC WORKS COMMIT
September 17, 1991
PRESENT: Jim White Carol Morris
Leona Orr Jim Hansen
Steve Dowell John Bond
Don Wickstrom Norm Angelo
Tom Brubaker Roger Lubovich
Doug Sutherland, Bruce Rayburn, Joan Crueger, Mike Sharp, Frankie
Keyes, Jack Wagner, Franklin Teter, Keith Carpenter, Bill
Doolittle, J. Scalzo, J.R. Hoffnauer, John Kiefer, William Joy,
Edward J. Pawlowski, William Carleton
Sea-Tac Sewer- Service
Doug Sutherland indicated their request is to provide sewer service
to property within the boundaries of the City of Sea-Tac. He
indicated their original proposal included sizing the main such
that it could serve all of the unsewered property regardless of
whose jurisdiction- it eventually becomes. Additionally, the
proposal addressed Kent' s concerns about development impacts by its
proposed design. Sea-Tac would construct the sewer system at its
expense and would need an easement to connect to Kent ' s sewer stub
on 212th on the east side of the river. Mr. Sutherland stated they
have been working on this request for some time and would like to
be able to move ahead. Wickstrom clarified that Kent would not be
granting an easement for their connection but a franchise which can
have a duration as well as set conditions . Dowell raised questions
about the area to be served by Sea-Tac as well as the zoning of the
area. Wickstrom clarified that the first step was to determine
whether Committee is willing to allow service. The next step would
be to identify what conditions should be tied to the service. Orr
asked that since it appears the line would run through the 392
acres that is currently in the County, would that allow the County
to develop the property using the sewer. Wickstrom stated the
franchise could be conditioned to servicing the existing boundaries
within the City limits of Sea-Tac with any future expansion, either
outside its boundaries or to newly annexed areas, subject to
renegotiation of the franchise. Wickstrom confirmed for Dowell
that the engineering of the project is feasible. Dowell stated he
felt that the Public Works Department would be working on the
engineering end of this but it seems the people who do the planning
for the City of Kent would be the ones to make the determination
whether to even consider it. Carol Morris expressed concerns about
whether conditions on the franchise by which Sea-Tac would restrict
itself from providing services would be enforceable. She indicated
she would like to research the matter. Leona Orr indicated the
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 2
Planning Committee has briefly discussed the request but there have
been concerns raised about how to mitigate the impact to the City
if development is opened up in this area. Dowell stated that if
this is feasible from an engineering standpoint he would have no
problem sending this to the Council for a decision but he felt that
the Planning Committee should be reviewing it first. Orr stated
that it appears this will be a very expensive project to construct
and that doing so for one development does not make economical
sense and she feels that other development will have to occur to
help offset the expense and that could have negative impacts on the
City. Jim White stated he thought that the last time this was
discussed that Administration was asked to develop further
information on the request. Jim Hansen stated that Sea-Tac had
asked to split the issues and address only the sewer connection
request. Hansen stated he felt the issues were inseparable
particularly given the planning implications in two areas - one,
the potential density to support the costs and the other is a
potential contradiction of council ' s 1983 agricultural land policy.
Dowell suggested that the Public Works Committee recognize that
the project is feasible from an engineering standpoint. Orr stated
she would support such a motion with the condition that this is in
no way a recommendation for approval of this extension. After
further discussion, Dowell moved to approve the engineering concept
of the project, and the engineering concept only, to the Council
for the October 1 meeting. The Committee unanimously approved the
motion.
Assistance with Side Sewer Repair
Mrs. Crueger addressed the Committee concerning a side sewer repair
she had to make to her rental property. She asked for assistance
with the cost of the repair since the break in the side sewer was
under the street. The repair of the side sewer required cutting
the road and restoring it. Mrs. Crueger indicated the cost for the
total repair was $5 , 637 . She indicated that the rest of the street
is in poor repair. Wickstrom explained that the property owner is
responsible for repair of the side sewer up to the main, including
the tee. Carol Morris and Tom Brubaker clarified that the property
owner has fee title to the property to the middle of the street and
the City has an easement for street purposes so the side sewer is
still on her property. With the existing City ordinance which
requires the property owner to repair the side sewer -up to the
main, there is no way we can offer financial assistance without it
being construed as a gift of public funds for private purposes.
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 3
Wickstrom explained for Dowell that we reduced the size of the
street repair required in order to minimize the cost and that
portion which had to be restored is equivalent to what existed
prior. Carol Morris recommended that Mrs. Crueger file a claim
through the City Clerk' s office and let the City' s insurance
carrier determine if the City has any liability. The Committee
concurred.
Loading Zones
John Bond explained there are three areas to address . There is a
15-minute parking stall on 4th by City Hall which we are requesting
to change to a loading zone to enable trucks serving City Hall to
park and unload. The other is on Gowe by Ben Franklin. A loading
zone could be created away from the existing crosswalk. These two
zones can be created with signs and pavement marking. The third is
on First Avenue by George ' s Appliance. In order to create a
loading zone for businesses in this area a parking stall south of
the existing loading zone would have to be removed. Currently when
trucks are loading in front of the appliance store the Stop Sign is
obscured. Jim White stated he had no problem with the loading
zones on 4th and Gowe but is concerned about the loss of a parking
stall on First given the parking situation downtown and asked if
there was another way to address this area. John Bond indicated
that a loading zone could be created on the side of Gowe west of
the railroad but that it could not be used for parking. It was
suggested that proposal be reviewed with the owner of the appliance
store. Bill Doolittle commented about the lack of parking around
City Hall for the public and the City vehicles in the City Hall
lot. Dowell moved that the loading zones be approved with the
change as discussed for the one on First Avenue and that the City
Administrator review the parking situation at City Hall and
consider using space in the Centennial parking garage more
efficiently. The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
Extension of Utility Services
Wickstrom stated this was referred back to the Committee for
discussion on the definition of application as it pertains to the
resolution. Wickstrom stated that the L. I .D. request form that was
received prior to adoption of the resolution states that their
signature does not commit them to an L. I . D. but simply indicates
their interest and that they would like further information. Carol
Morris indicated that if they came in prior to enactment of this
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 4
resolution to make application for an extension of water and sewer
service then that can be allowed. Wickstrom clarified that if they
do not proceed with the L. I.D. process, then we would not be able
to address service with a new request. Mr. Sharp stated that on
March 6 an application was made for a water meter hookup for
property owned by Doris Ramsted. There was a misunderstanding in
what was being requested and while the issue was being cleared up,
the resolution was adopted. Wickstrom explained that the hookup
being requested by Ms. Ramsted requires a main line extension to
service a piece of her property. Mr. Sharp explained that Mrs.
Ramsted is proposing to sell this five acre portion of her
property. It was further clarified that the original application
was for a hookup to the main which is already at her property line.
Carol Morris explained further that hookups are not addressed in
the resolution only extensions. So if her request was for a
hookup, even though it required an extension, we would have to
approve the application. The Committee unanimously approved
allowing the hookup. After some further discussion, it was
determined that the Attorney's office should issue a legal opinion
on this matter.
East Hill Annexation
Wickstrom stated this matter was referred to the Public Works
Committee for a recommendation to the Council at the time they meet
with the petitioners. Wickstrom indicated that moving ahead with
the annexation would give us some control over implementation of
the 272nd/277th corridor project and it also honors the position we
have with the Boundary Review Board. In the 701s, the Boundary
Review Board denied our servicing outside the City limits as they
thought we should not just take the utility revenue but provide the
other services as well . Through negotiation, they agreed to allow
us to service outside the City limits as long as we secured
covenants supporting annexation. Should the City deny this
annexation, the Boundary Review Board may reconsider their past
position. If we can 't service it because they are denying our
services then you open the area up to other utility districts.
This area in particular is not so amenable to other districts but
the entire eastern franchise area has potential of being serviced
by other sewer and water districts. The costs are relatively
realistic as to the revenues generated and what we anticipate it to
cost to service the area. Wickstrom continued that when the
impacts of the overburdened Kent Kangley and Canyon Drive are
considered, implementing the corridor project would relieve a
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 5
significant amount of the congestion. The cost to service the
proposed annexation area becomes pretty small when it is compared
to what it costs the City to mitigate impacts on Canyon Drive.
Wickstrom added that he would also recommend modifying the boundary
as shown on the map included in the Committee 's packet to include
a parcel that originally was not within the proposed annexation
boundary but is under the same ownership as its abutting parcel.
Thus, this would avoid splitting the parcel. He would also
recommend the annexation area be subject to the city' s
indebtedness. Items to be considered are whether to proceed with
the annexation at all, the boundary and whether you want to adjust
it, and whether the area should assume the City ' s existing
indebtedness. Jim White asked what assuming the City ' s
indebtedness would do to the property taxes. Wickstrom explained,
referring to the information in the Committee' s packet, that the
overall effect of annexation to the City versus remaining in the
County is almost a wash. Overall, the property owners would save
$1. 34 per $100, 000 valuation by being in the City. Dowell asked
about fire and police coverage. The area is currently served by
Fire District 37 . In an emergency, responses by both police and
fire would be whomever can get there the fastest. The costs shown
for Police are based on a cost per call . Mr. Pawlowski wanted to
know if there was a law which prevented a city from annexing
property to put a road through. Tom Brubaker indicated these were
two separate issues. Once an annexation occurs, the city has
jurisdiction over the area. A second process can take place then
for approval of the road project. The annexation does not
guarantee that the road project will occur. It was noted that when
properties are annexed into the City they come in automatically as
residential, 20, 000 square foot lots. The Planning Director
reviews the area and makes recommendations as to appropriate zoning
for the area within one year. Dowell inquired about the funding
for the corridor. Wickstrom responded that the funding package for
the corridor includes money from State grants, the $5 million in
Councilmanic bonds and the mitigation agreements that have been
executed by developers to mitigate their impact to the City ' s
transportation system. Wickstrom indicated for Dowell that on a
best case scenario it would be approximately three years before
construction could start and the project would take approximately
two to three years to construct. Mr. Kiefer commented that he felt
that the people in the area should be notified as to what is taking
place with the annexation. Tom Brubaker indicated that during the
process of collecting the 60% petition, there will be community
meetings held explaining all the elements of the annexation. There
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 6
was an inquiry as to how the boundary of this annexation was
developed. Wickstrom indicated that the Public Works Department
looked at what would be a reasonable boundary to consider without
splitting properties. Dowell asked about the status of the
272nd/277th corridor and whether the Council will be hearing some
discussion on it soon. Wickstrom explained that the EIS has to be
completed and any appeal process finalized before it can be brought
before Council. Wickstrom stated that the traffic modeling has
been completed and the draft EIS should be completed in
approximately three months. A member of the audience indicated
that the corridor would definitely be an informational issue that
those impacted by this annexation will want to know about. Leona
Orr moved that the Public Works Committee recommend proceeding with
the East Hill annexation with the boundary modification as
recommended by the Public Works Director and subject to the City' s
existing indebtedness. The Committee unanimously agreed.
Jim White asked Roger Lubovich his opinion about what Council can
or can not hear, on the corridor project. Roger Lubovich indicated
that his predecessor had issued an opinion that no Council member
could communicate with residents' in the community regarding the
corridor because of the SEPA process. He continued that he will be
reviewing that opinion in that it is his understanding that case
law indicates that only at such time as there is an appeal pending
should this communication be restricted. He stressed the case
isn't real clear so he wants to look at it again and provide the
Council an opinion at the next Committee meeting.
Authorization for Condemnation - Dover Court Storm Drainage
Wickstrom explained that we have a project designed to reroute the
drainage system in the Dover Court area to relieve an erosion
problem. We have been unable to obtain two of the necessary
easements in order to proceed with the project. Wickstrom
explained that we will continue to negotiate with the property
owners but are requesting authorization to condemn if negotiations
are not successful . The Committee unanimously recommended
approval.
Authorization for Condemnation - LID 338 - Westview Terrace
Wickstrom explained that we have been unsuccessful in obtaining an
easement on one parcel in order to proceed with this sewer LID. We
would like authorization to proceed with condemnation if we
Public Works Committee
September 17, 1991
Page 7
continue to be unsuccessful in our negotiations. The committee
unanimously recommended approval.