HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/17/1992 i� TCitmy of Kent
C It Cou nci l Meeti n
y
. K
Agenda
CITY OF
����
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
ry Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
November 17, 1992
ti
Office of the City Clerk
18
Vn_11F9CT1k
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 17, 1992
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
MAYOR: Dan Kelleher COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Christi Houser Jon Johnson
Paul Mann Leona Orr Jim White
CALF, TO ORDER
ROL� CALL
PUB IC COMMUNICATIONS
✓ Regional Justice Center Presentation
"B y . l Human Services Presentation
11
�y 2 • PUBLIC HEARINGS C.
A. Street Vacation (STV-92-4) - 104th & 252
B.� 1993 Budget Including Capital Improvement Program
\ C7 Stratford Arms Phase II Rezone Appeal
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
B. Bills
C. Sewer Connection Penalty Ordinance —
D. 1993 Budget - Set date for workshop
E. 1993 Budget - Set date for Special Council Meeting
F. LID 336 - Accept contract
�a LID 333. - Set hearing date
LID 338 - Set hearing date
`f LID 339 - Set hearing date ) ,'
Approval to Auction Surplus Vehicles
Property Acquisition - Ramstead
S `�etro �2ate Adjustment - Ordinance
M• (7 er1 ✓I f e�_Cct5E'd
4 HER BUSINESS
A.- ES Appointment of Chief Administrative Officer
—(F,' Stratford Arms Phase II Rezone
C.-;� City Representation Resolution
D.-�S Annexation to King County Library District - Ordinance E. Zoning Code Amendments ZCA-92-1 - Multifamily as
Conditional use in Non-Residential Zones
F. Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-92-2 - Signs Code Amendments
G. Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-92-3 - Recreational Vehicle
Park Code
H. Kent Senior Housing Water Main Extension
5. BIDS
None
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7. REPORTS
j8. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations
9 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available in the City
Clerk' s Office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of
this page.
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) Regional Justice Center Presentation
B) Human Service Presentation
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17. 1992
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: STREET VACATION - 104TH AVENUE SE AT 252ND BLOCK
(PORTION OF) STV-92-4
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
application by D. Alan Bond of Emma Platz Company to vacate a
portion of 104th Avenue S. at S.E. 252nd Street.
Resel
d iscusmed in the staf4 repo z--
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report and maps; application
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve/ the recom-
mendation for approval with one condition on an application to
vacate a portion of 104th Avenue S. at S.E. 252nd Street, and
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance
upon receipt of compensation at 1/2 the full appraised value
thereof.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A✓
CITY OF KENT
ciTv of PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 17, 1992
MEMO O: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO
VACATE A PORTION OF 104TH AVENUE S. AT SE 252ND
STREET (STV-92-4)
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL
I. Name of Applicant
D. Allen Bond , .
Emma Platz Company
P.O. Box 6039
Bellevue, WA. 98008
II. Reason for Reauestina Vacation
The applicant states, "To retain regain possession of property
taken by King County for giving a zone change. This 9 foot
wide parcel of land fronts 104th St. (Benson Hwy) . This
street if fully improved with utilities and sidewalk. The
subject parcel is between the sidewalk and the applicant's
property.
III. Staff Recommendation
After reviewing comments from the following departments and
agencies:
• Public Works
104th Avenue SE is classified by Ordinance 2333 as
a Class "B" right-of-way. A Class "B" right-of-way
requires compensation at 1/2 the full appraised
value.
• Fire
• Police
• Washington Natural Gas
and conducting our own review, the Planning Department
recommends that the request to vacate a portion of 104th
Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1331 and shown on the
accompanying map, be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. The City shall be compensated for said vacated
right-of-way at 1/2 the full appraised value
thereof.
JPH/mp:a:stv. 924
go
/Ej 4 /)/'�//
, •r/`" 2922059133 2222059173 —
i5 T ✓- 92 3 3/) 2az2as9ea5 t
!D A VE. SEAT 2022255168
^ i 2022 912t i,,
area r�1��s{ed -k be voca l !!/!// N
2022059262
W
:r - 2022059056 2022059160
2022259096 _ F- 2022059096;
°t
AREA- REQv537-ED To BE VA6A7-50 r:� z02Z95905a
2022050
CITY :.: i 38315
2022059219 aV ':
A.
2022059105 20220552a, i
0
fx 20?r2059122 s.
2022059075.
2022059065 s
2022059100
2022059243
aPT .„ ","`. 2022059076 2022059111
2022059244
a' x
* w
ry 2022059109 2022059229 2022059214
A�f
k4g r
OURt:::^�'2wiAA0..R
° 2022059060 022099Z26 202205°l42 '� x
r`E a�' 2022059I85
2 02 2 0552 1 0
782050002
a
1 f a
i2022059053 2022059188 t
T
v> T t 2022059 103 ti ,x,I t3
7820500030 h £ w u ' "-• a
' 2022056171 r^
H
' 20220591Q4
20220591 t x "�^. Vno
v
t zr j
2205904U
2022059i �'s..
x7 . .78205aMlO ; 2022059132 202205901.0 c0220.
7820500040
-202205955
.w�
S.E. 256TH. ST.
292205 069
MAIL TO: APPLICANT:31
a
Gerald B: McCaughan Name: �. 7� �di\(� r (6 M
CITY OF KENT
220 So. 4th Ave. Address: EM `4 1�LATZ Go•
Kent, ,WA 98032 ,� •OI �I j�. 66�� p
Phone: �� � 1�4V � , �t1Q 000
STREET AND/OR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION )
Dear Mayor and Kent City Council: (110
We, the undersigned abutting property owners, hereby respectfully re q est that
-certain y_,;vuc hereby be vacated. (General Location) /D•¢' Ave
NeAI s"s. zszN�. i3�oegal Description
5E C LCG,
,A , 1
sFr z 71902
fE"F
TF.r
BRIEF'STATEMENT WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
TO 55{0 .s OF PRrjFknTy T•h-KF-
b { R 6 w 'u b 2a N C
C H � CSfiNfs 9�a f AA cC L
/a Y� 5 I " F ¢otif f 4 o y) T�15 57RCY? I S r—llf�Lsl Zt ?A r n
w f T+7 UTIL.tTfrs SE DC; 4 L(C, —rti sub—) 4��_T
CtI 75- vi`T-• G15J "C-�-e sloF wtrLL< 4`�PfLICsE(Y�S
pcoo��Ty .
Sufficient proof,' copy of deed contract etc, supported by King County
Tax Rolls shall be submitted for verification of signatures. Without
these a "CURRENT" title report shall be required. When Corporations,
Partnerships etc. are being signed for, then proof of individual 's
authority. to sign for same shall also be submitted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1" = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must-correspond with legal description.
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT #�
�( SSI+GNA UR7S NO X�b RESSES LOT, B K & PLAT/SEC. TWN. RG
,L p•� '
• c
$7.5 00 Fee Pal Treasurer's Receipt No.
App aisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No. .
Land Value Paid - Treasurer's Receipt No.
Deed.Accepted Date
Trade Accepted Date
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 . 1992
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1993 BUDGET INCLUDING 1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to continue the
public hearing on the 1993 Budget. Input will also be taken on
the 1993 component of the Capital Improvement Program. The
Acting Chief Administrative officer will present an overview
prior to taking public input.
3 . EXHIBITS:
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO )� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
1i & �
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT: ���� ��
CLOSE HEARING: �{ �� �/,�,L. y7"� '1 6'1 ���
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Subs,,—.st: 1993 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 10/26/92 at 1907 .
A. BALANCING THE OPERATING BUDGET
1. PERMANENT NON PERSONNEL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS $497 , 156
2 . PERMANENT REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS 334 , 764
3 . REVISED BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS ON SALARY AND BENEFIT
INCREASE FROM 3 . 6% TO 1. 8% 420, 656
4 . LAYOFF OF 11 FULL TIME CITY EMPLOYEES ( THIS STEP
ALREADY COMPLETED) 514 , 278
$1, 766, 854
B. REESTABLISHING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
BUDGETING SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SAVING SOME CIP FUNDS FOR CONTINGENCY AND 1994 - 2000 CIP
C. ENHANCING THE CONTINGENCY FUND
USING ONE TIME ONLY FUNDS TO BUILD THE CONTINGENCY FROM
$500, 000 TO 1 . 2 MILLION DOLLARS, 3 . 5% OF OPERATING BUDGET.
COUNCIL MANADATED A 1% INCREASE
D. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
INVOLVE DEPARTMENT HEADS, CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL BUDGET
COMMITTEE AND MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMITTEE IN FINDING BETTER
WAYS
MAINTAIN HIRING FREEZE FOR NON CRITICAL POSITIONS UNTIL LABOR
CONTRACTS SETTLED AND FINANCIAL PICTURE BETTER
AUTHORIZE CRITICAL HIRING AFTER REVIEW BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
CRITICAL HIRING - PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS, DEPTS DOWN 20%
THEN USE IN HOUSE RECRUITMENT
1993 BUDGET
GENERAL FUND BALANCING
ORIGINAL REVISED
RECOMMENDS RECOMMENDS
1 PERMANENT NO PERSONNEL COST REDUCTION PROPOSALS 121,985 121,985
Cuts Proposed By Departments
Cuts In Printing, Postage, Promotion & Photocopy 48,694
Cityline 48,694 20,301
Other Printing & Graphics 222,741 I 8,539
Other Postage 93,978 I- 429,607
Photocopy 112,888 I
30% Cut In Travel, Training & Subsistence 50,640 50,640
2 Positions To Grant Funding & Eliminate Vacated 1 ,98659 98,659
Cut Street Overlay Program Currently a 236,041
000
Reduce Equipment Rental Rates 115 000
Admin - 10 Vehicles And 15%
White - 25 Vehicles
Johnson - 20 Vehicles And 15% 148,338 497,156
Revised - 20 Vehicles And 20%
PERMANENT REVENUE ENHANCEMENT PROPOSALS
Collect Utility Taxes Monthly 9,000 9,000
Increase Saturday Market Revenue 18,000 18,000
Increase Out Of City Recreation Fees 110,377
Increase Fees By 10% With 5% Rebate In City
Increase Out Of City Fees By 30% 220,754
Increase Fees By 20% With 10% Rebate In City 37,000 20,754
Increase Plumbing Permit Fees 37,000 37,000
Increase Street Cut Permits 26,250 26,250
Increase Business License Fee From $50 To $60 000 334 764
Increase Miscellaneous Planning Charges 3,760 3,
Increase Public Works Plan Check Fees
PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENTS 460,000 460,000
Decrease Cola & Benefit Assumption 3.6 To 1.8
Eliminate Department Head Merit Increases
Freeze 1992 Step Increases
Eliminate Management Benefit Program 46,592
Eliminate Dependent Coverage For Parttime Employees (85,936) 420,656
Other Adjustment
Reduce The Number Of City Staff
Layoff 11 FTE's 540,229 105(88,964
U Eliminate City Administrator Position ,
Add Chief Administrative Officer 88,81515)
Layoff 25.5 FTE's, Net Of 11, 1 .5 In CE
Executive/Admin 2.5 - 1.5 = 1
Finance/Public Bldgs 3 = 3
Planning 3 - 1.5 = 1 .5
Public Works 9 - 1 = 8
Parks 8 - 4 = 4
Layoff 12 Add' l Positions To Be Determined By DH's
Eliminate 1 .5 Community Events Positions With
Function Performed By Existing Parks Personnel 30,185 514,278
Eliminate Park Security Program ( .5 FTE)
TOTAL 1 ,710,900 1 ,766,854
ONE TIME ONLY SAVINGS
Sell Fire Truck As Proposed By Fire Dept 25,000 25,000
Promote Use Of Voluntary LWOP
Transfer Funds From Completed Or Abandoned Projects 85,783 78,949
Transfer Funds From Water For Lost Utility Tax 122,170
Transfer Funds From Sewerage For Lost Utility Tax 204,165
Initiate Ballot Proposal For Library 292,874 292,874
403,657 723,158
BEGINNING RESERVED FUND BALANCE (CONTINGENCY FUND) 500,000 500,000
ENDING RESERVED FUND BALANCE (CONTINGENCY FUND) 903,657 1 ,223,.158
199
City of Kent, Washington
1993 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FUNDING SOURCES (IN THOUSANDS) 20-Oct
CRIMINAL - EQUIP
DESCRIPTION STREET CIP JUSTICE WATER SEWER DRAINAGE GOLF RENTAL
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
Fund Revenue/Working Capital 3,200 1,213 405 11,077.9 4,025 1, 209 2,593.5
Bonds 3,800
800
Total 3,200 1,213 405 11,077.9 4,025 5,026 209 2,593.5
PROJECTS
Municipal Court (1) 244
Emergency Power a Emergency Coord Ctr 225
Downtown Sidewalk Repair (3)ADA Modifications (4) 115
115
City Hall Remodel (1) 75
30
Downtown Parking Garage Plan (3) 2,141
Corridor Improvement Fund 0
VMS Signal Computer Upgrade 1 10
212th Street HOV Study
104th Ave & 256th Intersection Impvt 120
Neighborhood Traffic Control 75
Downtown In-City Transit (Demo) (3) 65
Reiten/Maclyn Slide Protection 45
Police Computer Upgrade 55
Firearms Training Simulator 52
"Landtrak" GIs Interface 79
Undercover surveillance Vehicle Kent Springs Transmission Main 1 2,980
980
253
Taco-, Intertie 217
His ;ter Improvements 110
Addi't—ronal Pump for Station 5 753
Downtown Watermain Improvements (3) 450
Derbyshire Water 150 40 10
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment 50
Well Head Protection Program t_3 1 .3 1.3 2.1
ER Overhead Exhaust System 5 5 5 10
ER Waste Oil Tank Replacement 177.7
Replacement Vehicles 20
Water Conservation Plan 156
Miscellaneous Sewer Replacements 400
Metro's Cross Valley Interceptor 690
Little Soos Trunk Line 83
Hill Creek/Mullen Slough Flood Control 270
3rd Avenue storm Trunk 2,953
ULID 306/Valley Detention 286
Hill Creek Flood and Erosion Control 853
Garrison Creek Flood/Erosion Facilities 340
Miscetlaneous Dng Improvements 15
Dam Safety Program 31
Stream Restoration/Tree Planting 110
Downtown Storm Improvements (3) 17.5 (2)
Bedknife and Reel Grinder 8.2 (2)
Rangeball Retrieval Power Unit 6 (2)
Utility Unit 5 (2)
Sand Trap Grooming Attachment 5 (2)
Aerator & Kitchen Equipment 8 (2)
Greens Roller 20 (2)
Replace Range Netting
Totals 2,561 789 231 5,989.3 1,292.3 4,957.3 69.7 189.8
Bat. Available (5) 639 424 174 5,088.6 2,732.6 68.7 139.0 2,403.7
(1) $1,015,000 in CIP-amount reduced and included in City Hall Remodel.
(2) Per preliminary recommendations to Golf Advisory Board.
(3) Added based on Downtown Infrastructure Capital Program.
(4) Added to comply with American Disabilities Act required improvements.
(5) Remaining Public Safety Bond and Library funds may be available to fund projects.
1993 Preliminary Budget
city of Kent, Washington
Position Anaylsis
Total *FTE'S Percentage
Authorized 1992 1992 Total of Vacant
Under Deleted Laid Off Staff Staff Positions
1991 Budget Positions Positions Reduction Reduction a 10/15/92
GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Executive/Administration 7.5 1.5 1.5 20.0% 1.0
City Clerk 3.5 1.5 1.5 42.9'/.
Civil Service 1.0 0.0 0.0%
Law 7.5 1.0 1.0 13.3%
Human Resources 6.5 1.0 1.0 15.4%
Finance/Public Office Buildings 21.5 2.0 2.0 11.8% a
Planning 19.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 12.8%
Police 128.5 8.5 0.5 9.0 7.0% 1.0
Fire & Code Enforcement 152.5 9.0 2.0 11.0 7.r.. 4.0
Public Works 61.6 7.5 1.0 8.5 13.8% 1.0
Parks, Recreation & Culture 62.5 2.3 / 4.0 6.3 11.1% a
Total 472.0 35.3 9.0 44.3 9.4% 7.0
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
;minal Justice
2.0 1.0 -
-aw 2.0
Police 8.3
Environmental
Fire 1.0
Public Works 1.0
HCD - Planning 1.5 (0.5)J (0.5)
Street Utility - Public Works 2.5 1.0
Total 16.3 (0.5) (0.5) 4.0
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Utility Billing - Finance 6.5 0.5 0.5
Utility Operations - Public Works 45.0 .0
1.0
Golf Carplex - Parks 17.0 2.0 1
Total _. ,. 68.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 7.0
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipnent Rental 6.5 1.0
Central Services
Information Services 15.0 2.5 2.5 16.7/. 1.0
Finance 10.0 2.0 2.0
Total 31.5 4.5 4.5 16.7'/. 2.0
TOTAL POSITIONS 588.3 39.8 11.0 48.8 8.3% 20.0
* FTE's are full time equivalents, full time equals 1, part time equals .5
a Percentage shown carbines impact of all staff reductions.
✓ Includes two part time positions added for 1992. Iq
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17, 1992
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: STRATFORD ARMS PHASE II APPEAL (#RZ-92-1)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This public hearing will consider an
appeal by SDM Properties from the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of denial of an application to rezone 1.23 acres
from R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, to MR-M, Medium Density
Multifamily Residential. The property is located in the East
Hill neighborhood approximately 660 feet north of SE 256th
Street at 113th Avenue SE. This location lies adjacent to and
east of the existing Stratford Arms Apartments.
3 . EXHIBITS: Appeal letters from Paul Morford dated September 18,
1992 and September 3 , 1992, letter from James P. Harris dated
September 15, 1992 , and verbatim minutes from the August 19,
1992 hearing (see additional information in Other Business
Section 4B) .
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, August 19 , 1992
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING: ,/J1
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �f
Councilmember '-o moves, Councilmember seconds
to appreve-/deny theJ appeal and--kf a ^= Q city-
sta ^ -to
direet-t.he-Ei -' _the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
i
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C 7
WHO
SEP 1 8 1992
3 �
7-1
Sv �6 c%r, ' f1/��C'�C vi= ��'i'�rr t-;•-r'�o ,wit MS 3�h%�sa'�'` .��z�c
------ ---- ---
_ /. . Tff�_ C'o✓,G� ,.� �vo �Fri ., ems. A'�'uc..�-rG�}���
. Lam.,�.:,.ry'+'�1ls'4/F'!` ,5�yf'-- �•'<-�.P..:..�"� c►,��I.�i�G�.�wrb�.�sF;7r�-a� -
' ���•�,a't� /�GC. /r.�J%yJ/V�L"°,.M� �/c..L.lL'/ - iJ �/�1.� '.�l T���..�.y.I.i
.. '7 r,-t_7'rt ,�"T�':s%''rim �it�2> .2 L�G Q.r-e-1 e-r�vo.dr,d 7 _
_6T
I `
%I�-��/L
'�
71
r.. � �,• [ err=^,. �+:v.j.�4.r G L.e.f+'v+-�6.�ro �,i.�^f'a:�,J CJ'
�' ,
dr
f cJ/�G!L }��r7�',�'/�/'c_ ,�:N T�1S .a°�i�'�t?:✓c.�T'oo✓_ 6Tn`T�:.''
.�,f.4 �'" �,viS�-' �'r•'o;•=.:��e'c� TJ�v�Lcac.���--�✓J`. �. 7�i''r�-
._.,� ;J�GLYJ;J°��"i�^7 y' �c..e U d'—cam .°$ � /.�✓G a.-LGo:�+Ti13L-e7T_ �ei i,"
i
i
i
• _- . �.4 c�L.. ,.�--rear-�;�c7, i�:.�.r�> d'�'`".�»f,',�� / �i G c�. .
.:. ....IJ rr''Vo . . /V'i ff Jf d!Y. `',CJ its -__ /..5'..,fi�i^✓;' -.�'l�tJir�
a ✓ DF .rleri -.vG'
ld ..-_ �i�'��r-`-_ /g�r'`��iC:r�t'.Wi'". .�i!-G� /�'�G .�7�"_`. f1 �•!f-'�rfes-c•,i '
-�''"''f`.•'t.=';.!v.+ " r��.�T _. rvJ d-a°S v e--f . Zd�.rso-.�G
.. _ \.l.J'�-tf C:oj,� �:�`-'�Cr" C,'./"'' ��''�tJfLti C.-,+t.`.. .�,�yS,;•r%�G.+�f-yam I��_ - .
_ 3
��'s3.�'"�-: �"'L-`Q"y�rj�M v -...,�/-/,G./ ;j�iG1'.•,✓$'. uO �/'�" ^'. �''}r t
�,C.Yg-� `,�/�/G,•�i/ J`�/`�c>w,✓/S ��Cl ST•�•�✓G ,5,9is"iF?o''�u,��=='
:�`"'./�'d`yS /��' �.//r; �'r�•?"r],�'�"- d.�`''y �cJ� /�-r�Cam✓t�r"ci r:x`
`L/L-s-/G•t."'.. .�51+�j'�" Gifd-/'../�=.�� y+}-.+�,,�i�"I� GdJ/CT' .
I
"• <'/y:� Eo G..sf^' �r'*+-9l G� N�c��"" .�O.s�-t�C.�tT�'y_:.?..6fia.G� "=
I
Also
L4
7*4
f �'.}'�7"t �i�,�ti�j'� /`�L v GOEr:�T� _.;/F��"?e.t C.d��_. T��.+✓S.:""
��vuL D
y,
�,��5 t�.�•-L �, 7", T� .?�--,ram r_��- �"���i0'"" T�''"'
.S�J:A'1�':t'.'�-•�=i+'i _ M `��O i"'"//�'/�/�v fa�i}-�CtNt/_ rC.7.. _,�.".. C.�i.,,t� .
.._ _ �ch..•.,•� �4k�sr r- 5/�+��r t-a�� �' ,�"��-t I�� 2//L.�a7'� .
WIM
. ,,�}-�7 s,JA_C�N i ✓'"�"� ..�`Jr/ S;,7""/F--s G. �Jr����"I' ..�e�r:�6i�`-
_
d.��s Size • '`. � - 1 t �
. _; -�`"v _ �""�',''��_ ,h�',��;.•�,.�hr� .��oi't/.-.,tom. o�i�•-sd,C..
CITY OF �L�� Dan Kelleher, Mayor
James P. Harris, Planning Director
I
September 15, 1992
Paul Morford
c/o SDM Properties
11126 SE 256th
Kent, WA 98031
RE: APPEAL OF STRATFORD ARMS PHASE II REZONE (RZ-92-1)
Dear Mr. Morford:
The City of Kent is in receipt of your Order for Transcript for
Appeal from the Decision of the Hearing Examiner as well as your
letter dated September 31 1992 appealing said decision. However,
neither of these documents states the reason(s) for your appeal.
According to Ordinance #2233 , which establishes the office of the
Hearing Examiner, appeals from Examiner' s decisions must state the
reasons for appeal. I am including a copy of this ordinance with
this letter for your reference. The ordinance requires that "such .
written appeal shall allege specific errors of fact, specific
procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in the
interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or new evidence which was
not available at the time of the hearing held by the Examiner, "
(SEE, Section 16) .
Please file with the City Clerk a written response consistent with
Ordinance #2233 in order to complete your appeal request. This
must be done by September 23rd.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, you may contact
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, at (206) 859-3390.
Respectfully
J mes P. Harris
lanning Director
FNS/JPH/ch:a:morford.app
Enclosure
cc: Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
Fred Satterstrom, Planner Manager
4 —
220 4th AVE.SO., l KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3390/FAX#859-3334
,�GcrvT, �•H-s.v: 9�3I
�E�,�/� �-lifidiy• / �-
�v fxl��T •` ��.�r s„rG ��t..^-r...ic�Z �E�os�r' o.�' •�,E�Fd-tea
s�/1vcbTs�ce
cl
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390
PLEASE NOTE: This verbatim transcript was prepared by the City Planning Department for use by
the City Council in hearing the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision. It is intended as an aid to
the Council in reviewing the record of the Hearing Examiner. It is not an officially certified
transcription. The audio tapes of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner are also available to the
Council and the parties to the appeal. These tapes should be reviewed if there is any uncertainty about
the transcription prepared for the Council's review on appeal. The unofficial transcript should not be
relied upon for decision making by the Council if there is any uncertainty about the record before the
Hearing Examiner. If the matter under review is further appealed to Superior Court, an officially
certified transcript will be prepared in response to the Court's decision.
STRATFORD ARMS - PHASE H
#RZ-92-1
A request by SDM Properties for a rezone of 1.23 acres from R1-9.6, Single Family
Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The property is located 660
feet north of SE 256th Street at 113th Avenue SE.
VERBATIM MINUTES OF AUGUST 199 1992 MEETING
Ted Hunter: Good evening. We'll call this to order. It's August 19, a sunny evening, 7:00.
We agreed to hold this in the evening so those of you concerned about this application for a
rezone could conveniently attend. There is that one item on the agenda this evening. It's a
rezone application. It's entitled Stratford Arms Phase H. The file number is RZ-92-1. The
applicant is SDM Properties and its for property located at 11126 SE 256th Street. By the way
of some introductory remarks. I should note that there's copies of the staff report. The Kent
City Planning Department has prepared a report and a recommendation on this request. They're
available up here on the front table and any of you that have not seen that, feel free to pick up
a copy right now as I'm introducing this hearing. You'll want to read through that and that
might help you shape your remarks. It's the stack there...the tallest stack, it's a report of some
pages. So feel free to take one of those and review that. The sign-in book also at the front
table is only if you would like to receive directly a copy of the recommendation. If you testify,
we will take your name and testimony at the time you would like to testify. The sign-in book,
the red book, if you would like a copy of the decision or the recommendation mailed directly
to you, sign in that red book and we will make sure that it gets directly to you. Also, on the
front table there's some copies of rules of procedure. We run these hearings somewhat
informally but if we do need to fall back on formalities we do have some rules of procedures
and we will follow those tonight and adhere to those. So those are also available at the front
table.
1
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase I[
#RZ-92-1
This session of the Examiner is for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the request for
a Zoning Code Map amendment or rezone filed by SDM Properties. The processing of these
applications for rezones are governed by a specific ordinance section, Section 15.09.050 of the
Kent Zoning Code. The role of the Examiner in this process is to hold this public hearing, to
make sure that notice of the public hearing was properly posted and published and then to make
a record and a recommendation to the Council for final action on this rezone.
At this point I want to ask those here, if...if anyone present has any reason to object to the
public notice given for this hearing. Are there any objections to the notices given for this
hearing, this evening's hearing? I see no objections. Of course, those not here may object
because they haven't seen notice but those here agree that notice was properly given and we'll
note that for the record.
The jurisdiction of the Examiner is controlled by the Kent City Council, State Statutes and also
some court decisions. For this matter, the jurisdiction of the Examiner, myself, is to conduct
the public hearing and, as I said, to make only a recommendation on whether or not the
application for this rezone should be approved or denied. This recommendation will be made
within ten working days of the close of this hearing. Only the City Council has the final
authority on the rezone request. The Council, by City ordinance, must act on the
recommendation within 30 days from the time they receive it from me. My jurisdiction is to
make a recommendation only on this application that is before us tonight. It needs to be based
solely on information that you all here provide me tonight at this hearing and which is contained
in the official file. Now, in preparation for the hearing, I have reviewed the file, we refer to
that as Exhibit A, that has in it the staff report and recommendation which is on the front table,
it also has the initial application, it also contains a map, a site plan map that was submitted with
the application that shows the proposal for construction of multifamily housing on the site and
it has an environmental determination that was made under the State Environmental Policy Act
and finally, it has a copy of a Superior Court, King County Superior Court Decision that was
issued in a matter related to this property. Now, all of these materials are part of the official
record. I have reviewed them prior tonight's hearing, so there's no need to submit those as
additional exhibits. I've also viewed the site and I'm familiar with the area surrounding the site.
I'll ask for questions as soon as I've finished these introductory remarks. I want to note that my
starting point on this particular application is that the site is presently zoned single family
residential, 9.6. This is consistent with the Court decision in this matter and it is one that I will
follow in front of me tonight. I realized it is on appeal, that my jurisdiction will be shaped by
the King County Superior Court decision and will begin with this as single family zoning. It
is the responsibility of the applicant to provide the evidence to support the change in the zoning
designation. To approve a change in the zoning designation the criteria that are specified in your
City ordinances must be meet and it is my job to listen to the evidence you bring forward tonight
and then to make a recommendation based only on those criteria and the evidence that I hear
2
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
tonight. So I'm going to restrict the testimony to that question of should there be a change in
zoning based on the criteria in your City Code. Those are specified in the ordinance. I'm going
to briefly summarize those, so we all have those in mind and I ask you to shape your testimony
to those criteria because that's what's important for the record and for the recommendation and
ultimately the decision of the City Council. The criteria that must be met in order for a rezone
request to be approved include the following: That the proposed rezone is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, that the rezone and the subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with development in the vicinity, that the proposed rezone would not unduly burden
the transportation system in the vicinity with impacts could not be mitigated; that circumstances
have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the
proposed rezone and finally, that the proposed rezone would not adversely affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Those are the five criteria that
we will listen to and I ask you to testify to tonight as we consider whether or not this parcel of
property should be rezoned to the MRM designation. We had a question earlier and I want to
take a chance to that now. Any questions about what I said so far. Yes, sir.
Voice: The question I have is, you said you have the original application, two weeks prior to
that we had supplemented that, I just...you didn't mention that. I was just wondering if it is
there.
Hunter: The question is about what is in the official file and it does include the application plus
some supplemental data that I included in the application. So, its application with attachments.
O.k., any other questions about the introductory remarks. I'll move then quickly to the order
of procedure. The order that we'll follow in our hearing tonight. I'll ask first that the City
Planning Department present its recommendation, its review of the application and has
summarized as is presented in the report that's on the front table, its findings...the Planning
Department's findings and recommendation to me on whether or not the zoning request should
be approved. After the City's presentation, we'll allow for questions by the applicant or others
present of the City to help clarify the City's presentation; following the City's presentation we'll
allow the applicant to present evidence and the evidence as to why the rezone should be
approved; questions of the applicant by the City or those present to clarify the applicant's
position will then be allowed. And then, finally, we'll take comments and testimony from other
interested members of the public who are here for or against or just to add evidence of what
should be considered when looking at this rezone request. Let me ask right now how many plan
to testify, if you could just sort of indicate by raising your hand. O.k., I...it's less than ten so
I think we can be fairly free in testimony. We won't place time restrictions on. It's my desire
to keep this definitely within...within a two hour time frame. We can do that. I think that's
a reasonable time restriction. We'll try to do that...adhere to that. Is the...I know the City's
here and represented, the Planning Department. Is the applicant here and do you have a
representative to speak for you.
3
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
Voice: We all have different portions of our presentation.
Hunter: O.k. So the applicant will have several witnesses to present. O.k.
Voice: And we have an attorney.
Hunter: Is the attorney present. O.k. Who is your attorney.
Voice: Mr. Leed here.
Hunter: O.k. And, the rest are surrounding property owners, neighbors, citizens of Kent. Do
you have representatives, an attorney representing any of you tonight. O.k. All right, then
we'll allow you to speak in whichever order you prefer to speak in, but, let..let us begin with
those that do plan to testify, it is necessary that we put everyone under oath or affirmation and
if you plan to testify I'll ask you now to please stand and raise your right hand. And, do each
of you swear or affirm to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you give, if so,
answer I do.
Voices: I do.
H n er: All right, those are all the preliminaries out of the way so we'll move right in to the
City's presentation. We have with us, Mr. Fred Satterstrom from the Kent City Planning
Department.
Fred Satterstrom: Thank you for introducing me, I can dispense with that. As the Hearing
Examiner already said, the application before us is a rezone request. It's called Stratford Arms -
Phase H. The file number is RZ-92-1. The applicant is SDM Properties. The request is to
rezone approximately 1.23 about one and a quarter acres from R1-9600 which is Single-Family
designation to MRM, Medium Density Multiple Family. The rezone proposal...site is located
in the East Hill area of Kent. It's located north of SE 256th Street, about 650 feet west of 113th
Avenue SE and it's...it lies just to the east and adjacent to the existing Stratford Arms
apartments. Let's call that Phase I. As mentioned, the property is about 1.23 acres. The...the
map that's on the overhead now, is the zoning of the area. The site is highlighted here. To the
west of the site, the existing zoning is MRM, again, Medium Density Multiple Family. This
is the existing Stratford Arms site. The existing zoning of the site is R1-9600. It is surrounded
on the north, south, and east side by R1-9600 zoning as well. I think the Hearing Examiner has
very briefly described...the....the court case that this property was involved in recently. The
zoning of the property is presently under appeal and...but the decision of the Superior Court of
King County in the original lawsuit would...invalidated Ordinance 2837 and reverted the
property back to R1-9600. I really want to steer clear of the lawsuit issues here. We don't
4
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
really feel they're relevant to the merits of the rezone of the particular request. The
Comprehensive Plan of the...there's actually two Plans that are applicable to the site. One is
the City-wide...what we call the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the other one is the East
Hill Subarea Plan. The City of Kent is divided into a number of subareas where we get into
more specific neighborhood planning. But, I'll address the City-wide Comprehensive Plan first
and then address the East Hill Plan secondly. Bear in mind that these Plans consist of both a
map and together with goals and policy statements. So, when I say plan, I may use that term
fairly generically. I may be referring to both the Plan as well as....the Plan statements as well
as the Plan Map. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan which I have behind me here designates
the subject property for multiple family. The subject site is located approximately right here,
near the edge on the Comprehensive Plan Map between multiple family and single family.
Again, the Map consists of...excuse me, the Plan consists of both a map and policy statements
to help clarify the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Some goals and goals and policies are
cited in the staff report. I will not read them but I will note that under the Planning Department
Comment on page 3, that the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan strive to encourage protection of existing residential neighborhoods. Those
goals and policies also recognize that the City of Kent will grow and encourage number of
housing types and densities. The proposed rezone, of course, would expand by, I think, 21 units
on 1.23 acres, representing a density of 17 plus units per acre. A multiple family development
in an area characterized mainly by single-family residences and it would appear that inasmuch
as multiple family would conflict with single family that it would be incompatible with the or
would not be consistent with the goals or the policies of the Housing Element of the City-wide
Plan. But, I really feel that we need to take a look too at the East Hill Plan to really clarify the
intent of the City-wide Plan. I'm not sure that the Comprehensive Plan here is clear enough in
its intent as it regards this particular instance to say one way or another definitively what those
Plan policies might support. So, I looked to the East Hill Subarea Plan and this report...as that
document...should help clarify the general goals of the Comprehensive Plan. I have a copy of
that map and these maps are not an ideal scale, I realize, particularly when you get into a group
this large and if...if they need to be submitted into the record for examination by the Hearing
Examiner, I think, we're quite welcome to do that.
Hun er: Well, these are kept on file, are they not. Official City maps.
Satterstrom: Yes, they are. This...what I have here...remove the City-wide Plan. The East
Hill Subarea Plan Map also designates the rezone site for multiple family, up to 24 units per
acre. The East Hill Plan as you see it here, behind me, the map, was adopted in 1982 as part
of a major subarea plan revision. That map was modified in early 1990 through Resolution 1235
which modified the East Hill Plan Map. That resolution added a single-family designated area
overlay. In other words this was a..an overlay over the base map designation. So what we have
now, and I would like to show that map...the map that I have behind me is a blow-up of what
5
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
that Resolution 1235 adopted for the East Hill Subarea Plan. It depicts an area which the City
intended three objectives for and that was, as specified in the staff report, to conserve existing
single-family neighborhoods, to protect single-family neighborhoods from incompatible uses and
to promote new single-family development. The overlay was an expression of the City's policy
culminating a long...several year process in which it attempted to balance its housing stock
which at that time was becoming very predominantly....predominantly multiple family.
Therefore, there is, in effect, somewhat of a conflict between the base map designation on our
City-wide Plan and East Hill Plan indicating multiple family and the more recent expression
through Resolution 1235 of the single-family designation. It is difficult to say, it is difficult to
answer the question, therefore, whether or not this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Map and the staff would look to the goals and policies to further clarify the Plan's intent or the
Land Use Policy intent for this particular instance. Again, I'm not going to go over the Housing
Element goals and policies that are cited in the staff report but there are several on pages 4 and
5 that are quoted out of the East Hill Plan. However, I would like to say that under the
Planning Department comment, after you review those goals and policies from the Housing
Element, they do strive to protect residential neighborhoods, like the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan, from incompatible uses that would diminish the quality of liveable of those residential
areas, at the same time, the goals encourage a diversity of housing types and opportunity and
recognize that there will be a growing demand by a growing population. The policy statements
help to clarify the competing aims of these objectives by encouraging buffers, or transitions,
between dissimilar land uses thereby discouraging the piecemeal erosion of single-family
neighborhoods generally around their edges. Based on our examination of the policy statements,
their intent to provide additional housing opportunities yet to preserve existing residential
neighborhoods in the City Council's long-standing effect to balance the housing supply through
resolutions and ordinances that are mentioned in the staff report between 1985 and 1989. Staff
feels that the proposed rezone does not appear to be consistent with the Planning policies as
such. As a matter of history, before I get into the discussion of the criteria, a building permit
was issued for this Phase H project approximately a year ago. At that time, it was prior to the
judgment of the Superior Court, the Ordinance 2837 had zoned the site MRM and it was the
City's understanding that through that ordinance the zoning was MRM. The zoning permit and
building permit were issued and the project was underway. It was stopped in...at the beginning
of the project, however, by the decision of the Court invalidating the building permit and it has
since been revoked. So, you will see on the site that there is parts of a foundation of one of the
buildings that presently exists, otherwise the site is vacant. It is also worthy to note that this
was also part of a 410 acre annexation that occurred as part of the East Hill Well Annexation
back in 1987. The present land use of the site is a single-family dwelling. A preponderance
of the site is..is..is part of the construction dealing with that foundation. I believe the house on
the site is still occupied. It's really located on the boundary between multiple family on the
west, the Stratford Arms, project and single-family development to the east. Property to the
north recently subdivided is currently undeveloped and the property to the south, currently zoned
6
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
for single-family, is also undeveloped. This rezone request has gone through environmental
review and a mitigated DNS has been issued, the conditions of that MDNS are specified on
pages 6 through 8 and I will not go through them. Physically and topographically the site is
relatively flat. I think it has about a two and a half percent slope. Sloping from the west to the
east, generally unvegetated. I think there are some trees mainly on the east side of the site and
it does not appear that there are any major significant or noticeable drainage problems on the
site. As far as infrastructure is concerned, the streets and utilities as proposed in the rezone
application. The rezone site would obtain access from 256th Avenue or SE 256th Street via the
access drive through the existing Stratford Arms apartments. Part of the environmental
conditions which may be irrelevant here that were made part of the environmental review
process said...stated that 113th Street which abuts this site to the east, there would be no access
from this site to 113th until it was improved to City standards. Also, as a condition of the
environmental review, there was a condition added that this property owner would
participate....no participation in an LID to improve that street to city standards. There is an
existing eight-inch water main that is presently available to this site. Sanitary sewer is also
available to the site and as far as storm water system, the applicant would be required to design
and construct a system prior to and treat the storm water prior to discharge into the City of
Kent, if the rezone were approved, and if, there were development permits subsequently applied
for.
Hunter: I'd like to...maybe redirect back to the criteria, I think. Because you began with the
Comprehensive Plan which is the first criteria that we look at in the rezone and I...before you
moved on to the next one I want to make sure that we captured some things there...that I want
to make sure that I heard them accurately. Is that where we are in your presentation? Were you
moving into the ...
Satterstrom: Moving in there right now.
Hunter: Into the criteria for review.
Satterstrom: Um hum...um hum.
Hunter: O.k. You did that initially with your Comprehensive Plan overview, that's what I
heard. But, before you go further I want to make certain that we identify those maps correctly.
They were up on the board but I don't have the titles in the record and I would like to take a
minute to do that, now. You referred to first what you called the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan.
Satterstrom: Correct.
7
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: And does that have a designation on that exhibit?
Satterstrom: Its called the Generalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City of Kent and
Environs.
Hunter: Is there a date on that?
Satterstrom: It's amended in 1984.
nter: Amended 1984. OX and that's kept on file in the Kent Planning Department, is
that....
Satterstrom: Right, that's correct.
Hunter: Is that accessible?
Satterstrom: Yes.
Hunter: Generalized. And that's the first one you refer to as the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan. And then you have a second map up that you refer to as the East Hill Subarea Plan.
Does that have a title on that map?
Satterstrom: Yeah, it's titled East Hill Area Land Use Plan.
unter: O.k. Does it have a date on that map?
Satterstrom: Amended March 1985.
Hunter: 1985, I thought I heard 1982 earlier, but...
Satterstrom: That's when it was initially adopted. And it has been modified a couple of time
since then...1985 and of course, then in 1990, it has, I mentioned, by Resolution 1235.
Hunter: OX, so what we have is as an exhibit referencing to is the East Hill Plan with up and
to the 1985, including the 1985 amendments but nothing after that.
Satterstrom: There is nothing...there are no Comprehensive Plan Amendments that I'm aware
of that...that affect this property or its vicinity since 1985 except what you see behind me on this
third exhibit.
8
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: O.k., which is entitled...I can read that one actually from here. That's the East Hill
Single Family Designated Areas and is there anything else on that title or is that...
Satterstrom: No, there's....there's I don't think there's a date on it either. But...
Hun er: There's no date on that?
Satterstrom: There's no date on it. It's been produced very recently.
Hun er: Is that...that appears a little different than the others and you refer to it as a blown-up
exhibit, one that's enlarged.
Satterstrom: Right, it's meant to be, although it has...it's actually a computer created map
which has been digitized from the map that you find in your staff report. So, it's meant to be
a replica of what is in...attached in the staff report and also titled, Single Family Designated
Area.
Hunter: O.k. and that...that is the first attachment to your staff report. Is that the one you are
referring to and it has on it proposed rezone site right in the middle of it.
Satterstrom: Correct, and up in the upper left handed comer reads adopted by Resolution 1235.
Hunter: O.k. O.k., this...this is the one that I'm most concerned about and we'll give the
applicant an opportunity to examine it as well because it...it as your refer to it's not exactly
blown up, it's redigitized, I guess, or is...is it an enlargement precisely of this one in the staff
report or would it be somewhat different. It appears different on its face just by where the title's
are.
Satterstrom: Oh, certainly, it is a different....the map behind me is a different exhibit from this
but the boundaries should be or the boundaries of the map behind me have been digitized from
the resolution that was passed by the Council so, they should have the same area shown.
Hunter: Are we going....we refer to this as an overlay and an overlay does imply that there is
some map of some sort that one lays on top of. Which one do we want to rely on for this
hearing. If we rely on what's attached to your staff report, great we're in fine shape, it's
already part of the exhibits, it's in our file and our record. If we rely on the one that you have
up there and presented you should have that, I think, admitted as an exhibit because it does not
exist, as I understand it, officially in the same way as the Comprehensive Plan Map exists. Is
that correct? You have a Comprehensive Plan Map City-wide and you have an East Hill
Subarea Map that physically exists in the Planning Department that anyone can access. This
9
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
sounds a little bit different, this East Hill Single-Family Designated Area. Does that exist as a
map that anyone can access or does it need to be created at the time that you request it.
Satterstrom: The one behind me needs to be created. The one in the staff report obviously
exists from a previous map which was...which was photo reduced to include in the staff report.
It really is immaterial to me which one is used. The one behind me, I blew up because I knew
it would be central, probably, to the argument...the arguments this evening and it would be
easier to use a blown up map that we could all see rather than trying to point to a small little
map and, of course, in the reproduction of the map behind me we tried to make sure that it was
an accurate, authentic reproduction of the map that was included in the actual resolution. So,
while the area, we believe the area on both maps is the same, one exists on the computer, the
other one is basically a hard copy of something that we pulled from the ordinance or, excuse
me, the resolution.
Hunter: Well, it appears to me that...that both of them blanket the area. There's not a site
carved out in the one attached to your staff report. it's...the area in question, the area we're
talking about, it's covered by the dotted area just in full surround...there's no...
Satterstrom: The dotted area includes the subject site, right. The subject site does not...let's
put it this way, the subject site is included within the overlay area. It's darkened here to show
where it is. It is on this map as well.
Hunter: All right. Good. Then I...I'd prefer to use the one attached to the staff report, it's
in as an exhibit. We can refer to it that way. That one up there is helpful for this evening's
hearing, but we will not admit it as an exhibit, just for the purpose of facilitating the hearing
tonight.
Satterstrom: Would you prefer that I remove it, so...
Hunter: No, no, I think's its great, I think it helps. I just...I'm concerned that we have one
exhibit that we are referring to so in the record, you know, when we talk now the Housing
Overlay that what's attached to your staff report, even though we may point to what's up there.
Satterstrom: All right. So, it's o.k. to use this one for assistance...
Hunter: You bet.
Satterstrom: In locating it.
Hunter: Yeah.
10
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Satterstrom: Now, to address...
Hun r: Let me...before we move on, it looks like we had a couple of questions about that.
Yes, sir.
Paul Morford: Well, I had a question. My name is Paul Morford. I have a question on that
map. It's the same question on the one that's in the staff report.
unter: O.k., and if it's part of your testimony...does it have to do with whether it should be
in the record or not.
Morford: Well, it's a clarification on the map. Same type thing you were getting at.
Hunter: O.k.
Morford: Just wanted to ask a question on that - it does not show the existing Stratford Arms
Phase 1, as multifamily on that map or on the other map.
Satterstrom: No, it does not because on the single-family overlay, the existing multiple family
area was included in the overlay.
Hunter: O.k.
Satterstrom: There is a single-family area that lies to the west which is also included too. I
believe that it was meant...it kind of broad-bushes the area and so it went over to the west side
of the existing Stratford Arms to include the single-family area on the west side of that
development. But, the single-family overlay does include some sites that have existing multiple
family development on it. One of the things that the overlay adoption documents mention was
that they recognize that it may contain some multiple family but there's a statement in there that
there would be no new multiple family development in the single-family overlay area. And, I
can find that from...
Hunter: If it becomes relevant.
Satterstrom: If it becomes relevant.
Hunter: Right now we just want to make sure that we all have agreement on what map we're
talking about as an overlay. I think its important that we take the time to get agreement on that.
Mr. Morford, is it?
11
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
Morford: I just had one other question on talking about maps and we're all straight. I've gone
to the Planning Department numerous times and requested copies of the Comprehensive Plan,
East Hill Plan and, at that time, up as late as today, I was told, I've never seen these before and
I was told the only maps that they have were on the wall and I don't know if they are the same
as these but I was told they were out there for the public to see. I've requested this morning
for some of the issues, I think, you're getting to. I requested orally over the phone that they
bring those two maps that are for public viewing and they...I've been told that they are the only
maps that they have...to this meeting for...that I also asked for a Comprehensive Plan. They
said they did not have one...there is a desk copy that's marked Comprehensive Plan but says
outdated. They said that's all they have. I requested that in writing today and orally for that
to be brought along with a desk copy of the East Hill Plan which had some changes from a
handout. The Comprehensive Plan, repeatedly said there is nothing that they can give, so I
asked that that be brought. I did ask that the short plats that are referred to in here, there's
about a half a dozen of them in the staff report, that those be brought here and...
Hunter: O.k., what I want to focus on right now are just the maps.
Morford: O.k.
Hunter: And, do you have a difficultly with referring to the City-wide what's entitled the
Generalized Comprehensive Plan or the East Hill Plan. An...all I want to do is to see if those
are, in fact, the ones that exist in the City. The testimony of the City is, "Yes, those are the
ones we have in the Planning Department. Those do exist".
Morford: The only thing.....go on the record that I asked repeatedly for something and told the
only ones were on the wall and it is my understanding, probably still on the wall. I've never
seen these before and have no way of checking. Again, I just want to go on the record.
Hunter: O.k. I think we are ready to move forward with the testimony of the additional criteria
then unless there are any objections to these exhibits. O.k., then let's move to the next one.
Satterstrom: O.k. To address the specific rezone criteria. As the Examiner has pointed out,
there are, I think, five rezone criteria that are utilized that are specified in Section 15.09.050,
the Kent Zoning Code, through which...by which we examine rezone requests. The first criteria
is that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the...I went over
earlier the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Compre...Subarea Plan and the goals
and policies. There is, and we acknowledge, some discrepancy between the base land use
designation for this site on the City-wide Plan and the East Hill Plan and the more recent
expression of City land use policy expressed by the Council in Resolution 1235 in 1990. That
is, the single-family designated area. We believe that the recent expression in that Resolution
12
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
including this area in the single-family area is the more recent expression of the Council in terms
of desiring or expressing its desire to protect single-family areas against intrusions of
incompatible land uses and, therefore, we do not feel that it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
for that reason nor through the examination of policy which I've already mentioned.
Criteria B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible
with development in the vicinity. As mentioned, the rezone site lies along the boundary, really,
between high density multiple family on the west and low density single-family residential on
the east. I mention in here that...very clearly the site is in a transition area. Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan would have us treat this area in a special sort of a way in order to reduce
the tension between land use such as high density and low density residential. We feel that the
contrast in scale, bulk and density would not be compatible and, therefore, the rezone would not
be consistent with this criteria.
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the
property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. As mentioned earlier, this
has undergone review...environmental review and its mitigating measures have been identified
and we feel that the impacts of those 21 units could be mitigated and those measures have been
specified in the staff report earlier. It would not unduly burden the transportation system in the
area, so, I think, one could conclude that, at least, with respect to this criteria, there probably
is not a significant problem.
Hun er: What is your testimony...that it would not unduly burden or that it would unduly
burden but it could be mitigated?
Satterstrom: It is not expected that the proposed rezone and development would unduly burden,
so...
Hunter: O.k.
Satterstrom: We do not feel that it would unduly burden the transportation system, that might
have been a better way of saying that. D. That circumstances have changed substantially since
the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Here, we do feel
that perhaps circumstances have changed but instead of warranting the rezone, they would work
to not warrant the rezone. And, here in the staff report, we cite primarily two factors. One of
them is the...the very rapid growth of multiple family development in the mid-eighties to the late
eighties which really prompted the City Council to take a hard look at its housing supply. It saw
itself...the City Council expressed through various resolutions that are cited in the staff report,
that it wanted to strive to obtain a balance in its housing. A cite in the staff report, between the
period of 1985 and 1989, there were over 5,000 units of multiple family development that were
constructed while only 129 single-family residences were built, representing a ratio of 40
13
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
multiple family for every single-family residential. This prompted the change in land use policy
by the City Council. They embarked on a very comprehensive rezoning effect and examination
of their housing supply which resulted in several land use policy changes and they are...those
resolutions and ordinances are cited in the staff report since the adoption date of that policy and
not including the developments that vested during that time. Since that time, the ratio has been
more on the order of three to one, representing a substantial reduction in the predominant growth
of multiple family, substantial reductions. Another factor that may be relevant specifically with
respect to this case is the subdivision activity, single-family subdivision activity, in the general
vicinity of the site. The parcel to the north, owned by the applicants in this case, was
subdivided into...creating four single-family lots a couple of years ago. We cite some additional
plats, short plats, primarily, in the staff report here that have occurred in the surrounding
vicinity. I went back...I took initially, in fact, at the time when I wrote the staff report, I really
only looked at the files. I did not check to see whether or not these have been finalized and
recorded. These were...represent short plat applications. I've since found out that two of these
have not been finalized but the rest have. In other words, two of them did not...expired and,
therefore, they are not presently subdivided. They represent applications but they do not
represent final land use action. Notwithstanding the two that have expired, we still feel that the
subdivision activity in this area is reflective and indicative of a general feeling that single-
family....that the City is in favor of single-family development that will protect residential
neighborhoods and the property owners feel comfortable enough to begin subdividing the
property for single-family buildings. Therefore, we do not feel that circumstances have changed
to warrant a rezone to multiple family. We think that conditions have changed or solidified
to...to endorse continuation of the single-family zoning policy on that site.
And, finally, Criteria E, the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of Kent. We might concede that the public health and safety may
be mitigated but the general welfare in the terms of the integrity of the existing single-family
residential neighborhood that lies adjacent to the proposed site is threatened by the intrusion of
multiple family...high density multiple family development. That there it would create
incompatible conflicts in bulk, scale and density which would adversely affect the single-family
residences and therefore, we do not feel that the proposed rezone is consistent with this criteria.
And, finally, the recommendation of staff that, based upon the review of the rezone criteria, the
City staff recommends Disapproval of the proposed Stratford Arms - Phase R rezone. Thank
you, I'll take any questions you might have.
Hunter: O.k., I...I've just one and then I'll allow the applicant or others to ask clarifying
questions at this point. Your testimony is that this is high density multifamily is what proposed
with the MRM. Are there other levels of multifamily that, in your opinion, would be more
consistent. I've heard two places that its incompatible because you'd want a transition area
there and then, I think, your last...on the last criteria about general welfare, you said, because
14
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
its high density multifamily. I'm wondering what other categories or what type of use would
be a transition use, something between single-family and high density.
Satterstrom: Well, I think, that's a really good question and I think I asked myself that question
a dozen times while going through the staff report or writing the staff report. MRM zone is our
typical multiple family zone and, I guess, its kind of like the term high-rise. It depends on
where you're standing, determines whether it is high density, a low density or medium density.
It is...MRM is called in the Zoning Ordinance a medium density multiple family zone. I use
the term, I guess, high density development only because it is in an environment that is
characterized by very low density single-family development. The existing subdivisions are built
at about four units per acre. So the contrast of four units to the acre versus something on the
order of seventeen plus per acre represents a high density only because the surrounding
properties are at a lower density. There's a couple of points in here where I do say that this is
a transition area, clearly is at the boundary between a built-up multiple family development, the
Stratford Arms - Phase I, and the single-family residences that lie to the east, at a low density.
The Plan policies encourage a transition and I mention in this examination of policy that...that
treatment might be a low density, perhaps attached multiple family configuration or it might be
a higher density form of single family detached. But the proposed rezone itself includes a site
plan, it's site specific about what its intentions are, it specifies 21 units to be built on 1.23 acres
and the staff report evaluates the impacts of that proposal. Were it to be a different proposal
to some other form of lower density multiple family or a single family development then the
examination of staff report might...might be different. But, we could only do that on the merits
of the application.
Hunter: O.k., thank you. Does the applicant have clarifying questions. I will allow you time
to testify, if you do, could you come up to the podium, please and ask them, so we have these
as a matter of record. Mr. Satterstrom may be you can just stay there to, so we can get the
answers on the mike.
Voice: Do I need to give my name again.
Hunter: Mr. Morford, correct.
Morford: O.k. One statement, I think, was erroneous and I just want to clarify that. They said
the property, Divorks, to the north was developed to four single-family lots by the applicant.
I happen to be in partnership with two other people called SDM, my wife and I personally
developed the property to the north, so the applicant did not. Different ownership, different
people, different goals, different objectives and what not. So, just want to make sure that's
clear for the record. The other thing is, same follow-up a little bit on what you said. Referred
to in the report, numerously, about high density multifamily and I want to make a statement and
15
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase H
#RZ-92-1
I would like to have Mr. Satterstrom just clarify the statement. There is a multifamily
designation called Medium, MRM, which is what our existing property is and what, we feel,
the zoning should be, although we'd requested on a site specific for something less than that.
Although in our application we had requested general and site specific. But there is a MRH
designation and a garden designation and, my opinion would be the garden would be a low
density, MRH would be high density, MRM would be medium and I'm asking, why, in the
report, we're continually refer to the medium as high.
Hun t r: O.k., I...I heard a response to that, dependent on the context but I would like Mr.
Satterstrom to respond to your...your statement about the...the designations. Are those the
designations in the Code...MRH....
Satterstrom: Yes. MRH zone is our highest density multiple family zoning district. It's called
a high density multiple family district. Our MRG, as Mr. Morford has pointed out, is our
garden density multiple family. We also have a MRD which a duplex zone. The MRM is
perhaps the more and most widely used multiple family zoning in the City. I think it includes
the most multiple family units in the City of Kent. As...as I tried to explain earlier in question
from you, Mr. Examiner, the only reason for using the term high density was that in terms of
its context, not, and I was....I tried to be careful not to supplant that term for the actual zoning
designation. Whenever...
Hunter: I understood. I understood your response.
Satterstrom: O.k.
Morford: O.k. I have one more. I understand that too, I just didn't, you know, if its medium,
I thought, for all purposes, it would be better to call it medium. We've gone through that. The
second one is about the same thing. Is it...in the single-family designation, I don't know if it
still exists but there was a 5,000 square foot which would be the highest and then a 7200 and
9600 and a 12,000 and this is designated 9600 and I would call that, you know, if we're getting
relative and just what we're talking about, medium and again, the staff refers to it as low, so
we are referring to in the report a low on one side and high on the other and I would like to
have...
Hunter: I'll give you a chance to testify. All I'm interested at this point is clarifying questions.
Morford: Just a question, why we're calling it low rather than medium on the single-family.
Hunter: O.k.
16
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Satterstrom: I don't know, semantics, I guess. It's low in comparison to the higher density of
multiple family. It's not uncommon for planners, just as a general term, to call
single....detached single family low density residential. Certainly no intent on the staffs part
to further try to separate the...try to confuse anyone on the terminology here. Low density as
it may relate to the existing Stratford Arms development, developed at a higher density. I guess
had I known that low density/high density would be, you know, the main concern of ours in
terms of semantics tonight I might have defined those up front. I did not. I use them relative
to one another.
Hunt r: O.k. Are there any other questions that would help clarify the testimony of the City?
IA see none. Thank you, Mr. Satterstrom, for your report and recommendation. I do now
what to turn to the applicant and allow an opportunity for you to make your...your case here
tonight. Mr. Morford, are you speaking first?
Morford: Yes. The way we would like to present ours is I wanted to give a chronology
basically a history...the staff has done that and I'd....I've taken the time to type it up and I
would like submit...I'm going to read it...but I turn this document in for your records. What
we've proposed to do is I'd give the chronology or history, whichever one you call it, and I
don't want into semantics either, then my partner, Tom Sharp, would like to go over the staff
report, questions, clarifications in detail, I guess, rebut or make comments on the staff report.
My partner, Bill Dimsdale will make some general remarks, more general in nature and our
attorney, Mr. Roger Leed, then will summarize.
Hunter: O.k. I'll take your brief and basically this is your testimony tonight and we'll mark
that as an exhibit, Exhibit D...
Morford: And then I would like...to read...it'll probably take about five minutes. I'll have to
take my glasses off to read it.
Hunter: Well, and you're welcome to summarize, you don't need to read, either way.
Morford: I'd...I'd...I think I'd to take the time to do it. It's titled, "Brief Summary of History
of the Stratford Arms Phase II Property" by Paul Morford, August the 18th, 1992. In 1986
Mrs. Ward approached me regarding the purchase of her house and one and one-quarter acres.
I told her that I wasn't too interested in buying any more property as we've just spent several
years in the construction of Stratford Arms Phase I. I suggested that if she really needed to sell
because of her health she should contact three realtors and get estimates of value. She did this
and tried to sell to a neighbor and others, all of these fell through. So she contacted me again
and asked SDM to purchase. I talked to my partners and we decided to look into purchase for
future expansion. I checked with the King County Planning as the property was in the King
17
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase lI
#RZ-92-1
County at that time. They told me that the Comprehensive Plan showed this as multifamily and
they would recommend that zoning. They also stated that Kent was planning to annex and from
a practical viewpoint they would delay acting on any rezone and suggest that I talk to the City
of Kent. I then went to the City of Kent Planning Department and they said, yes, they were in
the process of annexing and would be recommending zoning to be multifamily per their
Comprehensive Plan because that was the key thing they use in recommendations. Based on this
information, we agreed to purchase her property at her terms and appraised price. The home,
commercial dog kennel and land was completely overgrown with blackberries and alders. We
cleaned up the property, removing the kennels, placing gravel and grass and installed a
children's play area and allowed our apartment renters to park campers and recreation vehicles
on the property until the City annexed property and rezoned it to the multifamily per their
Comprehensive and East Hill plans. In early 1987 the City of Kent annexed the East Hill
properties including Stratford Arms, 87-unit apartment and adjacent one and one-quarter acre
owned by SDM properties. All of our property was shown on the Comprehensive Plan to be
zoned as multifamily. Apparently the City has some policy to annex all....annex all property
as single-family and then go through the Hearing Examiner process to establish detailed zoning.
Normally the City would then recommend zoning to be per the Comprehensive Plan. Also,
about this time, the City and some residents including RUGG wanted no more apartments and
proceeded to recommend that all property annexed stay single-family contrary to their
Comprehensive Plan. On or about August 17, 1987, the Planning staff recommend to the
Hearing Examiner that all our property annexed, including our 87 units of existing apartments
and the one and one-quarter acres with vehicle storage and tot lot area be zoned MRM as shown
on maps. But, by the narrative, does not address MRM at all and I have parenthesis major
conflict. Several hearings were held by the Hearing Examiner and we argued our case for our
entire 87 units and adjacent one and one acre parcel to be zoned multifamily. Since City
Planning Department and the RUGG people argued very strongly against allowing any of the
property annexed and shown on the Comprehensive Plan as multifamily, to be zoned
multifamily, the Hearing Examiner ruling came out with essentially all the East Hill annexed
properties to be single family except our existing 87 units and the adjacent one and one-quarter
acre storage and play area which was to be zoned multifamily. No one and I emphasize, no one
appealed the Examiner's ruling on our property. But several owners that had properties zoned
single family contrary to this Comprehensive Plan appealed the decision to the City Council.
I was on vacation at the time but my partners went to the appeal hearing as observers since our
property was zoned multifamily by the Hearing Examiner. I guess that clarification would be
recommended by the Hearing Examiner. Upon my return from vacation I asked what happened
at the City Council meeting and was told by the following attendees: my partners, that all our
property was still to be multifamily, b) Bob McGisick (spelling ?) landowner annexed property,
all of your property zoned multifamily; Randy Brealey, a developer and property owner, that
we got our zoning and he lost his request; Brad Bell, a realtor, we were the only ones that got
our zoning. All of the above sounded great but I was still concerned knowing the City planning
18
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
staff and nothing personal, Fred, very well and also knowing that one of the principals in
RUGG, Leona Orr, was on the Planning Commission, so I was anxious to see the actual
ordinance. The old Harry M. Truman, "show me". I obtained a copy of the ordinance when
it was completed from the City Clerk and guess what? The acre and a quarter parcel was shown
as single-family. I went back to the individuals mentioned above and told them what the
ordinance said and they were all shocked. I immediately started doing my homework and found
that City's planning staff and the City attorney's office worked together in drafting the ordinance
and that the minutes were unclear in some places so the City Attorney sent drafts to the Planning
staff member, Kathy McClung, to review, since she was the staff member that argued at the
Hearing Examiner's meeting against multifamily. She marked up a copy of the proposed
ordinance to make it clear that our acre and a quarter parcel was to be zoned single family.
Hunter: Mr. Morford, I'm sorry. Part of my responsibilities is to run the hearings efficiently.
I need for you to point out to me the relevance of this testimony. It's interesting history, I'll
agree. But, I want to shape this so that we are looking at those five criteria that are in the
ordinance as to why the rezone should take place. How does this relate to one of those criteria?
Morford: Well, I put it in the category of the history and the staff...and I'm only a page and
a half away, so I'm only two minutes away, to give the history of the site and some more
pertinent things to follow.
Hunter: Yeah, I don't...I don't have any objection to it in front of me but I just...but I do
want...
Morford: And, I don't want to bore anybody with...but I think it is important and some things
may come up from the citizens on this thing too. So, it came up before and I never had a
chance to read this. So anyway, I have a copy of the marked up draft. I then talked to all
Council members except Judy Woods and all of them said it was their understanding that all of
our property was to have been zoned multifamily per the Hearing Examiner's findings. I then
went to Mayor Dan Kelleher and told him the story. He suggested that I get the Councilmen
to put the statements in writing. I drafted a letter for them to sign and took it to Mel
Clavenaugh (spelling), attorney, to review. He helped me redraft it to make it perfectly clear
as to what they would be signing. I then took it to the Councilmen to sign, they all signed with
hesitation except Jon Johnson who said he agreed with the letter but did not want to sign without
talking to the City Attorney. My partner, Tom Sharp, talked to Judy Woods and she indicated
that she agreed but would not sign. Several discussions between the City, myself, Mel
Clavenaugh, attorney, tells us how to correct the error. The City finally corrected the error in
the Ordinance by Council meeting and after the zoning already had been corrected we hired an
engineering firm to design the project and met all City requirements. During this period the
RUGG group appealed the City's DNS and brought it to the Hearing Examiner and also appealed
19
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
to the Board of Adjustment. In both cases, the appeals were denied. We then applied for a
preliminary development meeting, we're told to meet fairly new code requirements. And this,
I think, is very important. For transitional property areas adjacent to the single family. A little
ad lib here, the City had adopted some new zoning requirements for transitional areas which
allowed more setbacks, more streeting and more...and our plan had to meet those requirements
and did. At long last, the zoning permit, building permit and grading permit are issued and after
no activity in the RUGG lawsuit for approximately one year, we started grading and construction
of the foundation. About this time, the lawsuit activity started again with trial to start soon.
We unilaterally decided to stop construction until after trial. After several days of trial, the
Judge ruled that the City had erred in not giving adequate notice when they adopted the
correcting ordinance. The City then withdrew the building permit but took no action on the
grading and zoning permits. It was suggested that we apply for a rezone but we resisted that
approach as we had falsely assumed, underlined that, that the City had changed the East Hill
Plan. There was a lot of conversation about that and that's an ad lib. And the Comprehensive
Plan to single family and the zoning examiner would have to base his recommend on those
plans. When we found out that both the current East Hill Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
showed our property as multifamily and since one of the main requirements for rezone is to
comply with the comprehensive plans, we applied for the rezone and that is where we are today.
And, I would like to restate that I asked over and over again on numerous occasions for the last
several months for a copy of the Comprehensive Plan and they have told me over and over again
and I think the people in this room would verify that they have none, the only one they have is
a counter copy which is marked outdated and a request verbally and in writing that those be
brought here to be there because we are talking about the Comprehensive Plan that seems to not
exist and I'm not trying to be confrontational just trying to be factual. And attached to this is
the Hearing Examiner's finding on the previous one, the letters signed by the councilmembers,
building permit, grading permit, zoning permit. Thank you very much. Tom.
Hunter: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Morford. Your request for the Comprehensive
Plan is one that I think should be responded too. That is certainly relevant. We have the
elements of it in front of us, we already have the map, that we've referred to, that is available
and we..we can look at that Comprehensive Plan and ask that City to respond to that at an
appropriate time, after your presentation. I do want to caution you, once again, you must make
your testimony relevant to the criteria that we have in front of us and you're represented by
Counsel, perhaps Counsel could help here. Because we are looking at a rezone application. The
history of it, while it may be interesting, is not relevant to my consideration tonight unless you
show me how it is. But, right now, I'm looking at the criteria, the consistency with
Comprehensive Plan, the affect on general welfare, the other criteria that are listed in the
ordinance. That's really what I need to hear about tonight for me to make my recommendation.
20
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Morford: ....was the transitional...believe there is a zoning....we'll work to make that and its
very specific between multifamily and single-family and was very specifically addressed by the
City for this and it was enforced for the very reason and I just want to make the point....talk
about any place else.
Hunter: O.k.
Morford: Except there was a transition and I think its appropriate.
Hun t r: Good, thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here for the
applicant that would like to testify. Yes, sir.
Tom Sham: My name is Tom Sharp. I'm a partner of SDM Properties and this evening I
would like to...I would like to address the five criteria for a rezone from the applicant's
standpoint. First of all, I guess the question to be asked is, "Why are we here at this rezone
hearing"9 and the upshot of the total situation is..is that...is that the zoning that was granted in
1989 was overturned by the Court in 1992 and that during the Council hearing of 1989 and....88
and 89, the Hearing Examiner prior to the Council rezoning the property, have recommended
on AZ-87-2 that the property be zoned MRM. This, of course, as stated was never appealed,
amended or changed as stated in ordinance 2233 section 10 part 2 b, must be done in public
hearing. This was never done. Based on the current zoning section 15.09, a granting for a
rezone request, we will demonstrate using the City staff report why this rezone is appropriate
and why it fits all those criteria. Again, I want to point out that since the vacated ordinance
2837, that those criteria used during the hearings of AZ-87-2 will be used since no additional
circumstances are appropriate. In other words we have to take ourselves back to 1988 and 1989
since the Court said that everything is vacated back to that period. Now that's a
nonlegal....that's a non attorney's impression but, I think, we do have a good reason to state
that. In the staff report under General Information, we have no problems with Section A, B and
C, for general information. However, we did request and I've been looking through my copies
which are not total, both a site specific and a general rezone for the area. The staff report under
Section D. Zoning...
Hunter: Excuse me, Mr. Sharp, I'm having trouble following your staff...
S a.p: O.k., I'm going to use the staff's report...
Hunter: The staff report that...that Mr. Satterstrom gave?
Sharp: Yes.
21
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: O.k.
a=: Then I will...
Hun r: And you're now into Section D? Is that correct? O.k. I'm with you now.
Sharp: I'm in....yes. Section D, Zoning, o.k.? That's on page 1, o.k.
Hun er: Got it. I'm with you.
Sharp: O.k Section D, Zoning. The previous Hearing Examiner recommended MRM zoning
in 10/7/87 and the Zoning Ordinance 2837 was overturned due to the City's improper notice.
That's the only reason we're here tonight. Not through anything we did but the City giving
improper notice. On the Comprehensive Plan, Section E, on page 2, the City's current
Comprehensive Plan as well as the East Hill Plan shows the site as multiple family. These were
never changed by ordinance. During 1990 as a subarea overlay in the form of Resolution 1235
which is not an ordinance was used, according to the City, to change the...the Comprehensive
Plan to single-family. A resolution, by definition, and the City's definition, is a policy statement
or a directive but in this case has no bearing on the request since it happened subsequent to 1989
hearing or the zoning 2837. The...the...the Housing Element on page 3, under the Planning
Department's comment, proposed rezone....these are my words now...the proposed rezone is
consistent with the goals and objectives of this section since the design, I'm talking about the
current design for Stratford Arms Phase H, that was approved by the City and a permit was
issued for, meets....meets the design criteria for multiple family transition areas. And that
was...that was done because it did abut single family areas and, also, if the project had been
fully developed to the maximum allowable units on the site, it would be 29 and not 21. Next
item on page 3, East Hill Subarea Plan, we see no conflict with the Plan and I guess we agree
with the staff on that issue. However, we do not agree with the ordinances and the resolutions
passed after 1989 as such as Resolution 1235, Ordinance 2901 through 2905 and Resolutions
1230 through 1237. These items were amendments to the basic plan as enacted in Resolution
1237 and since they were, I'm talking about the City's position as stated on page 3 and 4, that
the City's position really has no bearing on the rezone since the City would like to forget what
the Court said, I think, however, the Court did take us back to that date and, of course,
Mr. Morford had stated that we do take an exception to being called high density and, I think,
Mr. Satterstrom has satisfactorily explained his position on that. We just didn't want to be
painted as a high density multiple family dwelling...area trying to be plunked in the middle of
a single-family low density. The history, on page 6, the...the...it...this history does....does not
point out the fact that the reason we're here is because of improper notice of the...of...City that
vacated the...the....the zoning that had existed prior to January 1992. Under Land Use on the
same page we have no comment, that seems to be fine. Under environmental concerns, I'm
22
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
going to switch to page 9, now, bear with me here, under the Environmental Concerns since
we're now going back to 1989 and hearing the criteria that existed then we...we...we do not
agree with the staff report compelling us to participate in 277th/272nd Corridor and in...in
reference to the 89-61 which is an environmental impact statement, excuse me, not an
environmental impact statement but a request for a DNS, I guess, you would call it, that we
have complied with all those items on the mitigated DNS as we can demonstrate in the building
permit that was revoked, so all those items that...that were spelled out by the State in terms of
environmental concerns have been complied with. Just a couple things in terms of...
Hunter: And those...those are not at issue here tonight, correct? The environmental
determination. I mean that's...again, I'm trying to get to the relevant testimony.
Sham: That's another...
Hunter: O.k.
Sharp: Issue except, you know environmental issues do come up during the...during the criteria.
There are a couple of factual things I would like to point out, that were errors in the...in the
City's report. Under significant physical features, the site was never cleared since it has been
in the City of Kent. Any clearing was done before and the site, as it exists today, other than
the foundation, existed as...when it came into the City of Kent, other than the foundation that's
been done out there under a valid permit, at the time. The infrastructure error on page 9, 112th
Place does not exist. That's..I guess it was used as a way to clarify the approximate location
of the driveway but as a road it does not exist and 113th Street does meet the current standards
for a road up to 1500 vehicles per day and that the City standards and we can produce those
show that...now they're as old as the hills, but they are the only standards the City has.
Hunter: This isn't an issue, I don't think. The City testified that the rezone with the project
would not unduly burden transportation...
Sharp: Except that they....except they say that we wouldn't be able to use 113th Avenue or
113th, yes, Avenue, until it was brought up to City standards. We contend it is at City
standards for a vehicle load of 1500.
Hun er: Sir, I appreciate your testimony and understand where you're going. That, however,
was the issue of the Determination of Nonsignificance; no access onto 113th until such street is
brought up to City standards. We are not going to look at that tonight.
Sharp: Fine. Fine, I have to get it into the record.
23
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: But, the rezone issues.
Sham: O.k. The...on page 9, water system, there is a water system that has been installed.
It goes across the entire property, subject property on 113th and T's have been installed for the
sprinkler system. And in the sewer, there is no sewer main extension required only side sewer
hookups. I wanted to clarify these things for the record. And stormwater, completed design
has been approved by the City for a site specific rezone, of course, not for a general rezone for
the area. And, as far as we can tell, there are no other extensions that have to be completed or
that have been required. Now, under page 11, Standards for a Rezone Request, is it consistent
with Item A...I'm going to flip to 11 here if you bear with me for a second...it starts on page
11 but the first item is A, Is the Proposed Rezone Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
We contend that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Plan and that
Resolution 1235 has no bearing on this rezone whatsoever. And, I have a state in here
concerning the high density and the low density but I'm not going to go through that...that's
already been clarified. The compatibility with existing surroundings. When a site specific
rezone, Stratford Arms Phase II...
Hunter: Before you go on, Mr. Sharp...
Sham: Yes, sir.
Hun er: I just...summarize for me Resolution 1235 has no bearing?
Sham: Right, because that was passed subsequent to the granting of the zoning that takes places
that's on the property right now which was done in 1989 and I believe 1235 was made a
Resolution was passed as a resolution in 1990.
Hun r: O.k. Thank you.
Sham: O.k. Item B, Compatibility with Existing Surroundings: Stratford Arms, we contend
that Stratford Arms Phase II as it is designed as a site specific rezone is compatible with the
existing surroundings based on the criteria that was set down by the City for multiple family
transition areas. And, again, this is not high density zoning but medium density zoning,
basically in both cases. Transportation Systems: we agree with the City that it will not...that
the...that the rezone will not unduly burden the, if I can paraphrase Mr. Satterstrom, the
transportation system in the area and I might also point out that since the Comprehensive Plan
takes into—into account the transportation system that... that....and if this site is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan ergo the transportation system is adequate. Changed circumstances,
D, the...the plan...the Planning Department has used previous short plat applications since 1989
24
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
to demonstrate their position that the short plats in the area have subsequently increased after
the passage of Resolution 1235 in 1990 and did a little analysis based on the staff s report and
we find that...that their data as of the 31 lots that were applied for...application...that only three
houses were built and currently there are ll...there are ten available additional lots. Therefore,
out of the 31 lots, 13 lots finally became legal lots in the City of Kent. Why the other ones
didn't, I don't know, maybe its market, maybe its the requirements that the City of Kent set
down for their short plats but....it's kind of a...its...its. I don't want to use their own data
against them but they brought it up, the City brought it up as a case in point of what...but
this...this map overlay and we feel that's a forcing function to force the logic into a denial that
this application....into a denial for the recommendation of the rezone. And justifiably when you
go back, do we have to prove in 1989 the changed circumstances existed to justify this rezone.
I don't know...
Hunter: No, not for me. It's at the time of your application. Your application is before us
tonight.
Sharp: O.k. Also, then in terms of changed circumstances now is since your statement, now
we have the issue of the growth management act. Nowhere here does the State, excuse me, does
the City mention the growth management act which places a burden on the City to supply
housing, various types of housing on a long-term need and with that in mind, I can see no
justification for the City's position concerning the single-family overlay. General welfare of the
citizens, Item E, and since this is not a high density multiple family request, it's a medium
density. It has been designed, I'm talking about site specific now, it has been designed with
multiple family transition in effect at that time that...that it will have a minimal impact on the
welfare of the citizens. All the access for this project goes through the existing Stratford Arms,
no access to 113th. All the utilities are in...in terms of the major utilities, side sewers and
things still have to go in...the minor things and, therefore, it does not, our contention, does not
impact the welfare of the citizens. In summary, its...its...its been demonstrated and, not being
an attorney, with the way I look at it, is the City Council back in 1989 saw fit to rezone this
property to MRM, circumstances have not changed, the only circumstance that's changed is the
lawsuit, then we go back to 1989 and, as of the five criteria, the...the...for the general granting
of the rezone, there's... there's two items that the staff has based their whole position on. One
of them is the...the Resolution 1235 and the other is...is the increase in the number of short
plats for single-family housing in that area and neither of those would hold water. And, in
further summary of my state, that the rezone meets the Comprehensive Plan, it meets
the...the...the East Hill Plan, it will not unduly burden the...the transportation system, we've
complied with all the requirements concerning the utilities and the mitigated DNS 89-61, I
believe, the number is. We had a valid building permit, we had a valid zoning permit, we had,
I guess we still have, we have a valid grading and fill permits, had those, and the only thing we
don't have is the zoning. At the time the site specific rezone complied with all those...with all
25
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
the measures. But, as I said, we've also requested a rezone from a general rezone area...general
rezone for the area.
Hunter: Right. Can I ask you a couple of questions about your testimony?
Sham: Sure. Sure.
Hunter: Specifically on the short plat testimony you presented. Where you were rebutting some
of what the City presented...
S =: Yes, right.
Hunter: And I think they clarified or refined what they presented. But, I believe, you stated
that 13 out of 31, is that the number you used?
Sharp: Yes, yes. I have that....
unter: Lots that became legal lots for single family building, is that right?
Sham: Right.
Hunter: What about the remaining lots, what are you aware of, became of those?
Sharp: Three of the...
Hunter: Not specifically, what would happen with those, but what is your understanding of
what...
Sharp: There's 13 lots that were, that became legal lots from what we could find from
the...from the City records. Three of those have homes on them and I'd suppose the other ten
are available.
Hunter: O.k.
Sham: For construction. Right.
u ter: Building. O.k. And the other thing I wanted to ask you about, is the density of the
existing Stratford Arms complex. I think you testimony was that it could be up to 29 units per
acre?
26
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Sham: No, the...the...our understanding as of the site specific request, the design for the
Stratford Arms Phase H, could have been 29 units.
Hunter: O.k., and its 21.
Sb ram: That's 21.
Hunter: And Stratford Arms I, are you aware what the density is in that area?
Sharp: No, that was a County density at that time.
Hunter: Do you know how many units there might be?
ahh ram: There's 86 units or 87, something like that. I guess I should know but...
Hun er: If we had the size of the parcel, we could figure it out.
Sham: It's five acres my partner says, so...and is it 86 or 87.
Voice: 87.
Sharp: 87 units.
Hunter: 87 units and five acres.
Sham: Of course, that was a County zoning at the time we built that.
Hunter: Correct. Thank you for your testimony.
Voice: Excuse me. Can I ask him a question? You said it was going to be kind of informal,
just a quick one?
unter: What is it, a clarifying question on his testimony?
Voice: Yes.
Hunter: O.k., please identify yourself, sir?
Dave Jacobson: Dave Jacobson.
27
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
n er: O.k., Mr. Jacobson, you have to speak up very loudly for this, so we can get you on
the record.
Jacobson: You said on page 3, that you didn't have a problem with East Hill Area Plan.
Hun er: The question has to do with whether the City presented the East area plan correctly?
Sham: Our understanding of the East Hill Plan, and I can get a copy of it and show it to you...
Hunt r: Yeah. No, no I mean that's what you said...
Sharp: That....that our understanding of the East Hill Plan is that it supports our position.
Because the East Hill Subarea Plan is a subarea plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan. What
we do not agree with is the East Hill Subarea Plan Overlay that is Resolution 1235.
Hunter: And that's how I understood your testimony. I want to stop right there. You'll have
a chance to testify. Thank you very much, Mr. Sharp.
Sham: I have a copy of my...in summary of my testimony that I would like to submit as an
exhibit.
n er: O.k., that's fine. Does the applicant have additional witnesses to testify. Yes, sir.
You want to come forward. And, please identify yourself for the record.
Bill Dimsdale: My name is Bill Dimsdale and I'm also a partner in SDM Properties and my
comments will be very brief because we've kind of kicked some of these things to death.
Hunter: We've heard a lot of history of this site. I'm very interested in the criteria and how
it applies.
Dim e: Mainly, of course, my comments are keyed to the staff report which is part of the
record and I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. If we are going to talk about a resolution
that was passed by the City of Kent which tends to give the City's policies and...or what their
policies are in regards to housing in the East Hill area, then I think we need to talk about the
memorandum that the City of Kent issued on August 17, which tells about the planning goals
for the City of Kent in regards to the growth management act which is a pretty hot issue right
now. And, the reason this growth management act was passed by the State was to give some
direction to the cities and counties to handle the growth in these areas and this is key to this...to
the approval of this...this project. One of the things that I wanted to point out is that there is
a demand for multifamily housing in Kent. People can sit around and talk about it all they want
28
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
to and say we don't need anymore single-family....multifamily housing or we want to get rid
of multifamily housing but the fact is that we are in the apartment business. There are...we
have almost no vacancies and have had for ten years and we've been in situations where we've
turned people away. I think that's one of the key things here is that we loose track of the fact
that people do need places to live and it's the City's responsibility, as dictated by the growth
management act, to provide economical, affordable housing, that's adequate and...and that
satisfies the needs of the citizens or the people that live in this area. And, my kids are both at
the stage where they will be living in apartments within the next...probably within the next year
in the Kent area and I don't want them to have to go Maple Valley or Enumclaw or someplace
else to find adequate housing at an affordable price and, I think, that's what the growth
management act says and that's what the memorandum that the City of Kent just issued on
August 17, specifically says that that's what they are going to try to accomplish. And that
carries, in my mind, this memorandum is just as important as the resolution they passed saying
that they didn't want anything but single family in some of these multifamily areas. I think
that's a key point here. And, I would also like to submit my comments, a copy of my
comments, some of the things are repeats of the other comments.
Hunter: Thank you very much, Mr. Dimsdale, for summarizing your testimony. Further
testimony from applicant. Mr. Sharp, you've had an opportunity, do you have some things
you...
5b=: A clarification. We talk about the East Hill Plan, the City of Kent, we talk about our
copy that we extracted...with this last modified....our copy says last modified December 3,
1984, that's what we're talking about when I say we agree with the East Hill Plan. I just
wanted to clarify there seem to be some...be difficulty in that.
Hunter: O.k. The, what we're referring to when we have that as an exhibit is one that the City
testified was, as is indicated on the map, last modified in 1985, I believe. So, there is a
difference in what you have in your possession and we have indicated as the official record. The
official record would be the one that's last submitted in 1985.
Voice: We got this from the City yesterday.
Hunter: O.k., what we refer to is the map that we had in front of us earlier in the hearing.
O.k., any further testimony from...from the applicant.
Roger Leed: Yes, I'm Roger Leed, my address is 1001 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington.
I'm an attorney who is assisting the applicants and I would like to address comments to the
City's code requirements with respect to a rezone. We've believed we've satisfied those. One
way, I think, to help focus on that is to look at page 11 of the staff report, part 6, which is the
29
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase lI
#RZ-92-1
Planning Department review and lists a series of factors A through I. And, if you consider those
factors, it's clear that this site is appropriate for the zone proposed. The first one,
Comprehensive Plan compatibility as far as map designation is concerned. Next the East Hill
Area Subarea Plan Map, that's this document here and I might say in commenting that the
procedure in the hearing with respect to alluding to documents and plans without making them
exhibits creates the possibility, of course, for some degree of confusion and, I think, my clients
have had a problem with respect...with respect to obtaining a document which is....has been
spoken about here as if it actually exists.
Hun er: Well, Mr. Leed, were you present during the time we identified those documents? Did
you have any objections to them?
Leed: I'll further develop that point. I...I don't think at this time, I have to state that I have
any objections to what you produced. But I'm holding up, as you can see the East Hill Land
Use Plan, which was alluded to by staff and this particular document happens to be a plan which
is mounted on a piece of board. It is not a map which is attached to any plan document and that
is the point that I'm trying to make...it's part of the point I'm trying to make.
Hunter: It was submitted to us as what is indicated on the title, the East Hill Area Land Use
Plan.
Leed: I also....
nter: I need to ask you at this time if you have an objection to that plan because we have
been relying on that and has been admitted. In fact, it was submitted when you were in the
room.
Leed: There is an exhibit number associated with this document then.
Hunter: We are referring to that as the City testified that it is the plan that is used by the City
when requested. We can have admitted as an exhibit. We didn't do that because it is the
official plan map as indicated, East Hill Area Land Map. But, if you feel more comfortable
with it as an exhibit we're happy to do that.
Voice: You've already admitted the exhibit from the document, the plan.
Hunter: I'll have the dialogue, thank you.
Leed: At any rate, the...
30
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: I want to get this point clarified. If there is a problem with...clarified.
Lam: The concern we have is that someone reviewing this record would not need to go outside
the record in order to verify what document had been the subject of the testimony at this
hearing.
Hunter: Specifically identified in the record as the East Hill Land Area Map. That is entitled
that with a specific date given. If...if you think that's insufficient...
ed: I say this in part because we've already had a problem with respect to previous hearing
where documents alluded to...I don't believe it was the Hearing Examiner's Hearing by the way,
documents alluded to with similar confidence and I'm sure with everybody's complete good will,
somehow got misplaced.
Hunter: Well, there's an easy solution. We...we...the concern we weigh against the other way
is that everything is admitted as an exhibit does need to be taken care of, archived, custody of
it needs to be carefully maintained. Typically, with official documents that are available over
the counter for review, we don't include as exhibits in the file. But, that's an easy solution
here. If you are concerned about the adequacy of the record, let's have it admitted as an
exhibit. There's certainly no objection to it as an exhibit. We just make efforts to keep our
record manageable so we don't have...we sometimes have large items come in and its very
difficult to keep them as a matter of record. Would you like to have that, would you be more
comfortable with that.
Leed: I think it would be more appropriate if...
Hunter: We can certainly do that. And if we are going to do that, let's do that with the
generalized plan as well. Does the City have any problem with that. Let...let me ask the City
if that's o.k. with the City. You know often times there only, as testified, one copy of the map
that they're showing people. Does this create any problems with the City if this were admitted
as an exhibit rather than referred to as we did earlier.
Satterstrom: Depends on what that means. If admitting it as an exhibit means that goes outside
the office for a substantial part...substantial time, it means a document that is commonly
referenced to is out of the office. So...
Hunter: So, this is your only one...this is your one copy of it...your colored coded copy of the
map?
31
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Satterstrom: Presently in the Planning Department....the Planning Department is presently in
the process of digitizing all of our Comprehensive Plan Maps and Zoning Maps so that they are
all computer generated and we have made substantial progress on that and we have some display
maps that Mr. Morford has indicated that are on the walls inside the Planning Department.
They have been digitized, in other words, the computer maps have been derived from maps and
Mr. Leed...holding there and the other one that has been referred to earlier this evening so we
commonly use these as working maps, computer generated are on the wall inside the Planning
Department but they really are transmittal...so we use these....
Hunter: For this record we want to have one common set of maps we're referring to. To this
point the map designations have not been in dispute. I think the map designation and generalized
plan...East Hill Plan have been agreed to by the applicant. The one item in dispute is what the
East Hill Single Family Overlay zone did or did not do.
Morford: I do not agree. I have never seen this map. I asked over and over and I've never
seen it before. All the ones they told me they had were the ones still over there....
Hunter: O.k., Mr. Morford, hold on, please. I want to make sure that we have this on the
record. Let's stop for a minute and let me back up. We have the applicant's attorney
suggestion that these items need to be exhibits, the City has indicated that it may cause some
difficulty, I guess, in your processing if they are kept out of the City, but, yet, you have a
remedy in process. One which you are beginning to digitize the maps, that you can create exact
copies of what we have here. Is that correct?
Satterstrom: That's correct.
Hunter: O.k., then I...I think that what we are going to do is to make absolutely clear that
there's no reference to any other map other than what we have in front of us tonight we will
have these admitted and labeled as exhibits. They will be part of the record. The efforts of the
Examiner to earlier try to prevent that so you could use these as working copies doesn't appear
to be working. So we will admit these as exhibits. They will be officially included in the
record and you'll just have to make your efforts...redouble your efforts to get your digitized
copies if these are not available for some reason.
Leed: Mr. Examiner, it will be helpful. We have no objection to the substitution of an accurate
reproduction of any of these for these originals.
Hunter: Yes, they are not currently available, I think, is what we heard the City testify.
32
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Le : Well, you know, I don't have the equipment myself or least it's not around the corner
but I think you can take something like this to a commercial copy service and they will give you
a very good copy...color copy, in fact, in about two seconds.
Hunter: We don't have those available tonight. So, we will admit these as exhibits and label
them with the East Hill Plan as Exhibit G and the Generalized City-wide Comp Plan Map as
Exhibit H.
Leed: All right. Well, continuing then, Mr. Examiner, with our discussion of the East Hill
Subarea Plan which is item roman numeral 6B, page 11. As the County's...excuse me, the
City's report mentions this map, which I understand to be the only Comprehensive Land Use
Plan Map, other than that in the Comprehensive Plan itself which we also have here as an
exhibit, shows that the site in question is to be...is designated MF 24, Multiple Family at a
density which is consistent with the zoning be applied for and I might note that the legend on
this map shows amended December 84 and March 85. Now, the next item in the staff list, the
East Area Subarea....East Hill Subarea Plan Map as amended by Resolution 1235 which I might
add we apparently do not have in the record and which I would submit we should have in the
record if there is any reliance to be placed on it, includes a single family designated area overlay
and that, I understand, based on staff s testimony, to be referring to the very large blow-up
behind me which is identified as East Hill Single Family Designated Areas. It has no reference
to any ordinance, resolution or plan and it has no date. Whether it, in fact, was the document,
if there was one associated with Resolution 1235, 1 couldn't say and I don't think this record
shows. But, we have said, however, is that the inclusion of this document in the staff analysis
is inappropriate in the first place and it would be inappropriate for the Examiner to rely on it,
assuming it is authentic just for purposes of this point, now. And the reason is this. At the time
that this document was adopted, as a "overlay" and I don't know that we know what overlay
means, unless I'm suggesting there is ambiguity because among other things the record shows
that areas within this overlay were zoned for different densities than what the overlay showed
and developed in those densities. Notwithstanding that fact, the overlay represents them to be
single-family. Among the areas that were zoned for different densities than the overlay shows
and developed were the Stratford Arm site, Phase I and, this is what important, the Stratford
Arms Phase H site, the site we're talking about here today. At the time this map was adopted,
in other words, the zoning on that parcel was multifamily, not single-family. To attach any
significance, therefore, in terms of the intention of the City Council, again, assuming for the
sake of argument that this document is, in fact, accurate and authentic and represents what the
City Council did in 1990 would be entirely incorrect because at the time that this would have
been adopted, the zoning had been adopted by that same City Council and had been designated
to be multifamily. So, the staffs analysis is fundamentally flawed because it depends upon
associating significance with the adoption of this particular document yet it ignores the fact that
the zoning, which is specific and obviously governs over a Comprehensive Plan at the time this
33
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
was passed was multifamily and the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from that,
therefore, is that the City Council did not intend and, of course, could not legally have, altered
the zoning or suggested that it should be altered by means of whatever action they took in
adopting this document. Obviously, they didn't intend when they adopted this document to
suggest that the Stratford Arms Phase I was going to be downzoned in some way or that it was
going to be reduced to a single family use. So,just exactly what significance this document has
with respect to the issues here is so much in doubt that, I think, no significance can be attached
to it. At least in the sense that staff chose to try and employ it in its analysis.
Hunter: Let me...let me ask you this? Your application for rezone, you're seeking a zoning
designation of MRM. What...what, then, is the present zoning designation, in your opinion?
eed: What happened...what has happened since 1990 with respect to this site and I say since
1990 because the staff is attaching, trying to attach significance to something that happened in
1990, namely the adoption of this. What's happened since then is that in 1992, a Court has said
the City's 1989 zoning on that site was invalid for technical reasons which reverts in 1992 and
that's without action of the City so there's no possibility of attaching any significance with
respect to the City's intentions. Reverts us back to, presumably the zoning that was the catch-all
at the time the annexation took place and that's represented to be single-family. The application
that we have here is that to turn that or to focus on whether or not this particular site, not the
whole East Hill or not any other site in East Hill, should be classified as it was classified when
every single planning document we've looked at including this 1990 planning document was
adopted namely as multifamily.
Hunter: Whether it should be zoned from its single-family to the multifamily classification.
Leed: I guess we could look at it, it should be restored to what it was at the time that the City
took action on the planning documents that the staff acknowledges are the only guidance we have
as to what City policies were. And, I'm submitting to you, in other words, that every single
time this City has acted on this property with planning significance, its been multifamily.
unter: Well, the reason I ask you the question is that your application has, submitted May 21,
there's a space for requested zoning change which is clearly marked MRM and then present zone
you have completed it MRM as well. Now, clearly that's a mistake or you wouldn't be here
tonight and so it is clarified.
I,�d: Well, no, I think...I'm going to have to interpret why it was filled out that way. I didn't
fill it out. I would assume that it was filled out that way because our legal position is that it still
is properly zoned MRM. We disagree with what the Superior Court concluded and we,
therefore, appealed it.
34
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hun r: O.k.
Lam: We don't want to signify we're abandoning that position.
Hunter: O.k. But you do not disagree with how we're started this hearing tonight, where we
indicated we did need to look at this as a change or request for rezone...
eed: That's correct.
Hunter: Plan amendment.
Leed: That's correct and if this action is approved as we've asked for, obviously, it would not
be necessary to...to pursue a legal avenue to restore the original zoning. All right. I would
move on to point E, the staff acknowledges that the site is on a boundary between multiple and
single family use. In other words it's not in an exclusively single family area at the present time
and, indeed, it adjoins a...a developed multifamily project. F, which acknowledges there's been
a DNS. G, acknowledges that the site is suitable for development of this type. H acknowledges
adequate access and then, finally, I indicates that the utility services are available.
Hunter: So you agree with all the City's findings?
Leed: Well, let's put it this way. The City's findings are consistent with only one conclusion
if you look at all of them and you consider the significance of the fact that the zoning was in
place in 1990, they're consistent with granting this application. Now, that particular discussion
obviously is followed by the City's more specific one in part 7 and that's the one we tried to
address in our testimony. The first question, again, is the Comprehensive Plan consistency
issue. We've covered that, I won't repeat what we've said, but the conclusion, I think, the
Examiner must arrive at, is that the Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Map show that
this site, the particular site here, is to be classified as multifamily, not single-family and that
there can be no contrary significance given to the document behind me. And, again, I question
whether its been properly supported, whether its authentic and whether the Resolution that we've
heard so much about, if its not to be put in evidence in this record, can simply be posited to
have arrived at the conclusion the staff said it did. But, even granting all that, it doesn't support
the staffs contrary conclusion. All right. Second...the second proposition is compatible with
development in the vicinity and there the staff has chosen, I think, to make a...to narrowly
construe and overlook....narrowly construe what information is available and overlook
significant other information. The development proposed for Phase H is going to be consistent
obviously with Phase I, the intention of putting a multifamily development on this site is to
develop something which is generally like the adjacent already developed multiple family not,
obviously, like a detached single family scale of development. At the very least, therefore, there
35
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase H
#RZ-92-1
happens to be already, in this area, and adjacent to this parcel a contrast in scalable bulk and
density. If this particular parcel is developed, the relative difference by adding another 20 units
to any contrast in bulk, scale and density is obviously not going to be significant to the general
character of the vicinity. To suggest that it would be or that it would somehow or other alter
the character of that vicinity which is a mixed density situation already is simply a...a
magnification of a small difference into an overly large one. There's nothing inherently bad or
good with a given density of development. That's a choice that the City makes through its
processes with respect to a piece of land. There's nothing inherently good or bad about whether
its a multifamily or a single family. The staff here is apparently making some kind of value
judgment which isn't supported by the facts when it talks about there's some kind of a conflict.
Then, on the second criteria, namely on a question on "compatibility" with the development in
the vicinity. In other words, I'm suggesting that if there were no multiple family in this area,
it would be very, very plain and very, very supportable to suggest that any multifamily no
matter how small coming into a single family area would by definition be incompatible with
development in the vicinity. But, when there's already a significant and sizeable multifamily
adjacent to this site, it simply can't be right to say that any new multifamily even a small
multifamily addition is going to be, by definition incompatible with development in the vicinity.
In fact, obviously, it has to be said to be compatible with that development. Now, the criteria,
therefore, is something which has to be applied. The criteria, as we read it, doesn't mean that
anything that's incompatible or any incompatibility with any development in the vicinity means
that a rezone has to be rejected. If it is to be a criteria of exclusion it can only reasonably be
read to exclude incompatible development in sort of an absolute sense. In other words, the
example I gave, if its totally single-family and you want to bring in multifamily with a rezone,
a spot zone, that can be rejected. But, if its a mixed situation already, this criterion, I would
suggest, cannot be applied to preclude development and indeed it supports this rezone because
we can show and we have shown that there is compatible development in the vicinity already.
Going to the next criteria, which is unduly burdening the transportation system. There hasn't
been any controversy there with respect to the applicant being able to meet that particular
requirement with respect to the rezone. The change of circumstance requirement has been the
subject of a certain amount of rather elaborate discussion in the staff s report but, unfortunately,
that's wide of the mark because, let us grant for the sake of argument, that there's been a
healthy and laudable amount of single family development in Kent particularly in the East Hill
area. We are not here to debate whether there should be single family development. I mean
that's not the issue, I think, under this particular criteria. What this criterion is asking is are
there conditions that exist today that would justify this site being classified multifamily. Now,
the circumstances that we're looking at are circumstances that have occurred between the time
of the annexation back in 1987 and the present. And if you want to focus on what happened
between 87 and 89 when the City Council made it's determination that multifamily was
appropriate and so zoned the site or you want to look at what's happened since or you want to
look since 89 or you want to look at the whole span of time, that's the...the...the requirement
36
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
here..the standard is...is pointing you to, what has changed? Now, the change we're talking
about here that impacts on this particular site, I would suggest. Now, what has changed without
any controversy. This site has been zoned multiple family. Not only that but the City received
and approved plans to develop this site and this site was in the process of being developed for
specific multifamily development up until very recently and physical construction had begun.
Those are all facts and those are circumstances and we suggest they are relevant, very relevant
to this particular situation. In more gen...in more general terms, looking at the vicinity and
looking at the City's need for housing, we have testimony that the City has a need for
multifamily housing. That this is continued. This is a circumstance which needs to be
recognized. Obviously, there have been a number of changes of circumstance since 1987 and
1988 when the annexation occurred and those circumstances are continuing to change. One of
the most significant is the adoption of a growth management act by the State which requires us
to plan where we're going to...well, which by policy, by state law, mandates that cities will
accept population growth in the future. We may no longer look outside city boundaries and
expect that we can direct people to put in new housing in those areas. Cities are the ones
responsible for accepting it. Kent has that responsibility. There has been no suggestion in the
policies that we've looked at that is Kent's intention to reject multifamily as a housing situation
for future development in the City. All these factors, I think, when you weigh them support a
change of circumstances consistent with restoring multifamily to this particular parcel so that a
small number of additional multifamily units, a small fraction of the number of single family
units evidently constructed on the East Hill over the past few years as the staff discloses could
be constructed to serve future population growth and the existing need for multiple family. The
last criterion which is the general one of health, safety and welfare. Very subjective and if the
staff s, again, of the staff s analysis and review, once again, the staff has retreated in order to
support a negative recommendation here to some kind of incompatibility concept. Once again,
we have exactly the same things mentioned as we had earlier under the previous criterion which
is compatibility with development in the vicinity. A conflict in bulk, scale and density. Well,
again, I just simply suggest that...that its natural. Any urban environment that you're going to
have transitional areas and this happens to be one where you got a variation in density. The fact
there is such a variation doesn't and shouldn't result in the conclusion that there should never
be any change in favor of more dense development. That isn't what the City's policies and laws
state and it would be ridiculous, I suggest, to interpret them in that sense. Here, the criteria
says general welfare. Now, it certainly is...is a stretch and its too much of a stretch to conclude
that because there happens to be single family development in the vicinity of this site that its
incompatible with the general welfare to authorize the rezone. What about the welfare of those
who need the opportunity for affordable multifamily housing. That welfare has to be considered.
What about the necessity that the City find places to accommodate future residents. Their
welfare has to be considered. How can it be stated by staff that accommodating their welfare
is inconsistent with the general welfare and yet, if we accept the staffs analysis, that's exactly
what one would have to do. I think if you run through these factors, therefore, Mr. Examiner,
37
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
you have to come to the conclusion that the City Council was correct when it, in 1989, classified
this site for multiple family and that it is an appropriate zoning. All the criteria for rezone are,
in fact, satisfied and more than satisfied. And, therefore, you should approve this application.
Thank you.
n er: O.k. Thank you, Mr. Leed. Has the applicant then concluded presentation, or do you
have others? Mr. Morford? O.k. There are others here that would like to testify. Does the
City want an opportunity to rebut any remarks of the applicant?
Satterstrom: I think it may be more important to accommodate the citizens here in the audience
and leave our rebuttal till later.
Hunter: O.k. Then we'll turn citizen comments. Let me see, again, how many would like to
testify here tonight? We have four or five and I think we have time to accommodate all of you.
Let's take your, sir, first. If you come up to the podium and please state your name clearly and
if there is any possibility it can be misspelled, spell it for us as well.
Arnold Hamilton: My name is Arnold Hamilton. I live at 25410 113th Avenue SE. And, I
guess, I would like to submit some photographs of some developments in the area and the
existing housing on that on property and say that this is the inconsistency that we're looking at
trying to put multifamily into the single family area.
Hunter: And these are photographs that you took, sir?
Hamilton: Polaroids, yes, sir.
Hunter: And they're of what area specifically?
Hamilton: The street opposite of the property. This is the existing house on there, this is
looking past that existing house.
Hunter: O.k. This is a series...series of six photographs. Mr. Hamilton is presenting are
photos those taken of the site itself and then across the street from the site.
Hamilton: Correct.
Hun r: Does the applicant want to examine these...these photos, to see if they should be
admitted. OX, Mr. Leed, your client doesn't have any problems with this, I guess you
wouldn't either. OX, these will be admitted then as an exhibit.
38
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase lI
#RZ-92-1
Hamilton: They've been going back in history quite a bit in here. I guess maybe I want go
back a little bit here too. And maybe ask some questions. When...when this area was brought
into the City, the zoning became single family. These planning maps and everything was prior
to annexation into the City, so I don't really see a relevancy as to why they should be enforced.
The zoning cannot be enforced until that area was annexed, so that is one thing that I have to
look at here. Some of the site history. At the time the multifamily zoning was invalidated they
had started some preliminary work. It is my understanding from the Court that this was against
the advise of the City Attorney of the City of Kent. I think that's a matter of Court record also.
Actually, they were supposed to cease work at that time when the zoning was revoked and the
building permit was revoked. That didn't happen. Another item in here, it says the property
to that south of the site is undeveloped. There is an existing single family home there to the
south. There's one on the property. Obviously the property to the north is platted for single
family units. I guess there was some statement to this gentle sloping land. This was not true.
There was a lot of cut and fill work done on it even after....either immediately before or after
without permits from the City. So a lot of this where they say, its the land that's in shape has
all occurred under the invalid zoning and under the invalid building permit and even outside of
that.
Hunter: What are your feelings, sir, on the rezone application itself and the...and the criteria
that we've been talking about?
Hamilton: Well, obviously, there have been some improvements. Single-family homes put in
there. The MRM zoning was invalid, ergo, never existed. Same thing with the building permit.
I think it should stay single family. And, I think, the City has made some very good points
here. I have a question on sewers. There is an existing sewer partway up 113th. It stops
before it gets to that property. The water line has been put in place recently. The street, it was
extended up past that property. They say it was up to City standards. City denies its up to City
standards. This is all to do with access. So, I guess, its really not pertinent to the zoning here.
I then...that sewer was put in under a local improvement district. I don't know if that's still in
effect or not, if it were paid off. Here it says none at the present time. I don't know, I'm just
questioning that. I look at this...back referencing these maps here and I....my contention is they
really don't have any bearing on this property since it was zoned single family when it came in
to the City. This was all early planning, but it could not be enforced until the annexation. At
the time of the annexation it was zoned single family. The fact that it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, I think, is almost immaterial. And, obviously, I disagree that its going
to be compatible with development in the City...in the vicinity because we've got the two new
homes, there's been subdivisions in there. The home immediately to the south of the property
was recently enlarged, expanded. The transportation system, it says its not a problem. We
know its a problem. The City's trying to build by-passes 272nd by-pass. Now here again,
they're trying to work outside the City limits, I don't know whether that will happen or not.
39
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
So, they're already saying that area is overloaded already and this will only add to it. And, I
don't know if you have driven up there at 4 or 5:00 in the afternoon, it's kind of a treat. I
guess that's about my argument for it right now.
Hunter: Thank you very much for comments.
Hamilton: O.k.
Hunter: Others that want to testify. I'll kind of work the way back. I think here, sir, and the
green and white shirt, green stripes, you both have green and white.
Kevin Flatt: Yeah, my name is white shirt and green strips, no, my name is Kevin Flatt. I live
on 11224 SE 256th and first of all....
Hunter: Flatt, is it, I'm sorry I didn't...
Flatt: Flatt, F-L-A-T-T.
Hunt r: O.k.
Flatt: First of all, I would like to point that we are talking about a rezone here. We're not
talking about restoring anything. I think we need to be careful not to presuppose or anticipate
any legal actions in the near future as in reference to the appeal that's in process. I think we
need to stay away from relying on zoning pretenses because they seem to change like the wind
around here. I think we need to emphasize the here and now. Now, Mr. Satterstrom's
professional character, I think, deserves a lot of merit here. He's done a thorough job of
research. He's made a very rational presentation and, I think, he, more importantly, captures
the type of neighborhood in proper perspective and in proper context that we actually live in on
the street of 113th. I live in a single-family neighborhood. That is, I live on the corner of
256th and 113th and that street is like a big family. I'm acquainted with all the neighbors and
the children all play together. They ride their bicycles. It's a dead end street as you probably
know having been there. In the assessment by Mr. Satterstrom, he points out that there are
many references to protecting single family neighborhoods. I think the inconsistencies with the
current policy is very valid, particularly where there's no transitional housing or buffer area.
In other words, 21 or, I guess, its actually 17 units per acre is a very big transition to the 9600
zoning population that we have in there. It's a big jump and it needs, at least, the minimum
needs to be addressed in terms of proper transitional housing. O.k. The...another issue I would
like to take up is the access to 113th. It says in the document here that there's not to be any
access to 113th but as Mr. Hamilton has adequately pointed out, there's been a history of
violation with the...with using 113th and in some past practices, you know, that I don't want
40
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
to make anybody mad at me or anything but when the road is further developed up to County
standards then we're looking at opening up easement to the Stratford Arms apartment and then
we would no longer be a single family family-style, small, quiet Mayberry type neighborhood.
Even in the meantime, I don't think this no access mandate is even enforceable. It...I say that
in perspective of being...my wife and I used to be apartment managers and you just...you can
ask somebody's cooperation but you really can't count on it very well and short of putting up
a jersey barrier I really don't see that there will be no access to 113th in the meantime. As far
as single family residential areas go, the Comprehensive Plan and the subarea plans have several
references to try to avoid erosion of single family areas and, I think, the single family house on
the property typifies the ratio that we're looking at, that Mr. Satterstrom has pointed out. In
the past...in this five year period, we're looking at a ratio of approximately 40 to one and more
recently it was three to one but in this one site specific rezone, we're looking at minus one
single family house and plus 21 units of multifamily and I don't think that's at all consistent with
the plan. If this type of erosion does take place, you know, i.e. approving this rezone, I think
this will be followed by a lot of multifamily requests. In fact, my own property on the corner
would be a candidate for a nice 7-11 or Circle K, I'm sure. My neighbors wouldn't like me at
all after I did something like that. Mr. Satterstrom shows strong....shows a strong demand for
single family housing in the way they've been short platted. I'd like to address the vacant lots
that were brought up earlier. I've a feeling that maybe the property owners are sitting on them
waiting for this zoning thing to be water under the bridge so they can make up their minds how
to develop their properties. If...the way I see it, if you want to give one property owner on that
street multifamily, then you should probably do it for all of them in all fairness. But, Stratford
Arms is, you know, I don't want to detract from the facility of Stratford Arms, its a very well
kept place and I, you know, if I had to shop around for a place to live in an apartment I would
probably put Stratford Arms on the top of my list. But, the City's responsibility in providing
everybody adequate housing, I think, puts to much of a burden of guilt on a City. It's too much
to...for any organization or any one man to tell any municipality, hey you have to provide
enough single...enough housing for everybody that has the slightest inclination to want to move
here. I think the City of Kent has had a history of accommodating a lot of people in a very
short time frame in terms of multifamily housing and I think we ought to just taper off a little
bit. I've a feeling that multifamily zoning is developed rather quickly and that's probably way
there's multifamily areas of development are in short supply. I'm not too sure on this point.
I believe King County has a moratorium on construction due to the catching up of social
services, mainly building schools to keep up with the population explosion out in this area.
Well, in summary, I would like to just say that if...if this rezone is approved I think its just
going to open a floodgate...a floodgate of traffic as...not as the traffic flows on 256th but it
would be a floodgate as it impacts single family on a dead end street and it would also open up
a floodgate of multifamily rezone requests and all in all I'm in favor of a very well balanced
perspective brought forth by Mr. Satterstrom. Thank you.
41
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase H
11RZ-92-1
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Flatt. The woman here in front, do you want to testify?
Voice: I really had a question, if that's o.k.
Hunter: O.k., we'll take questions in a bit. Who else? Yes, ma'am, you and then you, sir,
in the back.
Joan McCallum: I'm Joan McCallum. My husband Delbert and I are home property owners
at 25238 111th Avenue SE, Kent.
nter: McCallum, is it.
McCallum: McCallum. M-C-C-A-L-L-U-M. We live on 11lth Avenue SE and we've lived
here for almost 11 years. So, we've lived there be...since before the Stratford Arms was built.
It was just all woods at the time and we feel there are too many multiple family complexes that
have been built in our area. Our lIlth Avenue is a dead end street, it has 25 single family
homes on it and our street is surrounded by multiple family complexes. Now, I'm not sure as
to the exact number of units, if I have these right. But on the east, Stratford Arms apartments
has 85 units and is located right next to the east side of our back yard property lines, it adjoins
right next to us. On the south, directly across 256th Street are the Quail Ridge apartments with
435 units and also the Lincoln Garden apartments with 177 units.
On the west, approximately one block away, are the Sunrise Point apartments with 329 units and
on the north end of our street are the Walnut Park apartments and I don't know the number of
units there and also the Kent Shires complexes. Our lot size is 134 by 112 and our backyard
is the east side and it is adjacent to the present Stratford Arms apartment complexes. These are
three story apartment buildings and the second and third story windows look down into our back
yard and their parking lot also borders our backyard. We are opposed to the SDM properties
rezone request from single family residential to medium density multifamily development. Some
of our con....some of our concerns about this change in zoning from single family to multifamily
are the following: the lowering of property values for established single family homeowners on
113th Avenue SE and also the adjacent avenues and streets. The increase in environmental noise
from people and vehicles. The increase in night time, outdoor lighting from apartments and
also, we feel the increase in vehicle traffic onto 256th Street which is already an overly
congested, two-lane road. And we feel that 256th Street is a dangerous situation as it is. We
feel there is a need to protect and preserve the quality of life for the peace and natural
surroundings for the single family residential neighborhoods that we have left in our part of
town. Delbert and I would like to see that the present zoning of residential of one house for
9600 square feet single family residential be maintained on this property and I would like to
thank you for giving me this opportunity to tell about our concerns.
42
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hun r: Thank you, Mrs. McCallum. Yes, sir?
Jeff Tucker: Good evening. My name is Jeff Tucker and I live on 113th and my concern about
this area was the safety and health and I think what a lot of the gentlemen have overseen or
overlooked are how many children are on 113th. I think if you just take a round number off
the top of your head, there's an easy 12 children that play on this street as their playground.
We all look out for the children. We do drive slowly on this street. I just have a baby that's
turning four months old and there's, I don't even think there's a teenager that's over 15 years
old on this street and they say there's not going to be any access to it. But, there's already cul-
de-sacs built there so how are you going to stop some people from driving back there at night
or in the dusk just driving back to the area's back there as far as friends of the people that would
live there if it were passed and these children are out there on their bikes or a ball goes into the
street, who are going to protect the children from changing their life style as far as where
they're going to play. They're going to be reduced to the front yard/backyard, having to have
a parent walk them across the street to go play with Cindy or Joe or whoever is across from
them. I think that has been overlooked as far as safety and health. You know, the children here
are at stake too. I mean there are people in the dusk who will not see a small children, if it trips
or falls into the street and that is my concern as far as children. I think it has been overlooked
as far as how many children there are in the single family residence. 'Cause I know there's an
easy,just on one side of the street, there's an easy six children and that's not going back beyond
or even on the corner that have to watch out for it. So that....that's my main concern as far as
safety and I know the City said they didn't have a problem with that at the beginning, I believe.
But that is a major concern with us on 113th is the safety and wellbeing of our community there.
And that's all I had to add to the situation. Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Any others that would like to testify. Any members of the
public. O.k., we had an indication there are questions? I'll go take questions here and then
direct them to the appropriate people.
Lilly Kato: Well, I'm Lilly Kato and my husband own property, three acres just south of that.
And I happened to be at City Hall, oh, less than three month ago and on the wall the
Comprehensive Plan said our property is multifamily zoned. So I question the legality at the
desk and she said, yeah, that's in the Comprehensive Plan. And I said, gee, then we are
multifamily and can be. And she said, well no, because the City is....your chances are nil of
getting that rezone and I think, I mean this who thing stinks!
Hunter: O.k.
Kato: I mean it says multifamily...
43
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: I understand your concern is what is your property designated.
K=: We are doing anything about...
unter: Mrs. Kato, I'm sorry, tonight, though, I can't answer that question and I think we have
to confine looking at this piece of property but I understand your concern.
Kato: But, it's in that same...
Hunter: Yes. Yes. O.k., any other questions for anyone here, any questions from members
of the public or additional comments or concerns. O.k. Mr. Morford, I know you had
something you wanted to add. I also wanted to allow the City an opportunity to respond. If you
wanted to take that. O.k., Mr. Morford.
Morford: Yes, the lady who just spoke has the property to the south and my wife and I own
the property to the north and the Stratford Arms is to the west, so three of the property owners
that abut the proposed rezone are in favor of the rezone. The only other property...there's a
street in between—just would like to make a comment. But, I would to just make a couple of
comments in rebuttal to or answers to some of the concerns of the citizens. First, Mr. Hamilton
talked about the sewer LID. I guess some of the property owners didn't want the sewers going
up that street, the City needed to cover it, they came down the back side. Our property is
sewer.....served by sewer from the Stratford Arms side, goes right to the property and Mrs.
Ward paid several thousands dollars in that LID for that and I think there two or three property
owners between your property and up where Rex's place is it that stopped that. So the sewer
does come to the back, it takes care of that...answers that question. And, he made a statement,
just for the record, that the City had recommended that we not proceed with the Stratford Arms
when they issued us a permit, that was in newspaper article also. We never had an oral
statement, a written statement, a comment, an innuendo or anything all through our permit
process of any caution to proceed. It was blanket, carte blanche....I mean there were no
restrictions. We kind of anticipated someone might say proceed at your own risk or they might
mark the drawings. There was absolutely never. So if someone has some records of that, I
would be delighted to see it. We did stop unilaterally on our own when the lawsuit came up
again. Mr. Hamilton, I think it was probably oversight on his part, he said there's two new
homes being constructed there and unless I'm missing something, there's one home remodeled
and one new one that Mr...that Rex built there. On to the property to the north, my wife and
I platted that for single family but the market is not there for single family. I couldn't give a
house away there in my opinion and that's why we're not developing on that street and I think
that's.... W. Flatt talked about violations on the use of the street and if the apartments were
built there was no way you could keep traffic from Stratford Arms Phase H onto 113th. Now,
they're probably not as familiar with the development plans and what the City required but in
44
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
order to go onto 113th from this plan that you've seen there, the site specific plan, you'd have
to drive over curbs, sidewalks, shrubs, ditches and through the yard and up a berm because of
the way it has to be designed and, I think, I can't remember for sure of my facts on this, the
shrubs and the buffer and the fencing, I think, you would even have to go through all those, so,
I mean a tank could get through there but that would probably be the only way. Then, Mr...the
last speaker, I didn't get his name again, and I can appreciate that. I've had four kids and I got
quite a few grandkids now. The kids do play in that street and we did...when we did the short
plat along with a couple of the other residents here, we did pave that street, it caused more of
a place to play because that was for the single family. We did put in a little cul-de-sac in for
the single family and if houses were built there, there would be four more houses, probably a
dozen cars and so actually the single family would create more traffic on that street and actually
there was a statement about the street standards. Under 1500 cars per day the street standards
that are adopted by the City right now are for a gravel road and so they meet the City standards.
But, there is no way that traffic from Stratford Arms could physically enter that property and
they're restricted by the City. Thank you.
Hunter: O.k., Mr. Satterstrom, did you want a chance to respond to applicants' testimony.
Satterstrom: Excuse me, there were a number of issues, excuse me, raised and...and I really
only want to take a look at two or three more significant ones. More than one speaker
mentioned that the multiple family transitional areas requirements would helped to blend this
development with the surrounding single family development and, therefore, there would be little
or no conflict or incompatibility between multiple family and single family. Transitional area
requirements are in the section of our Zoning Code adopted a few years ago, again, reflecting
the concern of our Council over trying to make multiple family and single family good
neighbors. Transitional area requirements basically deal with a 100 foot strip, kind of an
overlay area, actually. Dealing with the 100 foot strip next to existing multiple family zoned
land where multiple family abuts single family and what it says is that in that area between
multiple family and single family certain height limits for multiple family exist. They
recommend a shorter height for the buildings, an increase setback is required and there is
some...some additional buffering and landscaping requirements. And, I....I think that I in...in
all honesty in my professional opinion say that these transitional requirements do go a ways in
malting develop...buffering the impacts of multiple family on adjoining single family. That is,
when you have a situation where you have that situation, where you have multiple family next
to single family, what we have here is a rezone. We would be extending an area here of
additional apartments into what we have called in the staff report, characteristically a single
family area and we have a choice here, I think, of limiting that transitional area to where it
exists now and that is along the east edge of the Stratford Arms development or extending the
problems of trying to transition multiple family with single family into a new area which would
be surrounded on three sides by single family zoning. Notwithstanding the fact that the
45
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
developer has previously, under the building permit that's been discussed, submitted an
application that conforms to those multiple family transitional requirements. I think in light of
the fact that we have a choice here of rezoning the property to multiple family when it exists as
single family, the proper...perhaps, the best way to deal with the transition between single
family and multiple family is to disapprove of the rezone so we don't further aggravate the
transitional problems. There's also been some mention about the growth management act as a
general law in this State that strives towards providing housing....affordable housing
opportunities for the populous and in putting the burden, I guess if you will, on local
government to try to encourage a number of different kinds of housing opportunities for twenty
years of growth that we're expecting. The Growth Management Act is way to broad and to big
for me to really comment on adequately tonight. I would submit, though, that the City of Kent
has done a fair share in providing a range of different types of residential use. There is no other
community and there's no other city, any other jurisdiction, within King County that has a
higher percentage of its housing stock in multiple family already. We have nearly 70 percent
in multiple family units and the planners that I talk to from surrounding jurisdictions speak about
Kent in terms of other city's striving to attain that type of housing stock because they believe
that Kent in some fashion has already achieved the kind of housing balance that the Growth
Management Act is trying to achieve. The goals of this community as I have witnessed here
with our City Council in the last several years is a growing recognition that multiple family has
become almost the only choice in housing here and they have set in motion a number of actions,
a number of ordinances and resolutions almost to numerous to mention tonight. We do have
copies of Resolution 1235, if we do need to submit that into the record. But, all of the...many
of these resolutions and ordinance as of late emphasize a growing concern to preserve single
family neighborhoods. It is the contention in this staff report that placing this type of
development, that is 21 units in the configuration proposed in the application, is incompatible
and a rezone is not justified. And, it's more than just a value judgment. I know that in writing
the staff report, I tried to take the value judgments out, I tried as much as possible to view this
objectively in terms of measurable types of criteria. There are conflicts in scale and bulk. We
are talking about placing buildings two and three stories that contain up to ten or eleven units
in a neighborhood characterized on the east by one unit structures, typically one or two stories,
detached. We're talking about a density of 17 point something per acre versus the surrounding
environment, the zoning of which allows approximately four units per acre. Converting that into
population, you are looking, if you assume three persons per household, which was nearly a
typical household size, you're looking at 51 people per acre in the multiple family area versus
typically twelve in the single family and I submit to you that that is more than just a value
judgment these are measurable values. This represents, if not an incompatibility, an
inconsistency, when they are placed together and particularly in the configuration of this
property where you push an additional area of multiple family further into an R1-9.6 area.
That's all. Thank you.
46
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: Yes, sir. Come forward.
Tom Brubaker: I...with my apologies, I neglected to have myself sworn in at the beginning of
this meeting.
Hunter: O.k., and you're here on behalf of the City.
Brubaker: Yes, Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kent.
Hunter: O.k., as the attorney you're certainly free to speak without being under...under oath.
Brubaker: Fred has asked me to attend here today and assist him and I would just like to point
out a few points that I think have gotten a little muddied in the proceedings. The first point is
that we are here to consider a zoning amendment. By its very nature, it assumes that the
existing zoning on the site is single family residential. There has been a lot of confusing
statements made about past zoning actions. I think the very fact that they are here asking for
the amendment you can gather that all parties agree the current applicable law of zoning is single
family residential. The second point is that its an application to build an apartment complex,
I believe, its 17 units, 21 units, and that is also a specific fact that's before this body tonight.
Next, if you turn to the Kent Zoning Code as you mentioned at the beginning of this...at the
beginning of this meeting, that you are to pay attention to certain criteria. One of those criteria
is whether or not this application for rezone conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kent like all municipal comprehensive plans is a statement
of policy. It's advisory, it explains and clarifies legislative intent for a zoning map and text
which is the applicable law and, as I said, we've all agreed the laws that states that the current
zoning is single family residential. A number of different amendments been made to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, the most recent of which is the overlay zone as a Comprehensive Plan is
a flexible, fluid policy statement that by its very nature must react to changing times. In my
opinion the latest statement of intent of the City's legislative body is that the overlay zone is
applicable to the Comprehensive Plan and must be considered.
Hunter: And this is Resolution 1235.
Brubaker: 1235 and also another ordinance mentioned in Mr. Satterstrom's report but hasn't
been mentioned elsewhere is Ordinance 2903 which also adopts the single family designated area
overlay.
Hunter: O.k., now normally, since they are official acts of the City Council, we assume they
were validly adopted and they are a matter of official record so we don't normally have them
in as evidence but we have had the applicant's attorney question....
47
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
Brubaker: I have copies here.
Hunter: Of that and it would be appropriate, I think, to submit them, perhaps show them to the
applicant's attorney to make sure that they were ones that were validly adopted and attested to
by City Clerk and meet the prerequisites. It has been put at issue but I can't imagine why
otherwise we'd need those as record unless there was some issue about their valid adoption.
Brubaker: I have, with my apologies, highlighted a few portions of this ordinance so it has been
marked by me.
Hun r: This is 1235.
Brubaker: 1235 and Ordinance....
Hunter: Resolution 1235.
Brubaker: Resolution number 1235 and City of Kent Ordinance number 2903, passed
approximately February 20, 1990, both.
Morford: I have a question. I...I looked that up at City Clerk's office yesterday and...it's...I
think it's a significant thing...it was to me. I asked the City Clerk about it but she's not an
attorney. But Ordinance 2903 is an ordinance by definition is a law, its enforceable....and 2903
modified Resolution and I asked that sort of a question in several places and no one can
understand how you could modify a Resolution by an Ordinance.
Hunter: O.k., at this point, we're just looking at the document whether they're validly adopted
as Resolution 1235 and Ordinance 2903. Your attorney, Mr. Morford, has, I think, suggested
and, perhaps, properly given the history of this case, that they be included as part of the official
record. The City Attorney here is presenting these and we'll have them marked as exhibits and
what are we up to, exhibit 7 and K and if there's no objection of your attorney, then we'll have
them put in the official record. They are an ordinance and resolution and are available, as you
indicated, at the City Clerk's Office. As to your question, I think that's best addressed with
your attorney at private counsel rather than part of this hearing. I'm mostly concerned with is
the building the record of this hearing. Thank you for your remarks, giving an opportunity here
for the applicant's attorney to examine the resolution and ordinance. Exhibit 7 would be
Resolution 1235 and Exhibit K would be Ordinance 2903. I'll also mention while he's
reviewing those exhibits that I have reviewed testimony submitted at the time the hearing opened
and I neglected to mention this earlier but two letters were received, one is from a Mr. William
Green and he indicates opposition to the proposed rezone and that's Exhibit B and Exhibit C is
48
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
a letter from Jim and Sarah Boyer and they also have several concerns they mention and indicate
opposition. These are available for your review, if you would like.
Voi : Sir, could I rebut something the Planning Department has said. There was a
clarification they made regarding the Growth Management Act and the transition area.
Hunter: Well, I think you presented the testimony on that issue and he was responding to your
testimony and I think we've heard a lot about the Growth Management Act.
Voi e: And with regard to the...
Hunter: Is there some statements of facts, or something that we need in here. Because I really
as far as the Growth Management Act policies, I know you testified as to their applicability.
The City mentioned how it attempted to comply with that.
Voice: The Planning Goals Report that came out of the Planning Department of Kent just a
couple of days ago, one of the items in there is that the growth shall occur first in the areas
already served by public infrastructure, particularly roads, water and sewer systems.
unter: O.k., sir, I now you referenced to a memoranda. You didn't offer it as an exhibit, do
you think that's something we should review. I'd be happy to take that in and review it as part
of the decision if you think its relevant and it seems to be.
Voice: I can't attest to...to the content of this because I haven't even read all the way through
it yet but, I would...would offer it as a ....
Hunter: Well, your testimony is fine, it's up to you, I understand your testimony as to the
applicability of the Growth Management Act.
Voice: ....read the balance of it, but it does apply.
Hunter: O.k., would this then satisfy your concerns, that I will examine this as exhibit, I don't
think the City, do you have any problems with this. It is a memoranda, but it is to the members
of the Planning Commission regarding the Planning Goals report.
Voice: Just a note that it is presently being considered by the Planning Commission.
Hunter: O.k.
Voice: ...adopted goals.
49
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Hunter: Dated August 17, very recent. Do we have those ordinance....the ordinance and
resolution. Could we bring those forward, have you had an opportunity to examine those.
Voice: Could I...one other quick issue about...with regards to the buffers in the transitional
areas. When...
Hunter: Well, Mr. Dimsdale, then please take the podium.
Dimsdale: Bill Dimsdale, again. Very briefly. When we're talking about the concerns of a
transitional area or transitional project, I don't want to loose sight of the fact that we had MRM
zoning on the existing Stratford Arms project. There were no...that was not considered to be
a transitional zone at that time because the entire area to the east of there, over to 113th which
was...which would be a natural transitional area...a street was, at that time, in the
Comprehensive Plan as MRM and still is as far as I understand it.
Hunter: I understand your point. Thank you for bring that up. O.k. We've had an opportunity
for everyone to give testimony. Is the applicant about completed his review of those exhibits.
Voice: Yes we have.
Hunter: Do you have any objection to those as the Resolution 1235 and Ordinance 2903.
Voice• No.
Hunter: O.k. then, we'll have those in the record.
Voice: I'd like to resubmit these to the record. However, we note that we cannot find that
2903 adopts Resolution 1235, maybe that can be pointed out to us.
Hunter: I'm not...I'm not certain why we need to do that.
Voice: ...the City has stipulated that point or says that, I don't know. They said 29...the City
Attorney...
Hunter: Why does that matter to me, Mr. Sharp? That Ordinance....I don't understand.
Sham: Well, it matters to me because the City said it and I'd just like to see where. Because
I just read it and I can't find where 2903 adopts Resolution 1235.
nter: Mr. Satterstrom or City Attorney, do you want to respond to that.
50
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Satterstrom: Ordinance 2903 creates the single family designated overlay concept and explains
what it is. Resolution 1235 actually amends and applies it to the East Hill Plan. They're two
separate actions.
Sham: Thank you.
Hunter: O.k., any other remarks or testimony. Yes, ma'am. Certainly, you've waited so
patiently. We do want to give you an opportunity. You will have to speak to the microphone.
Voice: Be quiet here. I won't take much time, I assure you. I'm not a big officiator, I'm
just.... My name is Elizabeth Claussen and we live on 113th Avenue. A nice, quiet street most
of the time, some...cars you know, dogs barking, etc. But, you know, what is your name again.
McCallum: Joan McCallum
laussen: You know when you were remarkable. She had all the list of all those apartments
around us and I was just amazed at how many there are in our area. So, you know, we
feel...we feel that we have enough there for the time being at least. We don't know what will
happen in the future but for the time being, I think, it would be wonderful if the dear dear
developers, these here people here, moved further away to have more apartments, you know.
There's still lots of land in our Country and I just wanted to express myself this way and I do
want to say on behalf of our dear neighbors that have small children, my husband and I, we're
past that age, we have grandchildren, wonderful grandchildren, they're not too close to us, in
a way that we could go there and so that's not a problem with us, you know. But I can
understand these dear friends here, neighbors, you know, it's wonderful to get up in the morning
and know, you know, children are protected. But, then, again, of course, these developers they
do want to...it's just within them for apartments, apartments, apartments, you know and just
because its multiple...I mean...its multiple apartments, you know, units and we're mixed in with
one family unit. Well, I just want to say tonight, I am so glad that my husband and I live in a
single, it's an old house, its a nice house and no steps to fall and break our legs and I hope it
stays that way. I'm just..you know, it's just, I mean we all have our differences, you know,
some want this and some want that and I know that you people can't please everybody but at
least I thank you for letting me express myself tonight.
Hunter: Well, thank you for your testimony and that's why we hold the public hearing is to
hear the variety of views and we did hear a variety tonight. The applicants have some
considerations I listened to and will consider. I heard from a lot of members of the public and
then the City's recommendation. It's my job not to make policy here but try to determine what
your City Council has already said is the policy and then to issue a recommendation to the
Council on what should happen on this application. So, I'll do that, I...you've given me ten
51
Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
days to it, ten working days, two weeks from today, we'll have a recommendation and it will
be delivered to those of you that signed the book here and to the applicant and I thank you all
for your patience this evening. Very, very good testimony, it was very much on point. Thank
you much. We are adjourned.
52
CONSENT CALENDAR
V3 . City Council Action: i~ -
Councilmember moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through �;be approved L^, f
0 TI+ ,c
V3
Discussion �� R
F # +
Action c-
j 3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 3 , 1992 .
AB. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through November 16
after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting at
3 : 00 p.m. on November 17 , 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
Council Agenia )
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
November 3 , 1992
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Houser, Mann, Orr and White, Acting Chief Administrative
Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director
Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo,
Police Chief Crawford, Information Services Director Spang and
Human Resources Director Olson. Councilmember Woods was excused
from the meeting. Approximately 40 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson
COMMUNICATION announced that Joye Honeycutt of the Information
Services Department has been selected as Employee
of the Month for November. Director Ron Spang
explained that she is responsible for tracking all
of the computer hardware throughout the City, as
well as other functions of the department. He
noted that Joye always has a smile for everyone,
and offered his congratulations. Ms. Honeycutt
said she appreciates the recognition and enjoys
working at the City.
Human Services Month. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson read
a proclamation declaring November as Human Ser-
vices Month in the City of Kent. He noted that
the population growth in Kent and the increasing
complexity of pressures that impact individuals
and families continue to present human service
needs that far surpass our capacity to provide
support, and encouraged all citizens to recognize
and support Human Services Month. The proclama-
tion was presented to Lucille Wooden of the Human
Services Commission.
CONSENT WHITE MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR K be approved. Orr seconded and the motion car-
ried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of October 20, 1992 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
SANITATION Canterbury 401. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale
and warranty agreement submitted by Canterbury 401
for continuous operation and maintenance of
approximately 1, 088 feet of water main extension,
1, 038 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 901 feet
of street improvements and 2 , 180 feet of storm
sewer improvements constructed in the vicinity of
1
November 3 , 1992
HEALTH & 100th Avenue S.E. & S.E. 248th St. and release of
SANITATION bonds after expiration of the maintenance period,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Eastwood 403 . ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and
warranty agreement submitted by Eastwood 403 for
continuous operation and maintenance of approxi-
mately 1, 200 feet of water main extension, 1,410
feet of sanitary sewer extension, 11134 feet of
street improvements and 1, 634 feet of storm sewer
improvements constructed in the vicinity of 100th
Avenue S.E. & S.E. 244th St. and release of bonds
after expiration of the maintenance period, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Meridian Green II Apartments. ACCEPTANCE of the
bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by
Meridian Green II Apartments for continuous opera-
tion and maintenance of approximately 11058 feet
of water main extension, and 646 feet of sanitary
sewer extension constructed in the vicinity of
114th Avenue S.E. and Kent-Kangley and release of
2bonds after expiration of the maintenance period,
as recommended by the Public Works Committee.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Rainier Properties Remodel. ACCEPTANCE of the
bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by
Rainier Properties Remodel for continuous opera-
tion and maintenance of approximately 220 feet of
storm sewer improvements constructed in the
vicinity of 310 N. Washington Avenue and release
of bonds after expiration of the maintenance
period, as recommended by the Public Works Com-
mittee.
UTILITIES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Utility Tax Ordinance. ADOPTION of Ordinance No.
3074 amending Chapter 3 . 04 of the Kent City Code
to change the quarterly tax remittance of 3 . 04. 080
to a monthly tax remittance; and to add Section
3 .04 . 090 to require taxpayers to keep and provide
records; and to add Section 3 . 04 . 100 to authorize
the Finance Director to make assessments when tax-
payers fail or refuse to pay taxes; and to add
Section 3 . 04 . 110 to provide a credit for any
2
November 3 , 1992
UTILITIES overpayment; and to provide Section 3 . 04 . 120 to
provide an appeal procedure; and to add 3 . 04 . 130
to make it unlawful to file a false return; and to
add Section 3 . 04 . 140 to provide a civil penalty
for non-compliance, as recommended by the Opera-
tions Committee.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
CONTROL Signal Coordination Plan Interlocal Agreement.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal
Agreement with Tukwila, Renton, King County and
WSDOT for the development of a coordination plan
for traffic signals in the Green River Valley.
This agreement has been prepared to approve Phase
I of this joint effort.
(ADDED ITEM)
Traffic Concerns at 240th and 94th. Walter
Susan! , who lives on the corner of 240th and 94th,
noted that there have been quite a few accidents
at that location, the last of which occurred in
the middle of the day on October 2nd. He noted
that cars end up in yards, wreck shrubbery and
nearly hit houses. He said that a crosswalk
signal was knocked down in the last accident, and
the school children could not tell when to cross
the street. He asked whether a guardrail could be
erected for pedestrians' protection. White sug-
gested that this issue be discussed by the Public
Works Committee and asked that Mr. Susanj be noti-
fied of the date.
URBAN (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
GROWTH Revision to Urban Growth Areas. APPROVAL of
AREAS Resolution No. 1334 adopting an Interim Urban
Growth Area for the City of Kent, as recommended
by the City Council Planning Committee on October
20, 1992 .
VISIONING (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
PROGRAM Visioning Program Implementation Plan. Resolution
1318 dated July 21, 1992 , directed the Planning,
Parks and Public Works Departments to collaborate
on an implementation plan to carry out the Kent
Visioning Program and specific recommendations of
A. Nelessen Associates, within ninety (90) days.
3
November 3 , 1992
VISIONING Janet Shull of the Planning Department explained
PROGRAM that the Implementation Plan has two primary com-
ponents: actions which can be implemented through
the comprehensive planning process and actions
which must be implemented through special pro-
grams. She said that after the reports and recom-
mendations have been added to the comprehensive
plan, it would be used as a guide in updating
regulations which would then implement the
visions. She pointed out that special programs
consist of a design competition program, incen-
tives through development regulations, the power
of paint program, a downtown formal parks program
and a water-oriented recreation program. She
noted that staff recommends that the special pro-
grams component be deferred until the comprehen-
sive plan is concluded and more staff and
resources are available. Shull then asked that
Council approve the Implementation Plan.
Upon Mann's question, Planning Director Harris
explained that they anticipate strong input from
groups, organizations and individuals on the com-
prehensive plan, and that the Bicycle Advisory
Board will play a strong role in an element of the
transportation plan. He added that it is impossi-
ble to know at this time whether there will be a
conflict between policies, and asked that the
Bicycle Advisory Board provide early input. White
encouraged everyone to work together on all the
plans, since everyone is headed in the same direc-
tion. Orr noted that the plan before the Council
tonight is not cast in stone, but rather is a
guideline, and noted that concerns will be
addressed during the process.
ORR MOVED to approve the Visioning Program Imple-
mentation Plan as recommended by the Planning Com-
mittee. White seconded and the motion carried.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
APPEAL Stratford Arms Phase II Appeal (RZ-92-1) .
AUTHORIZATION to set November 17, 1992 as the date
for a public hearing to consider an appeal by SDM
Properties of the denial by the Hearing Examiner
of the Stratford Arms Phase II Rezone application
RZ-92-1. The property is located 660 feet north
of SE 256th Street at 113th Avenue SE. A public
4
November 3 , 1992
REZONE hearing on the application for this rezone was
APPEAL held on August 19, 1992 by the Hearing Examiner.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
Stratford Arms Phase II Rezone (RZ-92-1) .
AUTHORIZATION to set November 17 , 1992 as the date
for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Exam-
iner' s recommendation of denial for an application
by SDM Properties of the Stratford Arms Phase II
Rezone Application (RZ-92-1) . The property is
located 660 feet north of SE 256th Street at 113th
Avenue SE. A public hearing on the application
for this rezone was held on August 19 , 1992 by the
Hearing Examiner.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1993 Budget Including Capital Improvement Program.
This date has been set for a public hearing on the
1993 Budget. Input will also be taken on the 1993
component of the Capital Improvement Program.
Mayor Pro Tem Johnson declared the public hearing
open. Acting Chief Administrative Officer
McCarthy noted that the Budget Committee will meet
at 4: 00 on Monday, November 23rd regarding any
changes to the Budget and that an ordinance could
be brought to Council on December 1st or 15th.
Councilmember White noted that at least one Coun-
cilmember will not be available on the 1st, and
others will be gone on December 15th. He sug-
gested holding a special Council meeting on
December 8th to adopt the budget. Johnson sug-
gested holding a workshop on the Budget at 5: 30
p.m. on November 23rd, after the Budget Committee
meeting. It was agreed to hold the workshop on
November 23rd and the special Council meeting on
December 8th.
McCarthy then explained the four actions included
in the 1993 Preliminary Budget which are balancing
the operating budget, reestablishing the Capital
Improvement Fund, enhancing the Contingency Fund,
and planning for the future. He noted that the
Contingency Fund is increased by 3 .5% and assumes
that the City annexes to the King County Library
District. He clarified for White that by
annexing, the City would save $292 , 874 in 1993 .
He then distributed an analysis showing which
5
November 3 , 1992
BUDGET human service agencies are funded in the budget
and the recommended amount of funding.
Rev. Marvin Eckfeldt, member of the Human Services
Commission, pointed out that the agenda packet
contains letters from several agencies who receive
funding from the City, who together sponsor twenty
programs for Kent residents. He added that they
have had requests for $160, 000 more than the rec-
ommended funding level because needs continue to
escalate. Lucille Wooden and Marjean Heutmaker
then introduced representatives from the following
agencies, who expressed their appreciation for the
City' s past support: Catholic Community Services,
Child Care Resources, Childrens Home Society,
Childrens Therapy Center, Community Health Centers
of King County, DAWN, Kent Community Center Food
Bank, Kent Youth & Family Services, King County
Sexual Assault Resource Center, Pregnancy Aid,
South King County Multi-Service Center, Washington
Women's Employment & Education, and Valley Cities
Mental Health.
Russ Stringham, owner of The Hungry Bear Cafe, 524
W. Meeker, noted that the preliminary budget con-
tains a total expenditure increase of 14 . 3%. He
added that a 1. 6% increase is budgeted in
increased sales revenue tax while the budget says
the 1992 amount will come in at 9/10 of a percent
decrease. He expressed concern about the $760, 500
figure in the cash and investment section and
McCarthy explained that that is the General Fund' s
interest income only, and that the other funds
also earn interest. Stringham noted that the
Mayor' s letter states that the budget has been
balanced without raising taxes, but that business
license fees, recreation fees, permit fees, etc.
are to be increased. He said that as a small
business owner he is aware of what is going on in
the economy and that the economy is not going to
change very soon. He said Administration should
not anticipate any kind of increases in revenue,
but should establish the budget based on decreases
in revenue. He pointed out that the City has
539 .5 full time employees in the 1993 budget, with
an average salary of $39, 000 a year. He said that
while many of the employees are worth it, it looks
like an attempt by Administration to buy loyalty,
6
November 3 , 1992
BUDGET which cannot be done. He added that he has heard
the comment that people do not like working for
the City but can't get that kind of money any
place else. He said that he had studied the
staffing levels in the Finance Department and
Human Resources since they are departments that
private industry also deals with, and that
businesses of comparable size employ far fewer
people. He emphasized that he is not advocating
further layoffs, but that there is no need to
enlarge the staff. He said that he resents the
City' s cavalier approach to managing his tax
dollars, and pointed to the preliminary budget as
an example, noting that it is a beautiful bound
document. He closed by saying that this budget is
not conservative enough and the City should face
next year' s budget with pessimism. There were no
further comments and ORR MOVED that the hearing be
continued to the November 17th meeting. White
seconded and the motion carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the
bills received through October 30, 1992 after
auditing by the Operations Committee at its
meeting at 3 : 00 p.m. on November 3 , 1992 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/16-10/30/92 123832-124387 $1, 157, 604 . 91
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/5/92 1177405-1178525 $ 326, 222 . 63
Direct Deposit 307 , 233 . 87
$ 633 , 456. 50
REPORTS Town Hall. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson announced that
the Annual Town Hall Meeting and Open House will
be held on Thursday, November 12th at the Kent
Senior Activity Center. He noted that Exhibit
Hour will be from 6: 00-7 : 00 p.m. and the meeting
from 7 : 00-8 : 30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m.
Q cam /
Brenda Jacober, CMC
City Clerk
7
P
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SEWER CONNECTION PENALTY ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance ' l relating to
sewer connections and establishing a penalty for failure to
connect to the City's public sewer system. This ordinance was
removed from the October 20 Council meeting and referred back
to the Public Works Committee. The Public Works Committee made
no change to the ordinance and has referred it back to the full
Council for action.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from the Public Works Committee minutes and
copy of ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Unanimous vote of Public Works Committee (3-0)
(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. 3C
Wickstrom stated that we did not receive much response in favor of
the LID, although we have adequate LID commitments to proceed with
the project.
Wickstrom also stated that the City could possibly contribute some
funds to the project. There is some sidewalk funding available.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize staff to proceed with the
Smith Street Sidewalk LID with a suggestion of "sweetening the
pot" , on this sidewalk project, per staff recommendation.
1993 Engineering Division Work Program
Wickstrom suggested that the Committee review the program (material
handed out to Committee) and come back with suggestions. Wickstrom
stated that staff is managing 60• projects for a total of $80
Million. He asked that the Committee come back with suggestions
since we are requesting additional staff to be financed thru the
Street Utility and Drainage Utility.
Wickstrom explained that one unknown factor is that we have
submitted for a number of grants that are not shown in the program.
He stated that UAB has $40 Million of funds available for street
projects also noting that there is Federal money presently
available and another $20 Million in the three County region to be
distributed for road type projects.
Committee will review the material and discuss at the next Public
Works meeting.
At this time, Jim White did make note of the fact that staff is
doing a great job. He expressed his appreciation to Ed White for
everything done and the expediency with how things are addressed.
Sewer Connection Ordinance
Wickstrom stated that this item had been referred back to Committee
from Council due to a pending lawsuit and requested that this item
be put back on the Council agenda.
Committee unanimously agreed to place the Sewer Connection
Ordinance back on the Council agenda.
6
II� i
1
ORDINANCE NO.
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington, amending Ordinance
Nos. 2374 and 2811 of the City of
Kent, relating to sewer connections
and establishing a penalty for
I failure to connect to the City' s
public sewer system.
I
�I
;
i
WHEREAS, under the authority of RCW 35 . 67 . 190, the City
Ij
Imust either compel all property owners within any area served by a
';City sewer system to connect to that system or be penalized
!;therefor; and
i!
WHEREAS, RCW 35. 67 . 190 allows the City to make the
{penalty for failing to connect to the City' s sewer system E.
'monetary charge equal to the charge that would be made for sewer
I
service if the property was connected to the system; and
i WHEREAS, RCW 35. 67 . 200 allows the City to impose a lien
' for delinquent and unpaid rates and charges for penalties levied
;'pursuant to RCW 35 . 67 . 190; and
�! WHEREAS , the City' s Public Works Director and Finance
;; Director have determined that the penalty to be imposed on property
owners within any area served by a City sewer system for failure to
( connect to that system shall be an amount equal to the basic
monthly rate charged for the provision of sewer service; NOW,
IjTHEREFORE
,I I
1; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I{
�I
I
Section 1. The City of Kent's Ordinance No. 2374 , i
Section one, KCC Section 7 .05. 190 (listed as KCC 7 . 05. 160 in
Ordinance No. 2374) , as amended by Section 1 of the City of Kent' s i
Ordinance No. 2811, is hereby amended as follows:
I
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to place,
deposit, or permit to be deposited in an unsanitary manner
upon public or private property within the City of Kent, or in
I
any area under the jurisdiction of said City, any human or
animal excrement, garbage, or other objectionable waste.
B. Except as hereinafter provided in this Chapter, it
I
shall be unlawful to construct or maintain any privy, privy
vault, septic tank, cesspool, or other facility intended or
used for the disposal of sewage.
C. The owners of all houses, buildings or properties
used in any manner for human occupancy =�,
ether situated within or without the
City of Kent and abutting en that abut any street, alley, or
I'
easement in which there is new located *=he F tune be
lee ed a public sanitary sewer of the City of Kent, are
I' by = rcd shall , at their expense, to install suitable
j
toilet facilities therein,— and to connect sueh those
facilities directly with to the proper public sewer -in
ae er-danee with the
_ f t • er-dinanee, within ninety
f
j (90) days after- from the date of official notice to do so,
!
provided that said the public sewer is within two hundred
(200) feet of t4re any building er—bui-lelinqs and
speeifie
prev siens have been Tnade te eenneet sueh te the piablie sewer
and that re p�=tee health er�.� r hazards exist
} a by the Dir eter on the property. If the K1 _
.aq
1 i
County Department of Health the Citv's Public Works
i'
�I Department or any other public health agency with j
i� jurisdiction determines that a public health or safety hazard
ii 2
I
i
I ,
li
.j
exists the City,s Public Works Director may require
connection without regard to the notice or distance_provisions
provided in this subsection so long as the public sewer is
reasonably available to the affected property.
shall eewd�,el
available te the piablie sewer the exists as determined by the E)a:re ter. and the )r-epe AI-1-s
Geldnell
F 1. L. l asueui preperties } } }e }L.
ngs
tr
Publie sewer
Any ProPert owner who fails to connect to the sewer
system within ninety days of receiving official notice to do
so as provided for in this Section shall be subject to a
penalty that shall be a monetary charge in an amount equal to
the base monthly sewer rate that would be charged against that
Property if it were connected to the City sewer system. The
City' s Finance Department shall assess the penalty against the
property through its utility billing system.
E. Pursuant to RCW 35 67 200 failure to pay the
penalties levied Pursuant to subsection C herein shall
constitute a lien for those delinquent and unpaid charges
against the premises to which the service is available. This
lien shall be superior to all other liens and encumbrances
except general taxes and local and special assessments.
F. All delinquent charges imposed under the authority of
this Section shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent
(8%) per annum.
Section 2 . Sever ability. The provisions of this
ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section
' or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the
3
i
i
�I
!I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17. 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1993 BUDGET WORKSHOP
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set 5: 30 p.m. ,
November 23, 1992, as the time and date for a workshop
regarding the 1993 Budget, including the Capital Improvement
Program. The workshop will be held in the Council Chambers of
Kent City Hall. This workshop was discussed at the Council
meeting of November 3 , 1992 .
3 . EXHIBITS:
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D ,(
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 1993 BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set a Special Council
Meeting for December 8, 1992 , at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of Kent City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to
adopt the 1993 Budget including the Capital Improvement
Program. This was discussed at the Council meeting of
November 3 , 1992 .
3 . EXHIBITS:
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 Agen a
Item No. 3E
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 . 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 336 - EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Autherizati4 Accept�'as complete he
contract with Gary Merlino Construction, Inc. , for LID 336 East
Valley Highway road improvement project and release of
retainage after receipt of State releases.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and memo
from Public Works Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO >� YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F J
of the new policy, are the Fire Dept. , reducing almost half and
Public Works, reducing half the number of cars going home, with
trade offs. Tim stated that back up will be less in those two
departments on emergency situations, however there is a cost factor
to consider.
The "action" portion of this issue is on the list of surplus
vehicles. Tony explained that in 193 budget shows a replacement of
8 pieces of equipment, and Tim has actually deferred from 193 to
194 another list of equipment. He stated that this is part of the
program to reduce the budget charges thru all the departments by
20% and by deferring these vehicles allowing another-year of life
out of the vehicles. Tony explained there is a fund with
approximately $2 Million which pays for these vehicles. Tim stated
however, that in 194 they will need to be replaced. Tony stated
that there were some vehicles that had been put on "hold" at the
shops and those vehicles will be put back in service.
Tim explained that the City has a fleet of approximately 205
assigned vehicles and 58 vehicles in a pool. Of that total, 20
vehicles/equipment were to be cut. Of these, there are
approximately 124 cars and trucks assigned; approximately 94 of
those are in the General Fund and 70% of those 94 are Police and
Fire.
Included in Tim's presentation he briefly discussed the problems
with the Toro lawnmowers. Jim White stated that before more mowers
are purchased, the entire golf course issue needs to be addressed.
Discussion followed regarding the sander as a piece of equipment to
be surplused. Paul Mann stated he felt the sander should not be
included and in light of that, 19 pieces of equipment should be
surplused rather than 20.
At this time, Jim Bennett stated that he does not see this
equipment rental issue as a short term thing and to get accustomed
to doing more with less.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize Equipment Rental to
surplus the vehicles which have been replaced and are no longer
needed by the City.
LID 336 -.East Valley Highway
Wickstrom stated that this is a matter of accepting the contract as
complete. Gary Merlino was contractor on the reconstruction of
East Valley Highway. Committee unanimously agreed to accept LID
336 East Valley Highway improvements as complete.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OCTOBER 29, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM D11
RE: LID 336 - EAST VALLEY HIGHWAY
This project constructed a new five lane roadway on East Valley
Highway between S. 180th Street to S. 192nd Street along with
sidewalk, curb, gutter, storm, bioswales, sanitary sewer stubs and
a water main extension. Project also included a box culvert for
Springbrook Creek.
The project was awarded to Gary Merlino Construction on June 24 ,
1991 for the bid amount of $2 , 587 , 703 . 45 . The final construction
cost is $2 , 455 , 737 . 67 .
It is recommended the project be accepted as complete .
TV Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 333 - 72ND AVENUE SOUTH & S. 180TH STREET
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set January 5th as the
hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for LID 333 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G 7
LID 333 - .LID 338- - LID 339
Wickstrom explained these LID's are construction complete and we
would like to finalize these projects. Tentative dates have been
scheduled to set these items for public hearings.
Committee unanimously agreed to set public hearing dates on LIDS
333 , 338, and 339 .
Property Acquisition
Wickstrom explained that the City has been negotiating with Mrs.
Ramstead, one of the major property owners on the 27-7th Corridor.
Wickstrom stated that we have an earnest money agreement for
$700, 000. This is in accordance with the appraisal. The property
in question is approximately 96 acres. Wickstrom stated that Mrs.
Ramstead has a logging permit and the City' s concern is, once Mrs.
Ramstead clear cuts her property, King County can, under State. law,
and will issue a moratorium on the entire site for 6 years; which
would eliminate any building permits or additions of any kind
including us. Wickstrom explained that this is far beyond what we
would want and that is what initiated this negotiation with her.
Wickstrom further explained that a school is going in adjacent to
the property which will bring in sewer and water to the property.'
This could very well increase the price and could make the property
more potentially developable.
Jim Bennett raised the question regarding what phase we are in
regarding the 277th Corridor. He noted that approximately $500, 000
was authorized to do study, survey, etc. Bennett asked how this
acquisition would impact that.
Wickstrom explained that we may become "landlords" on this property
but when the school is built in 194 the property could probably be
sold for a profit. He further stated that this is also the reason
why negotiations are under way with another property owner, Mrs.
Johnson, at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Johnson is very willing
to sell and an appraisal will be in to the City on November 6th.
Wickstrom explained that there is money in the project fund; $2
Million in outstanding bonds on this project; $800, 000 in cash that
was set aside some time ago for and $500, 000 development fees that
have been prepaid by various developments.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize acquisition of the
Ramstead property.
Proposed LID Smith Street Sidewalk
Wickstrom explained that this was brought forward from the last
Committee meeting because of a 1-1 split vote.
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17, 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 338 - WESTVIEW TERRACE/MCCANN' S WESTVIEW
SANITARY SEWER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set as
the hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for LID 338.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(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 Agenyia
Item No. 3H✓
LID 333 - LID 338- - LID 339
Wickstrom explained these LID' s are construction complete and we
would like to finalize these projects. Tentative dates have been
scheduled to set these items for public hearings.
Committee unanimously agreed to set public hearing dates on LIDS
333 , 338 , and 339 .
Property Acquisition
Wickstrom explained that the City has been negotiating with Mrs.
Ramstead, one of the major property owners on the 277th Corridor.
Wickstrom stated that we have an earnest money agreement for
$700, 000 . This is in accordance with the appraisal. The property
in question is approximately 96 acres Wickstrom stated that Mrs.
Ramstead has a logging permit and the City' s concern is, once Mrs.
Ramstead clear cuts her property, King County can, under State, law,
and will issue a moratorium on the entire site for 6 years; which
would eliminate any building permits or additions of any kind
including us. Wickstrom explained that this is far beyond what we
would want and that is what initiated this negotiation with her.
Wickstrom further explained that a school is going in adjacent to
the property which will bring in sewer and water to the property.'
This could very well increase the price and could make the property
more potentially developable.
Jim Bennett raised the question regarding what phase we are in
regarding the 277th Corridor. He noted that approximately $500, 000
was authorized to do study, survey, etc. Bennett asked how this
acquisition would impact that.
Wickstrom explained that we may become "landlords" on this property
but when the school is built in 194 the property could probably be
sold for a profit. He further stated that this is also the reason
why negotiations are under way with another property owner, Mrs.
Johnson, at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Johnson is very willing
to sell and an appraisal will be in to the City on November 6th.
Wickstrom explained that there is money in the project fund; $2
Million in outstanding bonds on this project; $800, 000 in cash that
was set aside some time ago for and $50o, 000 development fees that
have been prepaid by various developments .
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize acquisition of the
Ramstead property.
Proposed LID Smith Street Sidewalk
Wickstrom explained that this was brought forward from the last
Committee meeting because of a 1-1 split vote.
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 . 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 339 - HILLTOP AVENUE SANITARY SEWER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set January 5th as the
hearing date on the Final Assessment Roll for LID 339.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(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. 3I
LID 333 - LID 338 - LID 339
Wickstrom explained these LID' s are construction complete and we
would like to finalize these projects. Tentative dates have been
scheduled to set these items for public hearings.
Committee unanimously agreed to set public hearing dates on LIDS
333 , 338 , and 339 .
Property Acquisition
Wickstrom explained that the City has been negotiating with Mrs.
Ramstead, one of the major property owners on the 277th Corridor.
Wickstrom stated that we have an earnest money agreement for
$700, 000. This is in accordance with the appraisal. The property
in question is approximately 96 acres Wickstrom stated that Mrs.
Ramstead has a logging permit and the City' s concern is, once Mrs.
Ramstead clear cuts her property, King County can, under State law,
and will issue a moratorium on the entire site for 6 years; which
would eliminate any building permits or additions of any kind
including us. Wickstrom explained that this is far beyond what we
would want and that is what initiated this negotiation with her.
Wickstrom further explained that a school is going in adjacent to
the property which will bring in sewer and water to the property. `_
This could very well increase the price and could make the property
more potentially developable.
Jim Bennett raised the question regarding what phase we are in
regarding the 277th Corridor. He noted that approximately $500, 000
was authorized to do study, survey, etc. Bennett asked how this
acquisition would impact that.
Wickstrom explained that we may become "landlords" on this property
but when the school is built in 194 the property could probably be
sold for a profit. He further stated that this is also the reason
why negotiations are under way with another property owner, Mrs.
Johnson, at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Johnson is very willing
to sell and an appraisal will be in to the City on November 6th.
Wickstrom explained that there is money in the project fund; $2
Million in outstanding bonds on this project; $8o0, 000 in cash that
was set aside some time ago for and $500, 000 development fees that
have been prepaid by various developments.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize acquisition of the
Ramstead property.
Proposed LID Smith Street Sidewalk
Wickstrom explained that this was brought forward from the last
Committee meeting because of a 1-1 split vote.
5
r
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to surplus vehicles and
qipm
nd to offer same for sale.
� (.ti� r
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes and
listing of vehicles and equipment
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(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. 3J
94th & James Street Safety Problem (Mr. & Mrs Walter Susanj)
Mr. Susanj presented the Committee with photographs of previous
vehicular accidents wherein their property was damaged. Mr. Susanj
expressed concern for the school children walking in the area as
well as concerns for his property.
Ed White had talked to Mr. Susanj and explained to him about the
James St. Safety Project. Ed explained that staff will be talking
with the neighbors in that area hopefully in the next few months.
Staff is in the process of setting up two meetings - one with the
Church which addresses the access issues off of •James, Alvord and
Hazel Streets. Another meeting will be set with the neighbors to
outline whatever concerns they have regarding James Street: The
Church meeting then would be a "kick off" for the neighbors to set
a forum for their meeting on other concerns. Ed explained there
are several issues relating to the safety of James Street.
Ed stated that the best resolution at this point would be if Mr &
Mrs. Susanj could work with staff along with the other residents,
in identifying their concerns. Staff will work as diligently as
possible in trying to resolve these problems.
Jim White requested Ed to specifically take a look at the 94th &
James intersection -.. (Mr. Susanj ' s property) and bring back
suggestions for solutions at the next Committee meeting. There was
discussion regarding installation of a guardrail - Ed explained the
pros and cons on this. There will be further discussion at the
next Committee meeting.
Equipment Rental
Tony McCarthy opened discussion referring to the Draft Policy on
the use of City Vehicles. Regarding that portion of the Policy on
vehicles going home, Tim Heydon had prepared a list showing all of
the City vehicles by description, use, and primary drivers, taken
home and the reasons why taken home and that those vehicles are
strictly light trucks and cars. Tony stated that this list will be
inserted in the budget documents on an annual basis.
Tony noted he had informed the Park Director that his vehicle is
one that cannot go home. Tony referenced the motorcycles listed
and stated there had been a meeting with the Chief of Police and
Personnel and it has been decided that those vehicles can go home.
Per Tony, the theory is that the motorcycles are considered
personal equipment. The motorcycles are assigned to individual
officers - they are not traded off where several people would drive
the same motorcycle. For safety reasons and certain amount of
call-back, those vehicles are going home.
Tim explained there are fire, police and signal people taking
vehicles home. The departments that have made changes as a result
2
of the new policy, are the Fire Dept. , reducing almost half and
Public Works, reducing half the number of cars going home, with
trade offs. Tim stated that back up will be less in those two
departments on emergency situations, however there is a cost factor
to consider.
The "action" portion. of this issue is on the list of surplus
vehicles. Tony explained that in 193 budget shows a replacement of
8 pieces of equipment, and Tim has actually deferred from 193 to
194 another list of equipment. He stated that this is part of the
program to reduce the budget charges thru all the departments by
20% and by deferring these vehicles allowing another-year of life
out of the vehicles. Tony explained there is a fund with
approximately $2 Million which pays for these vehicles. Tim stated
however, that in 194 they will need to be replaced. Tony stated
that there were some vehicles that had been put on "hold" at the
shops and those vehicles will be put back in service.
Tim explained that the City has a fleet of approximately 205
assigned vehicles and 58 vehicles in a pool. Of that total, 20
vehicles/equipment were to be cut. Of these, there are
approximately 124 cars and trucks assigned; approximately 94 of
those are in the General Fund and 70% of those 94 are Police and
Fire.
Included in Tim' s presentation he briefly discussed the problems
with the Toro lawnmowers. Jim White stated that before more mowers
are purchased, the entire golf course issue needs to be addressed.
Discussion followed regarding the sander as a piece of equipment to
be surplused. Paul Mann stated he felt the sander should not be
included and in light of that, 19 pieces of equipment should be
surplused rather than 20 .
At this time, Jim Bennett stated that he does not see this
equipment rental issue as a short term thing and to get accustomed
to doing more with less.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize Equipment Rental to
surplus the vehicles which have been replaced and are no longer
needed by the City.
3
CITY OF KI=N'
MEMORANDUM OCT 2
DATE: October 14th, 1992
TO: Don Wickstrom, Public Works irector
FROM: Jack Spencer, Fleet Manager
THRU: Tim Heydon, Operations Man er
SUBJECT: Surplus of Vehicles
Equipment Rental is requesting authorization to surplus vehicles which have been
replaced and are no longer needed by the City.
D28845 #10 1980 FORD FAIRMONT SEDAN 67,318 MILES
This car was used by Engineering until 1988 when it was used as
a line vehicle. It is 12 years old. The paint, body, and interior
are in need of attention.
D29055 #18 1980 FORD FAIRMONT SEDAN 50,541 MILES
This vehicle was used by Engineering and then by Engineering
Inspections. It does not have many speedometer miles but has
many engine hours. This vehicle is also 12 years old and paint and
body appearance is poor.
D26199 #5 1978 FORD CLUB VAN 125,879 MILES
Originally used by Engineering Inspections then used by Equipment
Rental for a service and delivery truck. This van has extremely high
mileage and the body, engine and transmission are worn out.
D26784 #305 1982 DODGE DIPLOMAT 69,976 MILES
Used by Police Traffic Unit until replaced in 1987 then used as a
line vehicle. Then used by Engineering for inspections. This
vehicle has high engine hours and should be surplussed.
D33099 #35 1984 DODGE PICKUP 89,981 MILES
This truck was used by the Street Department for traffic signs and
painting. It has many miles of stop and go driving. It is in fair
condition but should be surplussed before something does go
wrong.
D19936 #45 1981 DODGE PICKUP 90,427 MILES
Used by Customer Service for meter readers. It has high mileage
of stop and go driving. The appearance and body are in poor
condition. It should be surplussed.
D26770 #26 1980 DODGE PICKUP 1143764 MILES
This truck was used by the Sewer Department until 1986 when
replaced. Since then it has been used by the Warehouse. It is
using oil and the transmission will need repair soon. It should be
sold while it still has some value.
D34132 #59 1985 CHEVROLET 1/2 TON PICKUP 85,541
This unit was used by the Water Department until replaced in 1990.
It has been used as a line vehicle since then. It is no longer
needed.
D30871 #74 1982 GMC CREW CAB 86,654 MILES
This vehicle was used by the Water Department until 1990 when it
was replaced with a service van. We have used it as a line vehicle
but it hasn't been used enough to warrant keeping it. It should be
surplussed.
D20801 #44 1981 DODGE PICKUP 773382 MILES
This truck was used by the Water Department until replaced in
1992. It has fairly high mileage and it's appearance is poor due to
the age of the truck.
D020928 #41 1981 CARGO VAN 75,301 MILES
Used by Engineering until replaced in 1988. Then used by Traffic
for signal maintenance until replaced in 1990.
D0869 #12 1982 DODGE CARGO VAN 65,707 MILES
Truck used by Traffic Engineering and replaced in 1990.. Vehicle
has been used as a line vehicle until now. It is no longer needed
and should be surplussed.
All of these vehicles either have high mileage or are of an age when body and
paint are deteriorating. This is the time when it is more cost efficient to replace
the unit before spending a substantial amount to recondition.
JS/map
E137CO2
C�
Kent City Council Meeting
(� Date November 17 , 1992
�I Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PROPERTY ACQUISITION - RAMSTEAD
1� v 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to acquire the Ramstead
property located along the proposed 277th Corridor route and
authorize the City Attorney or the Public Works Property
Manager to close on same.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes,
vicinity map
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(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. 3K 4
LID 333 - LID 338 - LID 339
Wickstrom explained these LID's are construction complete and we
would like to finalize these projects. Tentative dates have been
scheduled to set these items for public hearings.
Committee unanimously agreed to set public hearing dates on LIDs
333 , 338, and 339.
Property 96QUisition
Wickstrom explained that the City has been negotiating with Mrs.
Ramstead, one of the major property owners on the 277th Corridor.
Wickstrom stated that we have an earnest money agreement for
$700, 000. This is in accordance with the appraisal. The property
in question is approximately 96 acres Wickstrom stated that Mrs.
Ramstead has a logging permit and the City' s concern is, once Mrs.
Ramstead clear cuts her property, King County can, under State. law,
and will issue a moratorium on the entire site for 6 years; which
would eliminate any building permits or additions of any kind
including us. Wickstrom explained that this is far beyond what we
would want and that is what initiated this negotiation with her.
Wickstrom further explained that a school is going in adjacent to.
the property which will bring in sewer and water to the property.'',
This could very well increase the price and could make the property
more potentially developable.
Jim Bennett raised the question regarding what phase we are in
regarding the 277th Corridor. He noted that approximately $500, 000
was authorized to do study, survey, etc. Bennett asked how this
acquisition would impact that.
Wickstrom explained that we may become "landlords" on this property
but when the school is built in 194 the property could probably be
sold for a profit. He further stated that this is also the reason
why negotiations are under way with another property owner, Mrs.
Johnson, at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Johnson is very willing
to sell and an appraisal will be in to the City on November 6th.
Wickstrom explained that there is money in the project fund; $2
Million in outstanding bonds on this project; $800, 000 in cash that
was set aside some time ago for and $500, 000 development fees that
have been prepaid by various developments.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize acquisition of the
Ramstead property.
Proposed LID Smith Street Sidewalk
Wickstrom explained that this was brought forward from the last
Committee meeting because of a 1-1 split vote.
5
- v
r�
MOM
34 /jam
go Ilia,
WE
fee
.� J,
HIM
1,����.i
\��i -
f� 11 . M
Vi
t Kent City Council Meeting
\y Date November 17 , 1992
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: METRO RATE ADJUSTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance 3C17 increasing
the sewer base rate for residential and commercial accounts to
reflect adjustments established by METRO.
3 . EXHIBITS: Excerpt from Public Works Committee minutes, memo
from Director of Public Works, and ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0 vote)
(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. 3L
Metro Sewer Rate Increase
Wickstrom explained that Metro has a rate increase due to the
Federal Water Quality requirements having to do with secondary
treatments on all of Metro' s facilities. In conjunction with this,
last year the City authorized signing a contract which changed the
equivalent unit, which is the basis for their rate. originally
Metro had based their rate on a 900 cu. ft. /month charge. Wickstrom
stated that subsequent studies have been made and now, apparently
thru conservation, the sewage generation has dropped to 750 cu. ft.
As such, the contracts have all been amended to reflect that
change. The study also shows that over the years,_ the single
family residences have been subsidizing the industrial/commercial
complex. The result is that because our single families are on a
fixed monthly charge, and our industrial/commercial accounts are on
a cubic foot charge, with this change in the rate base, the costs
to the commercial accounts will raise while that to the residential
accounts will go down. This rate change represents an approximate
15% - 18% increase to our commercial accounts and a 3% reduction to
our single family accounts. However, it is equitable.
Wickstrom further stated that after looking at our portion of the
rate, it was adjusted because with an increase in the total number
of service units (rate base) , collecting at same old rate would
result in increased revenue. As such, to keep it revenue neutral,
it needs to adjust. Wickstrom explained that we need to pay the -
Metro bill beginning January 1st; we need about an $800, 000
increase over 193 . As such, we had to pass it on thru in a fair an
equitable manner, the same as we would normally do. This year we
had to incorporate the rate base change, which resulted in the
industries picking up the burden.
Jim Bennett stated that the customers who will be affected by this
increase, should be notified.
Committee unanimously approved the rate increase and forward to
City Council for their endorsement and approval.
Kind County Solid Waste Management Update
Wickstrom explained that the County has updated our Solid Waste
Plan and that King County wishes to make a presentation to the
Committee. Wickstrom noted that the basic change is our being
mandated to do different types of recycling. Wickstrom stated that
we need to respond back to King County by November 30th.
Committee agreed to have a 20 minute presentation made by King
County at the next Committee meeting. Wickstrom will coordinate.
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OCTOBER 29, 1992
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM �
RE: METRO SEWER RATE INCREASE
In July, METRO advised the City that beginning January 1st their
monthly service charge will be $13 . 62 per residential customer or
equivalent. Their present rate is $13 . 80, Jan. - Sept. and $12 . 30
Oct. - Dec. or average $13 . 43 . Their existing rate however is
predicated on a 900 cubic foot rate base while the 193 rate
correlates to a 750 cubic foot rate base. Council will recall this
reduction in the rate base was supported by various studies
denoting that today' s typical residential user only generates 750
cubic feet of sewage per month versus the 900 cubic feet
established at the inception of METRO in the late 501s. The bottom
line is this rate increase and rate base change primarily impacts
the City' s commercial/industrial accounts versus our single family
residential accounts.
Because of the rate base change re-evaluation of the City ' s portion
of its sewer service rate was also necessary to insure that it
remains revenue neutral. The results of these rate changes are
thus reflected in the following table.
RATE
CUSTOMERS MONTHLY MONTHLY
EXISTING PROPOSED
Single Family 19 . 20 18 . 65
Single family (Residential)
Lifeline 17 . 00 16 . 72
All Other 1. 38 plus 1 . 98 1 . 15 plus 2 . 33
per 100 cubic ft per 100 cubic ft
The impact of these changes on our customers is shown in the
following table. Essentially, the impact is that our residential
customers will see a 3% reduction while our commercial customers
will see a 15%-18% increase.
As we have typically done in the past, it is recommended that
METRO' s rate changes be passed on directly to our customer base.
As such we recommend adoption of the above noted rates.
(continued on reverse side)
IMPACT OF PROPOSED METRO RATE CHANGES
ON SELECTED CUSTOMERS
Class & Individual Customer Sewer Existing Proposed
Based on Water Consumption Rate ($) Rate ($) % Change
Residential Customers 19 . 20 18 . 64 -3
Commercial/Industrial
Customers
With very low sewer use;
e.g. , small store with
no special sewer uses. 22 . 12 15
900 cu ft/month 19 . 20
With low sewer use;
e.g. , service station. 59 . 40 17
2, 500 cu ft/month 50. 88
With medium sewer use;
e.g. , large apartment
building.
12, 000 cu ft/month 238 . 98 280 .75 17
With high sewer use;
e.g. , very large office building
25, 000 cu ft/month 496. 38 583 . 65 18
With very high sewer use;
e.g. , major industry
750, 000 cu ft/month 14 , 851. 38 17 , 476 . 15 18
1, 500, 000 cu ft/month 29, 701. 38 34 , 951 . 15 18
I I
1I
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to sanitary
sewer services; amending Kent City Code
Section 7 . 05. 310 (Ordinance 2374 , as last
amended by Ordinances 2446, 2510, 2596, 2679,
2827, 2873 , 2951, and 2962) , establishing new
I� charges for sanitary sewer service.
i�
�! WHEREAS METRO has established new rates relating to
; sanitary sewer services which the City wishes to pass on to its
I I
;; utility users; and
�I
ii
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the recommendations
of the Public Works Committee at a council meeting on November 17,
1992 and approved the proposed rate adjustments; NOW, THEREFORE,
I�
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
I; HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
i
I
Section 1. Kent City Code Section 7 . 05 . 310 (Section 1 of
I`I Ordinance 2374 , as last amended by Ordinances 2446, 2510, 2596,
2679, 2827 , 2873 , 2951, and 2962 ) is hereby amended to read as
11 follows:
+i 7 . 05. 310. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES - WITHIN CITY
(1) Single Family (Residential) : 18 . 64 per month
i
(2) Duplex (Residential) ; each
unit shall be separately
charged: $39. 20 18 . 64 per month �
I
i
I
I
.I
�II
i
(3) Single Family (Residential)/
Lifeline: $17 . 09 $16.72 per month
Eligibility criteria for Lifeline
Rate shall be established by
City Council .
(4) Other than single family (Residential)
shall be billed in accordance with
the consumption of water and at the
following rate, except that no
monthly bill shall be less than
$19 . 26 $18 . 64 .
All others: $3 1. 38 � . 15lus �138
P—
2 . 33 per 100 cubic
feet per month.
ii
Section 2 . The new rates as established herein shall
11take effect on January 1, 1993 .
�I
Section 3 . The provisions of this ordinance are declared
Ito be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause,
sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this
i
(;ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any
!'person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
11
jremainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to
other persons or circumstances.
I;
!` Section 4 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
i
;;effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage,
i
;; approval and publication as provided by law.
ji
t;
;i
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
l
i
2
it
I� i
G
az �
I
Kent City Council Meeting
n Date November 17 . 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Mayor Kelleher has nominated Laurence A.
(Tony) McCarthy as Chief Administrative Officer.
Mr. McCarthy's experience with the City and knowledge of the
budget situation make him an excellent candidate for the job.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Mayor Kelleher
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher
(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: n/
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to confirm the appointment of Laurence A. (Tony) McCarthy as
Chief Administrative Officer.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4AJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL ESIDE T
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1992
SUBJECT: NOMINATION OF TONY McCARTHY AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
I have decided to nominate Laurence A. (Tony) McCarthy for the Chief Administrative Officer
position. I have concluded that with his experience here at the City and his knowledge of our
budget situation, that he would be an excellent candidate for the job.
DK.jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: STRATFORD ARMS PHASE II REZONE #RZ-92-1
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of denial of an application by SDM
Properties (Stratford Arms Phase II rezone application) to
rezone 1.23 acres from R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential, to
MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The property is
located in the East Hill neighborhood approximately 660 feet
north of SE 256th Street at 113th Avenue SE. This location
lies adjacent to and east of the existing Stratford Arms
Apartments.
Mr. Paul Morford has filed an appeal, which is shown as Public
Hearing Item No. 2C.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Hearing Examiner minutes, findings and
recommendations
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner, August 19 , 1992
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL1PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
J
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to q
cce ejec /modify the findings of the Hearing Examiner,
and a o /reject/modify the Hearing Examiner's
recommen ation of denial of SE 256th Street at 113th Avenue SE
of the Stratford Arms Phase II Rezone No. RZ-92-1.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
ouncil Agenda
C� Item No. 4B
CITY OF ZQ 1Lr!2
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: STRATFORD ARMS - PHASE II RZ-92-1
APPLICANT: SDM Properties
REQUEST: A request to rezone a 1 .23 acre site from R1-9.6, Single Family
Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential.
LOCATION: The property is located 660 feet north of SE 256th Street at
113th Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: May 21 , 1992
DEC. OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
ISSUED: June 26, 1992
MEETING DATE: August 19, 1992
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: September 3, 1992
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Tom Brubaker, Law Office
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Paul Morford, applicant/owner
Tom Sharp, applicant/owner
Bill Dinsdale, applicant/owner
Roger M. Leed, attorney for applicant/owner
Other
Arnold Hamilton
Kevin Flatt
Joan McCallum
Jeff Tucker
Lilly Kato
Elizabeth Clausen
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: William Green '
Mr. and Mrs. Boyer
1
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase 11
#RZ-92-1
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date
indicated above, and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject
property and surrounding area by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public
hearing, the following findings, conclusions and recommendation are entered by the
Hearing Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1 . This proposal is to rezone approximately 1 .23 acres from R1-9.6 (Single Family
Residential, 9,600 feet minimum lot size) to MRM (Medium Density Multifamily
Residential)'. The rezone proposal is coupled with a proposal by S.D.M.
Properties to construct 21 multifamily units.
2. The property is located approximately 660 feet north of SE 256th Street on
113th Avenue Sl�. The property, is immediately east of the existing Stratford
Arms Apartments.
'The zoning designation for the subject property is the subject of a lawsuit filed
by the Responsible Urban Growth Group against the City of Kent following the
adoption of Ordinance #2837. The King County Superior Court issued a written
decision regarding the validity of Ordinance #2837 on February 3, 1992. In that
decision, Judge George Finkle determined that, while the intent of Ordinance #2837
was to adopt an MRM zoning designation for the subject property, the ordinance is
"invalid and void". The court further determined that Ordinance 2271 applied MRM
zoning only to the site immediately east of the subject property where the Stratford
Arms apartments now exist. The decision was included in Exhibit 1 (King County
Cause No. 89-2-05014-5, Findings, Conclusions and Judgment). The decision has
been appealed. However, the applicant and the City both agreed during the public
hearing that, for purposes of the hearing on this rezone, the current zoning designation
of the subject property is 131-9.6. The Examiner does not consider the controversial
history of the zoning on the subject property as relevant to his consideration of
whether the current application for a rezone from R1-9.6 to MRM should be approved
or denied. The Examiner does recommend, however, that the Council condition the
final action on this rezone application on the outcome of the final decision from the
courts.
2
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
3. The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent in 1987 as part of the
East Hill Well annexation. City of Kent Ordinance 2771 applied the R1-9.6
zoning designation to the subject property in 1988. Zoning to the immediate
north, east and south sides of the subject property is R1-9.6. Zoning to the
immediate west (the existing Stratford Arms Apartments site) is MR-M.
4. 4.1 The display copy' of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates
the subject property as MF, Multifamily Residential. Exhibit H. This display
map was first adopted in 1969 and was last amended in 1984.
4.2 The City-wide Comprehensive Plan also includes a Housing Element. The
Housing Element is a narrative description of the goals and objectives for the
development of housing in the City of Kent. Goals 1,3,4 and Objective 2 of
Goal 1 of the Housing Element were submitted by the City during the public
hearing on this application as relevant to consideration of the rezone request.
The applicant did not object to the relevance of these Goals and Objectives.
Exhibit A, Report of Planning Department, pages 2-3.
5. 5.1 The display copy of the East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the subject
property as MF-Z4, Multifamily Residential. The display copy of the East Hill
Subarea Plan Map was adopted in 1982 and was last amended in 1985.
Exhibit G.
5.2 The East Hill Subarea Plan Map was also amended by City of Kent
Resolution 1235 adopted on February 20, 1990. Exhibit J. Resolution 1235
identifies the subject property as part of a "Single Family Designated Area."
A Single Family Designated Area Overlay Map was attached as Appendix C to
Resolution 1235. The proposed rezone site is clearly within this Single Family
Designated Area Overlay zone. That Resolution directed that these map
amendments be filed with the City Clerk and in the office of the Planning
Department to be available for public inspection upon request. Resolution
1235, Section 6.
5.3 The East Hill Subarea Plan also includes a narrative description of the
goals, objectives and policies for the development of housing in the City of
Kent. Goals 1 and 2; Objective 1 and Policies 4 and 5 of Goal 1; and Objective
'The City is required to file the comprehensive plan with an "appropriate official"
of the City and make it available for public inspection. RCW 35A.63.072. The
"display copy" of both the City-wide and East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan Maps
were prepared by the Planning Department on a rigid board of approximately three
feet by two feet with multi-colors depicting the various map designations.
3
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-9 2-1
2 and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 2 were submitted by the City during the public
hearing on this application as relevant to consideration of the rezone request.
The applicant did not object to the relevance of these Goals, Objectives and
Policies. Exhibit A, Report of Planning Department, pages 4-5.
6. 6.1 The potential for development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone is for
single family residences. This is true for three reasons:
(1) The proposed rezone site is surrounded on three sides by single
family zoning.
(2) Single family residences have already been constructed along
113th Avenue SE; no multifamily development has taken place on that
street.
(3) Several short plats have been filed to divide parcels into single family
building lots in the immediate vicinity of the proposed rezone.3
6.2 A zoning designation of R1-9.6 means approximately 4 dwelling units per
acre. Assuming a home is occupied by an average of four people, this means
a density of 16 'persons per acre. The applicant proposes to construct 21
apartment units on 1 .23 acres. This is 17 units per acre. Assuming a unit is
occupied by three people, this means a density of 51 persons per acre. The
proposed apartment house would be three stories tall. Exhibit A, Site Plan of
Applicant. A single family house is usually one or two stories high.
6.3 Except for the applicant, all those who testified at the public hearing on
this application stated that the proposed development of the property would be
incompatible with the existing development in the vicinity. Those testifying
expressed their general concerns with the proposed multifamily development
including increased noise, loss of privacy due to a higher multifamily structure,
increased traffic and loss of a "family feeling" of those living on the dead-end
street (113th Avenue SE). Specific concerns included safety of children who
now cross 1 13th Avenue SE to visit neighborhood friends and loss of privacy
from apartment dwellers on third story decks overlooking single family
backyards. The applicant pointed out in rebuttal there would be no access to
113th Avenue SE and that single family use on 113th may create more traffic
than an apartment house using existing access of the Stratford Arms to
'At least 13 out of 31 possible short plats have become "legal" building lots in the
past few years. Testimony of Mr.Tom Sharpe. Although this number is less than that
presented by the City, it still represents an indication of significant interest in single
family residential development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone.
4
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
SE 256th. The applicant also noted that the proposed project had been scaled
down from an allowable 29 units to 21 in order to provide a better transition
between multifamily and single family areas.
7. The proposed rezone site would have access to SE 256th Street. The average
daily traffic count on that street is 15,100 vehicle trips per day. A Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the proposed rezone
and associated development proposal on June 26, 1992. The MDNS includes
conditions designed to mitigate any impacts on traffic that may be associated
with the proposal to develop the proposed rezone site. The MDNS was not
appealed. Exhibit A, Report of Planning Department, page 9.
8. The applicant purchased the subject property in 1986. The applicant began
construction of an apartment house on the rezone site in accordance with a
building permit issued by the .City in October of 1991 . Exhibit D, Attachment
3. The applicant has ceased activity on the site until the issue of zoning is
resolved. Exhibit D.
9. 9.1 In 1986, when the applicant purchased the subject property, most
residential growth in the City , of Kent was in the form of multifamily
development. Between 1985 and 1989, approximately 5150 units of
multifamily development were constructed and only 129 units of single family
residences were constructed. This is a ratio of 40:1 . Exhibit A, Report of
Planning Department, page 14.
9.2 Since 1990, the Kent City Council has taken several actions to facilitate
single family development. See, Resolutions 1123 and 1230-1237 and
Ordinances 2901-2905.
9.3 Since 1990, approximately 369 multifamily units have been constructed
and 117 single family units have been constructed. This is a ratio of 3:1 .
Exhibit A, Report of Planning Department, page 14.
10. Public notice of the hearing on this application was properly posted, mailed and
published in accordance with applicable city codes. Exhibit A.
5
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction and Authority
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this quasi-
judicial rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the
Council, pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapter 2.54 of the Kent City
Code.
Section 15.09.050 (A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and
criteria the Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request
for a rezone shall only be granted if:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with development in the vicinity;
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system
in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which
cannot be mitigated;
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the
current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone;
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner makes the following
conclusions:
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
CONCLUSION 1: The proposed rezone is inconsistent with the both the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan as those plans are
described in Findings 4 and 5 of this Recommendation.
1 .1 The applicant argues that, since the display copies of the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan Map both show
the site as multifamily, and since the City Council adopted the single-family
6
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
overlay in 1990 in resolution form only, the map designations must control.
The applicant would have the Examiner rely on the map designations of Exhibits
G and H alone without considering Resolution 1235 and other comprehensive
plan elements when making his recommendation to the Council. Exhibit E,
page 2.
1.2 The applicant misinterprets the meaning of a comprehensive plan. The
City of Kent Council decided to develop a comprehensive plan as authorized by
state law many years ago. See, Chapters 35.63 and 35A.63 RCW. According
to state law, a comprehensive plan means "the policies and proposals approved
by the legislative body" in the manner set forth in state law. RCW
35A.63.010. This may include a map or maps, charts, diagrams, reports and
explanatory text as well as "other devices and materials" to "express, explain
or depict" the elements of the plan. RCW 35A.63.061 .
1.3 The applicant correctly points out that the display copies of the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan map and the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan map
both identify the site in question as suitable for multifamily development.
However, when seeking to determine if a development proposal is consistent
with the comprehensive plan, an applicant must also examine the policies
adopted by the City Council that are used as a guide for land use development.
An applicant must inquire if the Council has adopted any ordinances or
resolutions that have amended the comprehensive plan map or policies between
the time the property was purchased for development and the time of submittal
of the rezone application. Such an inquiry reveals that the City Council did
pass Resolution 1235 on February 21 , 1990 - well in advance of the
application for a rezone. This Resolution directly impacts the site proposed for
a rezone.
1.4 The applicant argues, however, that a resolution cannot be used to amend
a comprehensive plan. Exhibit E. State law clearly provides otherwise.
Contrary to the argument of the applicant, RCW 35A.630.072 and .073
specify that a resolution is a valid method of amending a comprehensive plan.
In fact, for a comprehensive plan, the state legislature has determined that an
"ordinance" is synonymous with the term "resolution". RCW 35A.63.010 (7).
The Hearing Examiner, in making a recommendation to the Council, cannot
ignore Council Resolution 1235.
1.5 Resolution 1235 (Exhibit J) establishes a Single Family Designated Area
Overlay for property shown on Exhibit C to that Resolution. The proposed
rezone site is clearly within that overlay designation. The stated purpose of
Resolution 1235 was, in part, to "achieve a reduction in the density of
7
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
multifamily housing through revisions to Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code." Exhibit J, page 1 .
1.6 The adoption of a resolution to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan
must, by law, be an open process that encourages public participation. RCW
35A.63.070. The Council, in Resolution 1235, states that public notice and
opportunity for input on the proposed amendments to create a Single Family
Designated Area Overlay "has been of the highest priority to the City Council."
Exhibit J, page 1 . The Council was most likely aware of the litigation regarding
the zoning designation of the proposed rezone site at the time of adoption of
Resolution 1235. The applicant also had the opportunity to participate in
hearings on Resolution 1235 to make certain the Single Family Designated Area
Overlay would not apply to the proposed rezone site. The Resolution did
specify certain parcels of property that would retain multifamily map
designations and even be amended from single family to multifamily map
designations. See, e.o.. Exhibit J, Section 3 (n) and Appendix B.
1.7 The fact that the Council chose to include the proposed rezone site within
the Single Family Designated Overlay, and not specifically exempt it, leads the
Examiner to conclude that the, intent of the Council was to amend the
comprehensive plan map with the single family overlay with respect to the
proposed rezone site.
1.8 The applicant suggests that the zoning designation was believed to be
MRM at the time of adoption of Resolution 1235 so the Council did not need
to address it specifically in the resolution to keep it MRM. This analysis of
Council intent appears unlikely, however, when the map attached to Resolution
1235 as Appendix C indicates a rather large area surrounding the proposed
rezone site as a Single Family Designated Area Overlay. Inclusion of the
proposed rezone site within this single family area is consistent with the
primary thrust of Resolution 1235: to achieve a reduction in the density of
housing. Litigation regarding' the zoning of the proposed rezone site had
already been filed when the City passed Resolution 1235. This action by the
Council before final resolution of the litigation appears to evidence an intent to
establish a single family zone on the proposed rezone site regardless of the final
outcome of the litigation.
1.9 The Examiner must also consider the narrative descriptions of the
Comprehensive Plans of the City. The Goals, Objectives and Policies presented
to the Examiner during the public hearing on this application do not support
approval of the rezone request. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan contains
a specific objective to "maintain and improve the existing residential
8
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
neighborhoods on the East and West Hill." Exhibit A, Planning Department
Report, page 3: Housing Element, Goal 1, Objective 2. The East Hill Subarea
Comprehensive Plan contains policies to "limit opportunities for multifamily
development on East Hill" and "provide for increased single-family residential
densities as a transition between more intensive and less intensive residential
uses". Exhibit A, Planning Department Report, page 5: Housing Element,
Objective 1 , Polices 4 and 5. The proposed rezone is not consistent with the
prevailing planning policies of the City. The proposed rezone and associated
development proposal would thrust multifamily development into an existing
single family area. The proposed multifamily structure would be bordered on
three sides by single family residences. This would conflict with the Goals,
Objectives and Policies of both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the East
Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity
CONCLUSION 2: The increased density associated with the development proposal
would not be compatible with the existing single family development in the vicinity
of the proposed rezone
2.1 To determine compatibility with surrounding uses, the Examiner must
determine the type of use presently surrounding the proposed rezone site and
the impacts of the proposed development. The issue of "compatibility" is
difficult to assess objectively. The testimony of both the applicant and the
surrounding residents is credible. The apartment house proposal is less dense
than' other multifamily developments but still will have impacts on a single
family area that would not occur with single family development.
2.2 The potential for incompatibility is graphically revealed on the
zoning/topography map accompanying the report of the Planning Department.
Exhibit A. That map shows the "finger" of the existing MRM zone in the R1-
9.6 zone that already exists. The proposed rezone site appears as a "thumb"
that juts into a solid block of 131-9.6 zoning. This potential incompatibility
shown on the map is made more real when the objective differences between
single family and medium density multifamily development are compared. The
development of 17 units per acre, occupied by 51 persons per acre, living in
three story apartments is not compatible with 4 units per acre, occupied by 16
persons per acre, living in one and two story houses.
9
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Burden on Transportation System
CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation
system
3.1 The traffic impacts associated with the proposed rezone were reviewed by
the City as part of the environmental review of this application. Conditions
were applied to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for this
proposal. If those conditions are adhered to, there would be no significant
impact on the existing transportation system associated with this rezone. No
one presented any evidence at the public hearing to attempt to show there
would be any burden on the existing transportation system.
Change of Circumstances
CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed since the establishment of the single
family zone that warrant denial of the rezone request.
4.1.1 From the time the property proposed for a rezone was initially zone 131-
9.6 in 1988, to the time the applicant began construction of the apartment
house in 1991, to the time of this application for a rezone to MRM was filed
in 1992, there have been many "changed circumstances." The applicant
correctly points out that the Growth Management Act was passed that requires
all communities to provide affordable housing. Exhibit F and Testimony of
Mr. Leed. The applicant also points out that the start of construction by the
applicant in reliance on a city permit could be considered a changed
circumstance." Testimony of Mr. Leed. Finally, the applicant argues that the
only "changed circumstance" is the court decision so that the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of a previous Land Use Hearing Examiner
should be re-instated. Exhibit E, page 5.
4.1 .2 The Examiner must selectively review "changed circumstances" and
consider only those that are "substantial" since the establishment of the current
zoning district and that would "warrant the proposed rezone." On this basis,
the Examiner must disregard most of the applicant's evidence about "changed
circumstances".
4.2.1 The applicant argues that the City should approve the rezone request
because certain provisions of the Growth Management Act are intended to
support the type of development the applicant proposes. The applicant argues
that passage of the Growth Management Act is a "changed circumstance" that
10
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
supports the development proposal. See, Exhibit F, referring to Exhibit L and
Testimony of Mr. Leed.
4.2.2 While this argument of the applicant is interesting and may be relevant
in the future, it is premature to consider the impact of the Growth Management
Act on this rezone/development proposal. The Growth Management Act
establishes a specific long-term planning process for certain counties and cities
including comprehensive plan provisions for urban growth boundaries,
transportation, housing, capital facilities, utilities, intergovernmental
coordination, and demand-management strategies. RCW 36.70A.070.
Comprehensive plans for those counties and cities required to plan must be
adopted by July 1 , 1993. RCW 36.70A.040. County-wide planning policies,
used solely for establishing and adopting a county-wide framework from which
county and city comprehensive plans are developed, were required to be
adopted by counties on July 1, 1992. Development regulations to implement
the comprehensive plans are not required until one year after the adoption of
the comprehensive plan. Once development regulations are adopted, the City
must perform activities in conformity with their comprehensive plan. RCW
36.70A.120. Until that time, the comprehensive plan is merely one element
to consider when deciding if a rezone request should be approved or denied.
The comprehensive plan map designation and policy goals do not dictate the
decision on a rezone request. See, Lutz v. Longview, 83 Wn.2d 566 (1974);
Barrie v. Kitsan County, 93 Wn.2d 843 (1980); Sharninghouse v. Bellingham,
4 Wn. App. 198 (1971); and Shelton v. City of Bellevue, 80 Wn.2d 518
(1972).
4.2.3 The applicant also argues that construction activity on the site is a
"changed circumstance" that should be taken into account so that the rezone
request should be approved. Testimony of Mr. Leed. It is truly unfortunate
that the applicant was led to believe, through the issuance of a building permit,
that construction on the site would be appropriate. However, the building
permit was issued in good faith based on a zoning designation later invalidated
by the King County Superior Court. The applicant was able to cease activities
on the site at an early stage in the construction process. It cannot be said that
the small amount of construction activity that has taken place qualifies as a
"substantial" change of circumstances that warrants a change in zoning.
4.3 The circumstances that have changed substantially since the time of the
initial zoning of 131-9.6 in 1988 that are relevant to this application are the rapid
development of multifamily housing from 1985 through 1989 and the Council
adoption of policies encouraging single family housing in 1990. These changes
11
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
are fully described in Finding 9 of this Recommendation. These changes do not
warrant the proposed rezone.
Health Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent
CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would adversely affect the general welfare of
the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed multifamily development.
5.1 The Examiner must review the proposed rezone to determine if there
would be adverse impacts on the "health, safety, and general welfare" of the
citizens of the City of Kent. There is nothing in the record presented to the
Examiner that leads the Examiner to conclude there would be adverse health
or safety impacts. While there was some concern expressed about the safety
of children playing in or crossing the street, this potential adverse impact could
be mitigated by traffic barriers that prohibit access to 113th Avenue SE or by
parents prohibiting children from playing in the street or crossing it without
supervision. See, Testimony of Mr. Morford.
5.2 The adverse affect of the proposed rezone on the general welfare of the
citizens of the Cify of Kent is revealed in the testimony of those citizens who
presently live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed rezone. The testimony
of those citizens, without exception, was that the proposed rezone and
associated development proposal would reduce the quality of life they now
enjoy. While this adverse impact is only one consideration when reviewing the
rezone request, the Examiner was impressed by the depth of testimony offered
by the citizens attending the public hearing and of those who submitted
testimony in writing. Specific concerns related to the loss of a family-oriented
neighborhood, invasions of backyard privacy from the higher apartment
structure, increased lighting and noise and increased traffic from the increased
density associated with multifamily development. These concerns all stack up
against approval of the rezone request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City
Council DENY this request for a rezone.
12
Hearing Examiner Findings
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
RECOMMENDED THIS 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1992
THEODOREPAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Request of Reconsideration
Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing
Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b)
new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing.
Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner,
220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 980�2. Reconsiderations are answered in writing
by the Hearing Examiner.
Notice of Right to Appeal
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council
is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the
City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant
information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City
Council.
A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed.
A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public
hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed.
c:rz921 .fin
13
CITY Of J_Q\L� ZS
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
IIfJ�Il��
STRATFORD ARMS - PHASE H #RZ-92-1
Public Hearing: August 19, 1992 at 7:00 PM
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. File: Stratford Arms - Phase H #RZ-92-1
B. Letter from Mr. Green
C. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Boyer
D. Paul Morford's statement
E. Statement from Tom Sharp
F. Statement from Bill Dinsdale
G. East Hill Subarea Plan Map (aka East Hill Area Land Use Plan map) - colorized version
updated 1985
H. City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map, (aka Generalized Comprehensive Land Use Plan
map) - colorized version, updated 1984
I. Six photos of street across from proposed project
J. Resolution #1235
K. Ordinance #2903
L. Planning Goals Report dated August 17, 1992
CITY OF L"Lt22L]V
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1992
d�r®uo°rr�
FILE NO: STRATFORD ARMS - PHASE II REZONE
#RZ-92-1
APPLICANT: S.D.M. Properties
REOUEST: A request to rezone from R1-9. 6
(Single Family Residential) , to MR-M
(Medium Density Multifamily)
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Satterstrom
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: DISAPPROVE REZONE TO MR-M
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The proposal is to rezone approximately 1. 23 acres from
R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential, to MR-M, Medium
Density Multifamily Residential. This would allow the
construction of 21 multifamily units as proposed in
development plans submitted .as part of the rezone
application.
B. Location
The subject property is located in the East Hill
neighborhood approximately 660 feet north of SE 256th
Street at 113th Avenue SE. This location lies adjacent
to and east of the existing Stratford Arms Apartments.
C. Size of Property
The subject property is approximately 1.23 acres in size.
D. Zoning
The zoning on the subject property currently is R1-9 . 6,
Single Family Residential (9, 600 sq. ft. minimum lot
size) . This site was annexed to the City of Kent in 1987
as a part of the East Hill Well annexation. Ordinance
#2771 which applied City zoning to this property
1
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
originally zoned the site R1-9 . 6 in 1988 . Subsequently,
Ordinance #2837 modified the zoning of this property from
R1-9 . 6 to MR-M in 1989 .
The matter of zoning on this site became the subject of
a lawsuit filed by the Responsible Urban Growth Group
(R.U.G.G. ) following adoption of Ordinance #2837 . As a
result of this lawsuit, the King County Superior Court
invalidated the rezone ordinance in January 1992, and the
zoning of the site reverted back to R1-9 . 61 (KCSC #89-2-
05014-5) . The Superior Court decision is currently under
appeal by S.D.M. Properties.
Zoning in the vicinity of the proposed rezone is depicted
on the Zoning/Topography Map attached to this report.
Zoning to the immediate north, east, and south sides of
the subject site is R1-9 . 6, Single Family Residential.
Zoning to the west of the subject site is MR-M, Medium
Density Multifamily Residential.
E. Comprehensive Plan
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
concerning the future of the City of Kent as well as the
unincorporated area within the city' s planning area.
The Comprehensive Plan is used by the Mayor, City
Council, Planning Commission, Hearing Examiner, and City
departments to guide growth, development, and spending
decisions. Residents, land developers, business
representatives and others may refer to the Plan as a
statement of the City's intentions concerning future
development.
The City of Kent has also adopted subarea plans that
address specific concerns of certain areas of the City.
Like the city-wide Plan, the subarea plans serve . as
policy guides for future land use in the City of Kent.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the
subject property as MF, Multifamily Residential.
However, the East Hill Subarea Plan Map, as amended by
2
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Resolution #1235, identifies this project as a "Single
Family Designated Area" . Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan are addressed below followed by Planning Department
comments.
HOUSING ELEMENT
GOa1 1: INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL POPULATION IN KENT,
ASSURING A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT
FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
Objective 2 Maintain and improve the existing
residential neighborhoods on the
East and West Hills.
Goal 3 . ASSURE AND ADEQUATE AND BALANCED SUPPLY OF
HOUSING UNITS OFFERING A DIVERSITY OF SIZE, DENSITIES,
AGE, STYLE, AND COST.
Goal 4 . ASSURE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS.
Planning Department Comment•
The goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan encourage protection of existing
residential neighborhoods while realizing the need for a
diversity of housing types and densities. The proposed
rezone action would permit an expanded number of
multifamily units in an area which is surrounded on three
sides by single family development or single family
residential zoning. Therefore, the issue here is whether
the proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan's goals
of protecting existing residential neighborhoods while
providing expanded housing opportunities for new
residents. In order to properly address this issue, it
is necessary to also review the goals and policies of
other plan documents, including the East Hill Subarea
Plan.
EAST HILL SUBAREA PLAN
The East Hill subarea plan map designates the subject
site for MF-24 , Multifamily Residential. The East Hill
Plan was adopted in 1982 as a more specific statement of
the City's growth intentions for the East Hill community.
In 1982, the subject property was located outside the
3
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
City of Kent in unincorporated King County. Although the
site was situated outside the City, Kent's East Hill
planning area included this property as well as a larger
area that stretched eastward to approximately
148th Avenue SE.
In 1990, the Kent City Council passed Resolution #1235
which modified the East Hill Plan Map. This resolution
added an overlay to the East Hill Plan Map titled "Single
Family Designated Area. " This overlay area, which is
attached to this report and includes the subject rezone
site, depicts the area on East Hill where the City
Council intended to preserve single family residential
neighborhoods. As stated in the report to the City
Council, there are three objectives to the overlay
designation: 1) To conserve existing single-family
neighborhoods, 2) To protect single-family neighborhoods
from incompatible uses, and 3) To promote new single-
family development.
Based on the foregoing, there is a conflict in the
designations of the applicable land use maps as they
relate to the subject site. The East Hill Plan Map
designates the site for Multifamily Residential, while
Resolution #1235 prescribes a Single-Family overlay
designation for the area. This conflict may, in part, be
explained by a series of actions by the City which took
place between 1986-1990 with respect to housing and
residential land use planning. Resolution #1123, adopted
in 1986 called for a 20 percent density reduction in
multifamily development. Resolution #1172 , adopted in
1988 , directed the Planning Department staff to initiate
proposed updates of the Housing Element and an area-by-
area analysis of multifamily residential densities on
West Hill, East Hill, and the Valley Floor. Finally, in
1990, Ordinances #2901-2905 and Resolutions #1230-1237
implemented zoning and plan amendments which effectuated
this new housing policy direction.
Elements of the text of the East Hill Subarea Plan are
addressed below followed by Planning Department comments.
HOUSING ELEMENT
GOAL 1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS RELATED TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
4
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Objective 1
Policy 4 : Limit opportunities for multifamily
development on East Hill,
particularly in rural residential
areas.
Policy 5: Provide for increased single-family
residential densities as a
transition between more intensive
and less intensive residential uses.
GOAL 2 . DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL
QUALITY AND PROVIDE DIVERSE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY.
Objective 2 .
Policy 1: Require separation between
residential and nonresidential areas
and between adjacent lower and
higher density residential areas
through landscaping, building
placement, location of off-street
parking, traffic control, and other
measures.
Policy 2 : Encourage the retention and
improvement of existing residential
neighborhoods on East Hill.
Planning Department Comment:
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and East
Hill Subarea Plan strive to protect residential
neighborhoods from incompatible uses that would diminish
their quality or livability. At the same time, plan
goals also encourage a diversity of housing opportunity,
and recognize the need for providing new units for a
growing population. The policy statements help to
clarify these competing objectives by encouraging buffers
or transitions between dissimilar land uses, thereby
discouraging the erosion of existing single family
neighborhoods around their edges.
The proposed rezone does not appear, therefore, to be
consistent with prevailing planning policy. The proposed
rezone would push multifamily development into a
5
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
characteristically single-family area. Bordered on three
sides by single-family development, there would be no
opportunity to properly buffer or protect these low
density areas.
II. HISTORY
A. Site History
A building permit for apartments was issued for the
subject site (Stratford Arms - Phase II) in October 1991
based on reliance on zoning established in Ordinance
#2837. When the King County Superior Court overturned
Ordinance #2837 in January 1992 , the zoning reverted to
R1-9 . 6 and the building permit was invalidated and the
developer ceased activity. At the time of the permit
revocation, preliminary work on an apartment foundation
had begun.
B. Area History
The subject property is part of a 410-acre area called
the East Hill Well Annexation which was annexed to Kent
in 1987 .
III. LAND USE
The subject site is presently occupied by one single-family
residence.
The subject site is located on the boundary between single-
family and multiple family residential land use. Adjacent to
the rezone site on the west is the existing Stratford Arms
Apartments. To the east, the existing land use pattern is
single-family residential. Properties located to the north
and south of the site are zoned R1-9 . 6 but are presently
undeveloped. The adjacent parcel to the north was recently
subdivided to allow for single-family residential development.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
A. Environmental Assessment
A Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was
issued for the Stratford Arms - Phase II rezone on
6
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
June 26, 1992, File #ENV-92-41. The following conditions
were applied:
1. In the event the applicant obtains rezone approval,
the conditions and mitigating measures identified
in the Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance for
#ENV-89-61 will be reviewed in light of current
standards and may be modified as appropriate.
2 . The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement to financially participate and
pay a fair share of the costs associated with the
construction of the South 272nd/277th Street
Corridor project. However, because this project is
part of a rezone action, the fair share
calculations are subject to a two-tier cost
formula. For those PM peak hour trips generated
which would have been generated under the current
R1-9. 6, Single Family Residential zoning, the
developer ' s fair share is estimated to be $2, 136
per PM peak hour trip. For those remaining PM peak
hour trips, the developer' s fair share is estimated
at $1, 068 per PM peak hour trip.
Due to the reference to #ENV-89-61 in Condition #1,
above, it is appropriate to also list the conditions of
this decision. It should be pointed out that this
threshold determination was related to the building
permit application for Stratford Arms - Phase II prior to
the Superior Court decision to overturn Ordinance #2837 .
The conditions of this MDNS are:
1. Provide on-site detention of stormwater and
incorporate biofiltration into storm system design
to provide treatment prior to discharge into the
City's system.
2 . Execute a no-protest LID covenant for the future
widening and improvement of SE 256th Street to City
standards.
3 . Grant to the City an easement for the future
construction of 113th Avenue SE on the easterly
twenty-five (25) feet of the subject property.
7
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
4 . Execute a no-protest LID covenant for the future
widening and construction of 113th Avenue SE to
residential access street standards.
5. No access onto 113th Avenue SE shall be allowed
until said street is brought up to City standards.
6. The developer shall conduct a traffic study to
identify all traffic impacts upon the City of Kent
road network and traffic signal system. The study
shall identify all intersections at level-of-
service "E" or "F" due to increased traffic volumes
from the development. These intersections are at a
threshold level for traffic mitigation.
The study shall then identify what improvements are
necessary to mitigate the development impacts
thereon. Upon agreement by the City with the
findings of the study and the mitigation measures
outlined in the study, implementation and/or
construction of said mitigation measures shall be
the conditional requirement of the issuance of the
respective development permits.
In lieu of conducting the above traffic study,
constructing and/or implementing the respective
mitigation measures hereby, the developer may agree
to the following conditions to mitigate the traffic
impacts resulting from the proposed addition:
A. The developer shall execute an environmental
mitigation agreement to financially
participate and pay a fair share of the costs
associated with the construction of the South
272nd/277th Street Corridor project. The
minimum benefit to the above development is
estimated at $16, 140 based on 15 PM peak hour
trips entering and leaving the site and the
capacity of the 272nd/277th Street Corridor.
The execution of this agreement will serve to
mitigate traffic impacts to the above
mentioned intersection and road system by
committing funding for the South 272nd/277th
Street Corridor, which will provide additional
capacity for traffic volumes within the area
of the above mentioned development.
8
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
JRZ-92-1
B. Significant Physical Features
1. Topography and Vegetation
The slope of the subject site rises approximately
eight (8) feet from west to east, a gentle slope of
about 2 .5 percent. There are several native
evergreen and deciduous trees that exist on the
site, though much of the site has already been
cleared of vegetation in preparation for the site
work authorized under the permit for apartments,
since revoked. There appears to be no drainage
problems on the site.
C. Infrastructure
1. Street System
The subject property has direct access to SE 256th
Street (via 112th Place SE, a private roadway)
which is classified as a collector arterial. The
street has a public right-of-way width of 72-feet
while the actual width of paving is 40 feet. The
street is improved with two lanes of asphalt
paving. The average daily traffic count on
SE 256th Street is 15, 100 vehicle trips per day.
The property abuts 113th Avenue SE which is
classified as a local street. This road has an
inadequate existing public right-of-way but a paved
width of 24-feet. A widening strip will be
required to be deeded to the City. The average
daily traffic on 113th Avenue SE is less than 1, 000
vehicle trips per day.
Several street system improvements would be
required as a result of approval of this rezone.
These improvements are outlined in the MDNS
conditions discussed earlier in this staff report.
2 . Water System
An existing eight-inch water main line is available
to serve the subject property. Water lines exist
along 113th Avenue SE as well as within the
existing Stratford Arms Apartment complex. An
on-site water main extension would be required if
9
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
the rezone is approved, according to the Public
Works Department.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line is
available to serve the subject property. An
extension of this line would be required by the
Public Works Department should the rezone be
approved, along with appropriate easements for
same.
4 . Stormwater System
The applicant will be required to design and
construct a system to collect, detain and treat
stormwater prior to discharge into the City of Kent
system. This would be required as part of any
development permit to be issued for the site. An
extension of the existing City storm drainage
system would be required by the Public Works
Department should this rezone be approved.
5. Local Improvement Districts (LID)
None at the present time.
V. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this
application:
City Administrator Parks & Recreation Director
City Attorney Fire Chief
Director of Public Building official
Works City Clerk
Chief of Police
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which
lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the
application and of the public hearing. Also, all parties of
record to the environmental review record (File #ENV-92-41)
were notified of the public hearing on this application.
Staff comments and concerns have been incorporated into the
staff report where applicable.
10
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
VI. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Subarea Plan
and its amendments, present zoning, land use, infrastructure,
environmental documents, and comments from other departments
and finds that:
A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site
as MF, Multifamily Residential.
B. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map designates the site as
MF-24, Multifamily Residential (12-24 units per acre) .
C. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map, as amended by Resolution
#1235, includes a "Single Family Designated Area" overlay
designation which also applies to this property.
D. The site is presently zoned R1-9 . 61 Single Family
Residential.
E. The site is located on the boundary between multifamily
and single-family land use, with multifamily to the west
and single-family to the east.
F. A Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued for
the proposed rezone on June 26, 1992 .
G. The site has few, if any, natural development
constraints. It has gentle slopes, little vegetation,
and no apparent drainage problems.
H. The site has vehicular access to SE 256th Street.
I. The site receives utility services from the City of Kent.
Adequate water, sewer, and stormwater utilities exist to
serve the site. Extensions of same would be required.
VII . STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR A REZONE REQUEST
Standards and criteria for rezone applications are set forth
in the City of Kent Zoning Code in Section 15. 09 . 050. These
criteria are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to
evaluate requests in light of City policy and conditions which
affect growth and development. Rezone requests are only
11
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
granted if the Hearing Examiner and City Council determine
that such requests are consistent with these criteria. The
following is an examination of this request vis-a-vis the
rezone criteria specified in KCC 15. 09 . 050:
A. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Department Analysis
The Comprehensive Plan consists of two parts: 1) the plan map
or maps, and 2) plan goal, objective, and policy statements.
For purposes of this report, we will discuss these
individually.
The subject site is designated by both the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan Map and the East Hill Subarea Plan Map for
multiple family residential land use insofar as the underlying
map designation is concerned. These maps are consistent in
this regard. However, the rezone site as well as properties
to the north, south, and east were also included within a
"Single Family Designated Area" overlay which was applied by
Resolution #1235 in 1990, discussed earlier in this report.
Therefore, there is some discrepancy among the land use
planning maps as they relate to this site.
With respect to adopted goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Subarea Plan, both plans
recognize the need for expanded housing opportunities in Kent,
encourage a mixture and diversity of housing types, and strive
to protect existing residential neighborhoods from intrusions
by incompatible land uses. The proposed rezone would extend
high density multifamily development into what is
characteristically a low density single-family area, and would
not appear to be consistent with plan policy. The policy in
the East Hill Plan (cited earlier in this report) which
encourages increased single family residential density as a
transition to more intensive residential uses may be relevant
in this particular case. Approval of the proposed rezone
request would not be consistent with this policy, since high
density residential use would intrude directly into low
density single family use.
Based upon the recent City Council action to designate the
subject site and vicinity as a "Single Family Designated
Area", and the policies of both the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan and East Hill Subarea Plan to protect existing
12
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
residential areas, the proposed rezone request is not
consistent with this criteria.
B. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the
site would be compatible with development in the
vicinity.
Planning Department Analysis:
The rezone site lies along the margin between multifamily and
single-family residential use. The Stratford Arms Apartments
are located adjacent to the site to the west. To the east of
the rezone site, the area is developed with single family
residences. Very clearly, the site is located in a transition
area between high density and low density development. Some
sort of transition land use such as high density single family
or low density attached units would seem appropriate in this
area. Instead, the proposed rezone request would extend high
density multifamily use (approx. 17 units per acre) into an
area characterized by low density single family use (approx.
4 units per acre) . The contrast in scale, bulk, and density
would not be compatible and, therefore, the proposed rezone
would not be consistent with this criteria.
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated.
Planning Department Analysis:
Although adverse impacts would occur to the existing
transportation system as a result of this rezone and
subsequent development, all impacts can be mitigated as
outlined in the environmental documents relative to this
application. It is not expected that the proposed rezone and
development would unduly burden the transportation system in
the City.
D. Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to warrant
the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Analysis:
In recent years, economic and population growth have spawned
a high demand for housing in the Puget Sound area. The Kent
13
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
area, and particularly the East Hill/Sons Creek Plateau area,
has become one of the fastest growing areas in King County in
terms of residential development. During the 1980's, the
overwhelming preponderance of residential growth in Kent was
in the form of multifamily development. In the five-year
period 1985-1989 , approximately 5150 units of multifamily
development were constructed while only 129 single family
residences were built. This is a ratio of approximately 40: 1.
Since 1990 following the action of the City Council to
facilitate single family residential development (through
Resolutions #1123 and #1230-1237 and Ordinances #2901-2905) ,
approximately 369 multifamily units have been constructed
while 117 single family residences have been built. This is
a ratio of about 3 : 1, a substantial reduction from the rates
which prevailed in the years preceding the new City land use
policies.
Another factor which may be relevant in this case is the
subdivision activity which has taken place in the vicinity of
the rezone request in the recent past. The parcel adjacent to
the rezone site was short platted in 1989 to create four
single family lots (File #SP-89-18) . In addition, two other
short plats on properties adjacent to the east were subdivided
in 1990, creating an additional 12 single family lots, (Files
#SP-90-23 and #SP-90-19) . Approximately 300 feet to the south
of the rezone site, another short plat (#SP-90-7) created two
lots. Other short and long plats in the vicinity of the
rezone site (i.e. , Files #SP-90-1, #SP-90-61 #SP-90-20, and
#SP-89-20) and renewed subdivision activity on East Hill in
general suggest a strong demand for single family units and is
indicative of the success of recent City policy to emphasize
a balance in housing type.
Therefore, recent development activity in the area of the
rezone site does not indicate a need to change the land use
policy from single family to multifamily. On the contrary,
conditions indicate a renewed interest in providing single
family housing opportunities. This is reflected in both
recent City policy changes as well as development trends in
the area. Thus, the proposed rezone is not consistent with
this criteria.
E. The proposed rezone will not adversely effect the health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City
of Kent.
14
Staff Report
Stratford Arms - Phase II
#RZ-92-1
Planning Department Analysis:
The impacts to public health and safety which would result
from approval of the rezone request can be mitigated, and
present no substantial threat. However, the general welfare
of the existing residential neighborhood is threatened by the
intrusion of high density multifamily residential development.
The rezone and resultant development would create incompatible
conflicts in bulk, scale, and density of development which
would adversely affect existing single family residences. The
specific configuration of the proposed rezone - i.e. , a
finger-like appendage to an existing apartment complex - is
particularly incongruous inasmuch as it creates conflicts with
single family areas along three sides. Therefore, the
proposed rezone is not consistent with this criteria.
VIII. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the code
criteria for granting a rezone amendment, the City staff
recommends DISAPPROVAL of the Stratford Arms - Phase II rezone
request (File #RZ-92-1) .
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 10, 1992
c:rz921.rpt
15
' y __.. _ ,•a Yr IT ' 1ra1^ \l
. sit
p l •' nll ' at v_xu.
I IN
NORTH i :'' tt t�L- s �E: m N ] yI nt1rL• I '(y)'G
r NFrIT C} at vsrN
aI=NTCiG^ ' titi � s`-u E; l_1.�.._..L n} .1 ��•a:.. 1 .1
SOLUTION 81235 - )3j I I _ �'
/• ADOPTED BY RE K;:'.'•i a ]lsrN n' a t:nN ', •..jcX... ,�,•_.;r.•.
SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGNATED AREA O y +� ^
• •MIA. ...::. > p'• (- Yt n tla N .', :: '• .. --.:fl,'.�
I •¢t..'�'• SS d♦ `,r a nl lr �i�c •r��•,.�l••a`. r.r..'.-'`
EAST HILL SUBAREA PLAN j -Y ,=l12N0 s l
''' '''���111111 •.L•:._ .[ sr ..1 TIT • . '.c
1 ti J • ice .' ✓v: a SE YJxNOK ^ iir+lo f , :t1r• S • tx110 fir
.•£ J(}� ,L nl,o ',� } t C t•. :F afs �a1
F ••In r.r 4 + � •l i 1[` )]alN It R [ Ip1AN a
� 8 scx.o L
FirPill
r •,I.{'. .. _ — • td�:�e xJ♦IN sr •lnisy5•:��:�:': St ]]aIN ,r
wmoeoN Tr a
1-9
i-I ° f �• •r/ia 11 P _ It .orN Sr
t Jr •L•:. YiLR'II'Z' —.1- 71
• • . IL HILL
N. 2 ..MOOL
�NOOL i t ; Y • •,::
�:.IN .(.., CIO II txf _ iK •,
al ,
t y •
:
a a'SA'.........
A ��5�'•is• 7 '• .�:' s
na�ItA (,rJ •H . ITZZ
X. •. .::::.'.
sr + `I� xrrf�'��'t lV 0,1, •+,. ''i��1{' •,IiIII':
(p
—a tl O 4t I.J,'.'J' wlrllNO t Y!!•.• :-+a• :W
IT
M
•'f• o
11•'
( r,t• is J tiw:•it:.';1.'''. ,•• 'zff - - +h r
wAa. • . . .... . . FFF --. .
•V. yt ISyt 31 sar
.{F�•.Fj iEr::{t::: ;.�'7 stt PROPOSED REZONE SITE
"r �• .;.;✓lrst•:, ••• �Jr
N
.'\��'S. •, / 1 + - J ..� ti .ii4. a y °�� .,. yI5 t , ti t,
••• •I..J!yS. AtI ? ] 1yrrNR .:•','�`• •:,�'Jf..
•' :• 'N4P• •••'ti i� • !.1 •\..., +o r[Nr-n(er°uN ''� t f,-• S ayI riSMR 4'�
.. •.�T. • I�. .V: 7.'.•. 'r�is 1.;I,� NO '"� - _ :�{;.�: .,till .. TTTIy"`
21'I] '.: SY •��; :��•i t1; -- st` rtu l_ I_ :. .. ••
1)1 TIN rI a
a 3 R ti ava I �:. R r
_' 'j• •:��'• •'4t♦�':''•'.... :;:. '''-rw" y i ,( r Y S s(xxm n: F j�l+M ■
•,AI' '•a.. :•.�i ... ... L\`.,,9 s n •t( 1/mot„;S[..
•:v�, .�: •:::'•:tiff i;1.i•'.Ir• T.
�� '`L y 8 \j 1•: :•N\ ire
'� :•Xv'r'r:::�:: .yT,. °-(„•Lr,. — ( .r::. � 41€
fbRRf Clld (f}I :'::•. shJ1h'S ♦'..�._'• •,:
r ACLnv .1J •`j 1. V• • :�'/�•''t(a�,�FsiI{l�ri•:.° 7•.y�j'. SE MIH y iiorll 1 ••a°rr , '•L% J'a. St].Ore tr
AUKEEN j.'t l �J, I'r: �:.f14hEAAlsi, I,-- s ♦°r: u 1ry� �,xw
p StN4t \.;'�yi It .h"• .•,
ICQMxMO `If� �},•`,1�`w v\� f r._�l.�.l.r VI �.:• t /lrs f(OUOIw`
tir <' rl 't , \ <. ( rI 'Y.1g7y } sc NOOL �, •F
1.2
�
� -�r .ter
n .:
SINGLE FAMILY
• °. �`'' �(I'-' DESIGNATED AREA
e ` s'
•' •all oh"
H MIN kT_
t MIN IT STUDY AREA BOUNDARY""m
1\ � It MEIN \•
KENT CITY
ITSAW
_
:S ib ; •... `. 3Q 79 a >nn° tr _ _...__..._ ___ _ (
2141
if
City of Kent - Planning Department
w
h
W
N
w SE 2515T ST
>
w
= N
W w 252N0 FL
w '" >
> Cr
cr
w
N w w =
O > •fi �� ' ^1
CC TH PL
SE 256TH ST
O
Sq SfG N
w
259TH 2�
260TH ST
SE 260
co
F-
ri.
APPLICATION NAME: Stratford Arms Phase II
NUMBER: #RZ-92-1 DATE: August 19, 1992
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND ,
Application site
Vicinity Map Zoning boundary
City limits =
City of Kent - Planning Department
LL
w • _�p� per'
¢
� o
c
APPLICATION NAME: Stratford Arms Phase ►�
NUMBER: #RZ-92-1 DATE: August 19, 1992
RL••4.UEST: Rezone
LEG EN D
.s ?v Application site
Zoning / Topography Zoning boundary
a■M I City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
fo�aT wr•V Y•• ���
y�v�l•efrs xaZ-�r�•I
w
I lr.0ol1
�, 1 IN e¢ AM—
I _
MA= w
' " .Ol.al 14YQ I 6
2 l.W.Dl1 Km L L
I arm• a• �►' �
W-0
R �i
-�L� yt�l• N r•L'w'l
SITE PLAN
f�
APPLICATION NAME: Stratford Arms Phase II
NUMBER: #RZ-92-1 DATE: August 19, 1992
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
Application site
Site Plan Zoning boundary
City limits _
PLEASE NOTE: These minutes are prepared only for the
convenience of those interested in the proceedings of the
Land Use Hearing Examiner. These minutes are not part of the
official record of decision and are not viewed, referred to,
or relied upon by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision.
These minutes also are not part of the record of review in the
event a decision of the Hearing Examiner is appealed. Copies
of the tape recordings of the Hearing Examiner proceedings,
or a complete written transcript of these recordings, are
available at a charge from the City of Kent. Please contact
Chris Holden at the Kent Planning Department (859-3390) if you
are interested in obtaining an official transcript.
HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES
August 19, 1992
The public hearing of the Kent Hearing Examiner was called to order
by the presiding officer, Ted Hunter, Hearing Examiner, on
Wednesday, August 19, 1992 at 7: 00 p.m. in the Kent City Hall,
Chambers West.
Mr. Hunter requested all those intending to speak at the hearing
and those wishing to receive information concerning the hearing, to
sign in at the sign up sheet by the door. Staff reports and
agendas were available by the door. Mr. Hunter briefly described
the sequence and procedure of the hearing. Each person presenting
testimony was sworn in by Mr. Hunter prior to giving testimony.
STRATFORD ARMS - PHASE 2
#RZ-92-1
A request by SDM Properties, 11126 SE 256th Street, Kent, WA
98031, for a rezone of 1.23 acres from R1-9. 6, Single Family
Residential, to MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. A 21-
unit apartment is the proposed use of the site. The subject
property is located on the west side of 113th Avenue SE,
approximately 660 feet north of SE 256th Street.
The following exhibits were submitted to the record: A) file, B)
letter from Mr. Green, C) letter from Mr. and Mrs. Boyer, D) Paul
Morford's testimony, E) Ted Sharp's testimony, F) Bill Dinsdale's
testimony, G) East Hill Plan map, H) Generalized Comprehensive Plan
map, I) Six photos of street opposite property, J) Resolution
#1235, K) Ordinance #2903 and L) Planning Goals Report dated
8/17/92 .
1
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 19, 1992 at 7: 00 PM
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, reiterated the applicant's
request. Mr. Satterstrom presented view foils depicting the 1) the
location of the property and 2) the zoning of the area and
property. He lectured on the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map as
well as the goals and objectives of the City-wide Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Satterstrom mentioned one of the goals of the Plan is
to have a mix of housing and density. He indicated that one of the
East Hill Plan .goals is to protect single-family housing. The
surrounding area is mainly single-family housing on large lots.
The proposed rezone would create an expansion of multifamily
housing by 21-units on 1.23 acres representing a density of 17 plus
units per acre. This would not be consistent with the Housing
Element of the City-wide Plan.
The subject site is designated as multifamily by the Plan in 1982.
The map was modified by Resolution #1235. Resolution #1235 added
a single-family density overlay in the area. This density overlay
included the subject site. - Mr. Satterstrom briefly reviewed the
history of this project. He discussed the water, sewer, storm
drainage and infrastructure in the area. It is felt that there
should not be any further development in the area until street
improvements are made. Mr. Satterstrom commented the maps are
referred to in the following order: 1) Generalized City-wide
Comprehensive Plan amended in . 1984; 2) East Hill Area Land Use
Plan, amended in 1985 and 3) East Hill Single-Family Designated
Areas. Mr. Satterstrom reviewed the criteria that is required to
be analyzed when considering a rezone request. The staff is
recommending disapproval of this request.
Mr. Hunter reminded everyone that the merits of a rezone request
must consider the criteria as listed in the Zoning Code.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant would like to comment.
Paul Morford, Partner with SDM Properties, 'submitted to the record
a transcript of his testimony (Exhibit D) . Mr. Morford proceeded
to read the transcript into the record.
Tom Sharp, Partner with SDM Properties, submitted to the record a
transcript of his testimony (Exhibit E) . Mr. Sharp contended that
the since the Court overturned the 1989 Ordinance approving the
zoning of this property to multifamily, all factors and criteria
should be considered as if it was 1989 . Furthermore, no zoning
changes or other circumstances should be considered that took place
after 1989. He addressed Section D on Page 1; Section E on page 2;
and the Housing Element on page 3 . He stated that 29 units would
be allowed under the MRM zoning; the applicant is only planning on
building 21 units. Mr. Sharp summarized that 1) City Council
rezoned property; 2) circumstances have not changed since 1989; 3)
2
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 19, 1992 at 7: 00 PM
no criteria or ordinance that have passed since 1989 should be
considered and 4) this request meets the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Mr. Hunter asked how many units could be constructed under this
designation.
Mr. Sharp replied that 29 units could be constructed; however, only
21 units would be built. Stratford Arms Phase I has 87 units on
five acres. Mr. Sharp asserted that the East Hill Subarea Plan
supports the rezone request.
Bill Dinsdale, Partner with SDM Properties, remarked there is a
demand for multifamily housing in Kent. Furthermore, the City,
under the State' s Growth Management Act, will be required to
provide affordable housing. Mr. Dinsdale submitted a letter to the
record (Exhibit F) .
Roger M. Leed, Attorney at Law, 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza #4301,
Seattle, WA 98154, attorney for applicant, believed the code
criteria with respect to a rezone has been met by the applicant.
Mr. Leed felt it was inappropriate for the single-family overlay
zone to be considered for this site. He mentioned the City has a
need for multifamily housing and this should be recognized. This
area is a transition area from single-family to multifamily.
Mr. Hunter asked if anyone in the audience would like to testify.
Arnold Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue SE, Kent, WA 98031, submitted
to the record six photos (Exhibit I) showing housing across the
street from the proposed rezone. Mr. Hamilton remarked single-
family housing is located to the south; the property to the north
is platted for single-family housing; and there is single family
housing to the east. Mr. Hamilton commented there has been a lot
of cut and fill work done on the property without any permits from
the City. He mentioned there were considerable amounts of traffic
in the area.
Kevin Flatt, 11224 SE 256th Street, Kent, WA 98031, stated this
was a single-family neighborhood area. He felt that to allow a
multifamily development of 17 units per acre next to 9.6 single-
family zoning was not reasonable. Mr. Flatt felt that if 113th was
developed to City standards there would be increased traffic in the
neighborhood. In addition to say there would be no access from the
apartments to this neighborhood would be unenforceable. The
addition of an apartment complex in this area would be a further
erosion of single-family living in the area.
3
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 19, 1992 at 7 : 00 PM
Joan McCallum, 25238 111th Avenue SE, felt there were enough
apartment complexes in the area. Ms. McCallum mentioned other
apartment complexes in the area that have affected the region. She
commented that if the apartments were two and three-stories high,
the people living there would be looking into her backyard which
would cause a loss of privacy. She was concerned that the parking
area for the apartment complex would also be facing her backyard.
Ms. McCallum was concerned about 1) the lowering of the single-
family property values; 2) increase of vehicle noise; 3) increase
of people noise; 4) increase of traffic in the area.
Jeff Tucker, 25420 113th Avenue SE, mentioned there were twelve
children living in the area. Mr. Tucker remarked that many of the
children play in and around the street so everyone drives slowly
and carefully. He was concerned about the safety and well-being of
the children in the area.
Lilly Kato commented that a .few weeks ago she was in City Hall and
the map showed their property to be zoned multifamily.
Mr. Hunter asked if the applicant and/or city wanted to respond to
the testimony.
Mr. Morford commented that three of the property owners that abut
the proposed rezone area want the rezone. The other property
closest to the rezone has a street between the proposed site and
that property. Mr. Morford stated the property will be served by
sewer from the Stratford Arms side. He commented a statement was
made to the record that the City informed the applicant not to
proceed with the construction of Stratford Arms, that was
incorrect. The applicant never received any type of correspondence
or statement from the City on any caution to proceed. There is not
a market for single-family homes at this time.
Mr. Satterstrom reviewed the City requirements for transitional
zoning between multifamily development and single-family housing.
The Growth Management Act provides for a mix of housing types and
the City of Kent has one of the largest multifamily housing stock
in the area. Mr. Satterstrom stated because of a growing concern
about the lack of single-family construction, the City has made
efforts to promote single-family preservation and construction.
Tom Brubaker, Law Office, made three points: 1) this hearing is to
consider a zoning amendment; 2) this is an application to build 21
multifamily units and 3) the Comprehensive Plan is a statement of
policy and is advisory. A number of different amendments have been
made to the Plan, the most recent being the overlay zone. A
Comprehensive Plan is a fluid policy statement and by its very
4
r
Hearing Examiner Minutes
August 19, 1992 at 7: 00 PM
nature, reacts to changing times. Mr. Brubaker commented it was
his opinion that the latest statement of intent by the City Is
legislative body is that the overlay zone is applicable to the
Comprehensive Plan and must be considered.
Mr. Dinsdale submitted to the record a Growth Management memorandum
(Exhibit L) .
Elizabeth Clausen, 113th Avenue SE, felt there was enough
apartments in the area. Ms. Clausen would like this area to remain
single-family.
There was no further testimony.
The hearing closed at 10: 00 a.m.
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17, 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CITY REPRESENTATION RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The purpose of this resolution is to establish
guidelines for obtaining the City Council's position on any
vote or other action on behalf of the City regarding major
policy issues when the Mayor or any councilmember represents
the City on any board, commission or agency outside the City.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee ( 3-0)
(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 - \� IN moves, Councilmember 6 seconds
adoption of Res ution No. a-,46 regarding City representation
before boards, commissions or outside agencies.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding City
representation before boards, commissions, or
agencies outside the City of Kent.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent often participates, through a
representative, on various boards, agencies, and commissions
outside the City of Kent, establishing regional policies on a
variety of matters; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate to appoint the Mayor or a
councilmember to represent the City on many of these boards,
agencies, and commissions ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it desirable to be
informed on a regular basis with respect to the actions of the
representative made on behalf by the City on these boards,
agencies, and commissions; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1. Unless otherwise established by state law or
by Council, the Mayor or any councilmember shall be appointed to
represent the City on any board, commission, or agency that
requires a representative to make presentations, proposals,
reports, or vote on behalf of the City on policy matters affecting
the City of Kent. The Mayor or councilmember, or his or her
designee, serving on such a board, commission, or agency,
representing or otherwise obligating the City on major policy
issues, shall, whenever feasible, be required to have a majority of
the City Council, by resolution or motion, establish its position
on any major policy issue before it, and instruct its
representative to vote accordingly.
Section 2 . The Mayor or council-member appointed to
represent the City, or his or her designee, shall make regular
reports to the City Council on all issues for such board, agency,
or commission when the representative has taken action on behalf of
the City of Kent. The Council President shall determine whether an
issue should go directly to the full Council or to a Council
committee for reporting.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1992 •
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1992 •
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17, 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ANNEXATION TO THE LIBRARY DISTRICT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council at a workshop on
November 3 heard a presentation from City staff and the Library
District on the pros and cons of annexation to the Library
District. The information attached provides the details of
that discussion and assumes that the City reduces its property
tax levy to correspond to the new levy for the Library
District. In summary, the City could have an estimated one
time only savings of $292,874 if the Kent voters approve
annexation. Cost of the election is estimated to be $30, 000
whether the ballot issue is approved or not. The $30,000 is
based on $1. 50 per registered voter with 19, 691 registered
voters for the 1992 presidential election. The number could be
less with voter purging after the presidential election or if
other entities have a ballot issue and can share the cost or if
a mail-in ballot is used at $1. 00 per registered voter.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff analysis, Information from the King County
Library District, letter of support from the Kent Library Board
and ordinance initiating an annexation election.
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $30, 000, could be $20 000 if use mail
ballot
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Would need a General Fund Appropriation
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, /51incilmember seconds
the adoption of Ordinance initiating a Library District
annexation election at tht appropriate election date.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
-
Council Agenda
Item No. 4DJ
MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print.
-----------------------------------------
Su :Ct: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Crdotor: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/09/92 at 1011.
1. SUBJECT: ANNEXATION TO THE LIBRARY DISTRICT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: THE CITY COUNCIL AT A WORKSHOP ON NOVEMBER 3RD
HEARD A PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF AND THE LIBRARY DISTRICT ON THE
PROS AND CONS OF ANNEXATION TO THE LIBRARY DISTRICT. THE INFORMATION
ATTACHED PROVIDES THE DETAILS OF THAT DISCUSSION AND ASSUMES THAT THE
CITY REDUCES ITS PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO CORRESPOND TO THE NEW LEVY FOR
THE LIBRARY DISTRICT. IN SUMMARY THE CITY COULD HAVE AN ESTIMATED ONE
TIME ONLY SAVINGS OF $292 ,874 IF THE KENT VOTERS APPROVE ANNEXATION.
COST OF THE ELECTION IS ESTIMATED TO BE $30, 000 WHETHER OR NOT THE BALLOT
ISSUE IS APPROVED OR NOT.
3 . EXHIBITS: STAFF ANALYSIS
INFORMATION FROM THE KING COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE KENT LIBRARY BOARD
ORDINANCE INITIATIATING AN ANNEXATION ELECTION
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES_x_
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED
6. {PENDITURE REQUIRED: $30, 000, COULD BE $20, 000 IF USE MAIL BALLOT
SOURCE OF FUNDS: WOULD NEED A GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
COUNCILMEMBER MOVES AND COUNCILMEMBER SECONDS
THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE INITIATING A LIBRARY DISTRICT ANNEXATION
ELECTION AT THE NEXT APPROPRIATE ELECTION DATE.
CITY OF KENT
LIBRARY ANALYSIS
OCTOBER 29, 1992
Overview:
The City is authorized by the State Legislature to bAcome part of the
King County Library System(KCLS) by the annexation method which requires
voter approval (simple majority) . An election would have to held prior
to May 15, 1993 to be effective for the 1994 budget/tax year.
Annexation transfers the responsibility for providing library services
from the City to the Library District and removes the City's obligation
to pay for these services from its General Fund. Annexation allows the
Library District to levy property taxes for library services within the
City limits of Kent. Annexation to their district would terminate the
City's contract with the KCLS.
Annexation Issues:
1. City would obtain a one time only contract savings estimated to be
$292 , 874 . This would accrue if the City put the item on the ballot and
it passed. This would reflect the Library District maintaining the 1992
contract amount of $1, 152, 146 into 1993 . Per contract the 1993
estimated amount is $1, 445, 020. Originally the City would save by just
putting the annexation on the ballot.
2 . Library District would no longer be dependent on a negotiated
contract with the City, but would have a more stable tax base to fund
it 's annual operations.
3 . City could obtain an annual expenditure savings approximately equal
to the 1993 estimated amount of $1, 445, 020 . These funds could be used
for any governmental purpose or the City could reduce it' s tax levy by
any amount up to the savings. The Library District is authorized a levy
rate up to $. 50 per $1, 000 of assessed valuation. The Library Board
supports annexation only if the City authorizes an equivalent reduction
in taxes. An alternative plan would be for the City to not reduce their
levy by the debt service amount on the library building for 1994 through
2007 as shown in schedule A attached.
4 . Per state law the City could be compensated for it' s one-half
interest in the existing library building for which the City contributed
to in the form of a 3 . 4 million dollar bond issue and a $743 , 245 cash
contribution. See schedule A for the amount of debt service the
Capital Improvement Fund pays annually. The Library District proposes
co-ownership, so no funds would change hands.
Downside Issues:
Proposal will be difficult to sell the citizenry unless the City taxes
are reduced by at least the amount of the Library District levy. The
City will not want to jeopardize its long-term financial stability so it
will probably want an exact offset. Schedule A attached shows how this
might be accomplished.
Annexation of the City of Kent to the
King_ County Rural Library District
Background
Annexation was authorized by the Washington State Legislature to
provide cities and towns with an alternative method of funding library
services in their communities. Annexation shifts the obligation to provide
library services from the City's general fund to the Library District.
Once annexation is passed by the voters, property held within the city
limits is assessed at the same rate as property in the Library District's
service area. All property in unincorporated King County and in annexed
cities is assessed at the same rate. The maximum rate for library operations
has been set by state law at $.50/$1,000 assessed valuation. The levy rate in
1992 is $.43/$1,000 assessed valuation.
,Annexation can be reversed by a City Council initiated election any
time three years after the initial vote to join the Library District.
Cost
The contract fee for the City of Kent for 1992 is $1,152,145.59 (or
$.30/$1.000 assessed valuation). The contract amount is expected to
increase over the next two years to bring all areas into equity with the
county-wide rate by 1994.
The cost for operating the Kent Regional Library is estimated at $1.8
million in 1992. Kent city residents also use the facilities, collections and
services of libraries in the area and throughout the county. The new
CuviugLun Library, slated to open in 1993, will also serve Kent residents and
is estimated to cost $700,000+ in 1993, and $1.2 million in 1994,
Facilities and Services
The City of Kent provides library services for its residents through a
contract with the Library District to provide materials and services through
the Kent Regional Library. The building is jointly owned by the City and the
Library District.
City residents may use any of the Library District's 37 branches, and
have access to all materials and services offered by the system, including
interlibrary loan, books by mail, programs, and other services,
Residents who were in the city limits prior to 1988 did not vote on
and arc not paying for the Library District's 1988 bond measure, They are
not paying on this measure nor would they be obligated to do so if the city
annexes to the library district. Any areas of the county that were annexed
Into the City after 1988 are paying on the bond, and would continue to do so
if annexation passes.
D < m r vi r r r — D x r r °+ a r r r — a T r D f
rt << m < m m �• m -'• <m< <m 7 < m m< t<o 7 < f<o < 7 < X
A N T <
d a d M N
3 m oAi a rt < m 3 z � m �
om 7 7 m r a 9d a m 7 m 7 r m 7 a �c
rf m ; ' Q O V P s pJ m s Pam, a .n.. z D z
`G n j n ° < < APO < O.�° < < X C ~
a s
m L m m '� 7 m 7 n m
� m • :' < o0
p z z
xNi < N W :� A > p3p
CC r A O
d W N 'p OJ O 1 O 3 r
P rfQ
m V .p N N 1� 0 .v J..(�\`(v N N
j co W V
O 7 co N Vf N W �`11 01. ��pO
< x N O co O co N co W lP/l N O P W VPf N N p] x W N N
C ale
0 a
P V
V
N i d V V O V
N d W coCD �o .�
m• m J O W W N `O J W
j tJI N j O N Od
0, � co j
-O+ o1C. ol
pP V N
o 10 ol
< N PW W W
Wco A W
2t a-C _ K W W W
7 �
p p -4 V
,p P co co P P O P
coJ
O N .p W NO _ P � W N ' P
N V r W N Ol O LAr W O O p O C, O
O y.. co. �. Co• �N co
pW� pV. - o V �O ,VO M 10 W N W `O `OV
p V W P W N NW d N W WW r W X A -+ O A
?. 10 N N N
10
O N W< r .
0-
P
N Vp co,r " •s�-` O P W'B�
O
m tpco O '0 0, WN
p It xm W n iOOn
co -4
t
m
N _ P R r
ti. r O 10 _ =p `p
O W .p i� N O _ j O%co t_n N%co
N t V P V N O lA -p+ 'o P FO w j co� ..pp N N P O 'O V N � co_ .O N 10N V .... .p
r N VWi P O O N W W O P W W O P W -' T O P
7 l N T N
W O O N
1 co y V N V
W r 4- 10 i� N of _ P In
10 co N a N
N V W V N �_ N O O -+ W N O O in W O O -+
co _ co` O
A W W P `O O �_ BO O 10 `p �o Wp� ..pp
j 0 Vf O r N co OO N W �O W N O �O
,0 P N O V W V W r V co N R V N --` W r N
2E N T V
v r r w
of P N P W P
N t• •p
P
N V O OD O V'o1 O O] Wco t W O� : 0
.O W . W O In W `o `p tWii O
In N A co O P 2� -+ In O - P P In °p A'O
i� N lA 10 V co P `O co
N N N co
W _ v -
ol W co N W A co
.p .p W
N
N N W °coo � O O P -� W �O O P O P -'
P N d W10 '0
OPT P V .p .p O O
W CO 10 OV W co 10 W X W 7F W aleP KP P
_ W
iN
V pNp N P N
N O
W J 10 W -° N N -+ N
N O 1p O Q• O N pW. W N O W N
CP 1� -p O O° ,Vp 'co 0 O W IA�1 �o O
W V�I O P `O X 1rJ1 O
X W Cl ale P of
A co yco coyo
co N W N N N N
P N
WW _. co OAO) N 'O 'co W
_ N _ c
.p 10co 10 NO � O co O
FO an W O 1010 Opco ,o O P
PW O dwW A P W V W 10
dW
N
W A
e[ X K X V N
W V V n
x
.o pp pA. "tpW'. N ypW�. of C
r .p T
°
p
W N VNi V N O wry. tn. O1. co. D
yP � P O N QQI� O r p Opaa A O N O � O
N V W On i� O +� r V� N N so � VI N P N W N N
X
Thning of the Election i�� �io
The following dates would be suitable for annne ation to be in effect in
1994: February, March, April special election dates in 1993, In order for
anne;mtion to be in effect the following calendar year, the election must be
certified by June 1 of the previous year. The May election date does not
allow sufficient time for certification by the June 1 deadline.
Process
Tt*p Cit�a�z the Library Dtrict develo�aiLinterlo� l agreement to
ensure provision of library services in the interim period between a
successful election and the time that revenue is collected by the District.
Local library board recommends or concurs with annexation proposal;
prepares short written statement supporting annexation (or copy of board
minutes of such).
City Council passes r so ution in support of annexation. (samples
available). City approves interlocal agreement. City forwards both documents
to KCLS Board of Trustees for concurrence.
,
KCLS Board gasses resolution concurriri� with request for annexation.
Documents are forwarded to County Council staff.
County Council votes to put the measure on the ballot, and forwards
documents to Elections Division.
For example,for the February 2,1993 ballot - all paperwork needs to
be to the County mid-to-late.November, 1992; documents are there
forwarded to Records and Elections by mid-December.
Annexation re(mires a simPie rriajority to pass (nn validation
requirement). In some cities, the library board and/or friends group has
formed a campaign committee, raised money, and sent out "vote yes"
mailings. In other cities, the effort has been less organized, with individual
letters to the editor or phone calling conducted on behalf of annexation.
The library system prepares voter information materials and has these
available in the library and for distribution. Some cities have included
information with utility bills or in newsletters.
Election is held. City residents vote.
Election is certified (approximately 10 days after the election).
Considerations
For the City:
*The City does not have to be responsible for oversight of or budget
allocation for library operations. The budget for library operations is not in
competition with other necessary municipal services.
*The City retains a voice in library operations through the City-
appointed library board. Members of the local board serve as a vital link
between the City, library users, Library District administration, and Board
members of the Library District.
'The Citys taxing authority decreases by the library levy. For example,
if the City is authorized to levy $3.60, that amount is reduced to $310.
For the Library District:
'The District's ability to plan and budget for facilities, services,
materials, and staff on a system-wide basis is enhanced.
`The Library District is building a system of services that will make
resources available to all residents of the county. Service areas that are a full
part of that District facilitate this system approach and are not locked into
artificial boundaries or constraints that political subdivisions can impose.
*The Library District has one mission; to provide library services. The
Library District will direct all its energies in this direction.
For the Resident:
*In tcrms of paying for Library District services, the amount paid by
the resident directly (annexation) or indirectly (city's general fund) will be
at the same rate by 1994.
*Assurance that the Library District will continue its mission to
provide quality library services as a critical element in maintaining and
enhancing the city's quality of life.
*Citizens are able to deal with one level of bureaucracy as they express
concerns and wishes to the agency that has sole responsibility for the
service.
*The City and the Library District place the issue before the voters;
the voters make the choice.
What Happens After Annexation Passes?
The KCLS Board of Trustees has passed a resolution enouraging cities
to appoint or to continue the appointment of a library board.
The Library District continues its contact with the City through the
local library board, publications, presentations, and attendance at meetings.
In addition, the KCLS Board of Trustees holds its meetings at various library
locations throughout the district, and members also attend mcctings of local
boards.
What Other Cities Have Annexed to the Library District?
Voters in the cities of Bothell, Bellevue, Tukwila, Redmond, Kirkland
North Bcnd, Federal Way, SeaTac. Black Dianiond, Issaquah, Skykomish,
Algona, Pacific, Medina, and Beaux Arts have opted to annex to the Library
District. Statewide, over 80 cities have annexed to Library Districts.
For more information on annexation to the Library District, see RCW
27.12.360 (Initiation Procedure) and 27.12.370 (Special Election Procedure).
See RCW 84.09.030 for more information on Establishment of taxing
district boundaries (June I deadline).
(March 24, 1992)
' R E C
Septe.mber 22, 1992
SEP 2 8 1992 26604 104th. AVE. S.E.
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Kent. WA 98031
Mayor Dan Kel l eher
Kent City Hall
Kent, WA 96031
Dear Mayor Kelleher,
i request the City of Kent consider annexation to the King County
Library District. The current method of contracting with the King County
Library System for library services has served the city well in the. past.
In the future I feel the city, patrons of the Kent Regional Library and the
King County Library System could all benefit by annexation to the King
County Library District.
The city could reduce expenditures by removing the contract fee
from its budget. This contract amount is scheduled to increase in future
budgets.
The library patrons would continue to receive the same level of
library services they now enjoy while paying a portion of their property
tax to the King County Library District as do other county residents. The
city would pass on its' budget reduction to the city residents as a tax
savings which for most residents Would be an amount similar to the
Library District levy. A local Kent Library Board would continue to
function at request of K.CLS and Kent residents could be represented on the
King County Library Board. Representation is not presently available.
The KCLS would benefit from annexation by more stable revenue
through the Library District and by not having to negotiate a contract with
Kent in each annual budget cycle.
My recommendation Stipulates the City of Kent reduce its revenue
collection by an amount equal to the current budget library services
contract amount. City residents must not be subject to a tax increase by
choosing to pay for library services through the Library District levy
rather than through city taxes. Others may see an opportunity to pledge
present library services budget amount to other use. Such manipulation
of expenditures would be a tax increase that I would oppose.
Sincerely, ,
Theodore A. Ripley
President Kent Library Board
May Miller
Tony McCarthy
Per Bob Bruce 11/12/92
King County Election Dept
If a special election is held in early months of the year
it will cost approximately $ 1 . 50 per registered voter , and
there were 19 , 691 registered voters for the Nov 92 Presidential
election . Number of registered voters may go down after Election
Department subtracts those who did not vote . Cost of a special
election is based on the number of registered voters .
It would cost less to add the issue to an already planned election
(for Councilmembers and Mayor) in September or November . The
cost would be approximately half as much .
Kent ' s last special election was held in February of 1990
( Senior Housing Bonds ) and was held with school elections .
At that time ( 1990 ) there were approximately 13 , 000 registered
voters , and 2 , 639 ballots cast , for a 20% turnout . Bruce
estimates that Kent was charged $ 1 . 30 each at that time .
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, initiating the
process which will result in a special
election to determine whether the City of Kent
shall be annexed to the King County Rural
Library District; declaring the required
intent to join the library district; and
finding that such annexation is in the public
interest.
WHEREAS, public library service is an important and
essential service to the people of the City of Kent to assist them
in meeting their needs for information, recreation, and self
education; and
WHEREAS, a public library service has been provided by
the City through a contract with the King County Rural Library
District; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 27 . 12 of the Revised Code of Washington
provides a process for the annexation of the City into the Rural
Library District; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been submitted to the Library
Board of the City of Kent for its review and recommendation, and
the Board has recommended to the City Council that such ordinance
be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I
Section 1. The City hereby initiates the process of
potential annexation of the City to the King County Rural Library
District by stating its intent to join the Library District and by
finding the public interest served by so doing.
Section 2 . The City Clerk is directed to transmit this
ordinance to the King County Rural Library District Board of
Trustees and, if the Board of Trustees concurs in the annexation,
to take the further steps outlined in Chapter 27 . 12 RCW to place
this question before the voters at a special election to be held in
the City on February 2 , 1993 or as soon thereafter as practicable
pursuant to RCW 27 . 12 . 370 and RCW 29 . 13 . 010.
Section 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty days after its passage, approval anO
publication.
DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
2
Kent City Council Meeting
If� tip' Date November 17 . 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS
CONDITIONAL USE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND TO ADD
A DEFINITION TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TO THE ZONING
CODE (ZCA-92-1)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the
recommendation by the Planning Commission to amend the Kent
Zoning Code to allow multifamily residential use in commercial
and office zones only in conjunction with mixed use development
proposals. The Commission also recommends that a definition of
"mixed use development" be added to Section 15. 02 of the Zoning
Code which states, "Mixed use development shall mean two or
more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunc-
tion with one another on the same site. " The Planning
Commission approved these amendments at their September 28,
1992 public hearing.
3 . Upon White ' s question , Planninng I? ; re_ctor Harris F 9-28-92
explained that the Codel�ellows multi_ -family to take
place in a commercial zoning district . satterstrom
4 . further clarified that thi's. code amendment would
make multi-family a conditional use in non-residentl
zones only when in a mixed use configuration . He
also noted that the density would be the same as
5. the prevailing density in the area . .'ES
anded
6. --
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTIIO`x' �N�: /
Councilmember move, Councilmember seconds
to approve the recommendations made by the
Planning Commission to amend the Kent Zoning Code to allow
multifamily residential use as a conditional use only when
included within a mixed use development and to add a definition
of mixed use development to the Zoning Code 15. 02, and to
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION• hA
ACTION• '
cV
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E ✓
CITY OF )O\Lt!2 Z5
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
d��rIIc�� MEMORANDUM
November 17 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (#ZCA-92-1) -
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AS CONDITIONAL USE
At its public hearing on September 28 , 1992, the Planning
Commission recommended that the Kent Zoning Code be amended to
allow multifamily residential use in commercial and office zones
only in conjunction with mixed use development proposals. This
proposed code amendment would eliminate the opportunity to
construct "stand alone" multifamily use in non-residential zones.
Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends the following
amendments to the zoning code:
1. That the CC (Community Commercial) , GWC (Gateway
Commercial) , and O (Office) zones be amended to allow
multifamily residential use as a conditional use only
when included within a mixed use development.
2 . That a definition of "mixed use development" be added to
the zoning code, Section 15 . 02 : "Mixed use development
shall mean two or more permitted uses or conditional uses
developed in conjunction with one another on the same
site. "
JPH/mp:a: zca921.cc
cc: Fred Satterstrom
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 28 , 1992
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Vice Chair Martinez at 7 : 00 P.M. on September 28 , 1992 in the Kent
City Hall, City Council Chambers
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Christopher Grant
Albert Haylor
Edward Heineman, Jr.
Kent Morrill
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 24 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the August 24 , 1992 minutes
as presented. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion
CARRIED.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL
ZONES - ZCA-92-1
Fred Satterstrom briefly reviewed the code amendment which deals
with the proposal to eliminate multifamily residential as a
conditional use in non-residential zones. This request was given
to the Planning Commission by the City Council Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee wished to eliminate the possibility of stand
along multiple family in non-residential zones. Currently the
Zoning Code permits multiple family residential use in the CC
(Community Commercial) , O (Office) , and GWC (Gateway Commercial)
zones as a conditional use. It requires the review and approval of
the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing.
Staff is recommending the following:
1. That the CC (Community Commercial) , GWC (Gateway Commercial) ,
and 0 (Office) zones be amended to allow multifamily
residential use as a conditional use only when included within
Kent Planning Commission
September 28 , 1992
a mixed use development. This would eliminate the opportunity
for "stand alone" multifamily in non-residential zones.
2 . That a definition of "mixed use development" be added to the
Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 02 : "Mixed use development shall
mean two or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed
in conjunction with one another on the same site" .
Commissioner Martinez asked if the mixed uses would have to be in
the same building. Mr. Satterstrom said it would be possible to
have them in different buildings on the same development site.
Commissioner Heineman asked what other conditional uses could be
paired with multifamily. Mr. Satterstrom said he would have to
look at the Code to see what the other conditional uses are because
they differ within each zone. He felt that if they were in the
same building, the lower floors would probably be retail or
professional services and the upper stories would be residential.
Commissioner Dahle asked where the Gateway Commercial zones are.
Mr. Satterstrom said one is along East Valley Highway between 212th
Street and the Valley Freeway, and the other is across the street
from the Caveman restaurant on West Valley Highway.
Bryan Loveless, 8006 NE 169th Place, Bothell , is a realtor who has
been involved with a piece of property on East Hill that is zoned
CC. A little less than a year ago, the owners were granted a
conditional use permit for a multifamily project. This process
took over a year and was accomplished at great expense to the
sellers. They had a buyer at the start of the process, but by the
time it was completed, the buyer had left. The property is
surrounded on three sides by residential property and has no
frontage on Benson. It is more of a stand alone project as
commercial zoning than it is as a multifamily use. The only
alternative is to sell it for a bowling alley or something of that
nature, which he doesn't feel would benefit the neighborhood at
all. He feels there should be some sort of provision for unusual
cases such as this one.
Mr. Loveless also mentioned that he is trying to sell a piece of
property in Bothell that the city wants to zone mixed use. He has
shown it to developers with that in mind and it ' s a very tough
thing to make work. Tenants don 't want to live above businesses
and businesses are reluctant to locate in a low profile area. If
this happens to his sellers in Kent, he feels the value of their
property would be cut in half . Their conditional use permit is
expiring and if this is passed, they won ' t be able to get another
one.
2
Kent Planning Commission
September 28, 1992
Commissioner Dahle asked what his clients wanted to build on the
site. He said the proposed project is a 53-unit apartment.
Because the property is not on any arterial, to build a strip mall
is totally inappropriate. They would have to find someone who
could live with a location that is out of the way and doesn't
require any street exposure.
Commissioner Morrill asked how big the piece of property is.
Mr. Loveless said it is 2 . 4 acres. Commissioner Morrill asked if
rezoning was out of the question. Mr. Loveless said that Kent
indicated to him that the only feasible alternative was to get a
conditional use permit. He doesn't know if a rezone process is
possible, but feels it makes no sense at all for this piece of
property to be zoned Commercial.
Luella E. White, 10005 SE 235th, Kent, feels that you can't stop
progress, but she has seen progress absolutely annihilate the
original beauty of the Kent area. There is a multitude of
multifamily dwellings in the area. There is nothing on East Hill
for children. All she sees are empty apartments and empty houses
and she questions the need for more.
In response to Commissioner Heineman' s earlier question about other
conditional uses, Mr. Satterstrom said that in the Office zone,
beauty and barber services are allowed only by conditional use
permit. In the CC and Office zones, transit stations, colleges and
schools, recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses,
retirement and convalescent homes, and private clubs are general
conditional uses.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Heineman said he is concerned about this amendment.
Multifamily housing as part of mixed use is permitted downtown and
there are little or no instances where this situation would apply
on West Hill. What we're really talking about is East Hill where
the Council, in response to public demand, has already decreed that
the incidence of multifamily housing should be kept as low as
possible. His preference would be to delete the conditional use
completely.
Commissioner Grant asked if the project Mr. Loveless spoke about
was the one known as the Kent 57 project and was told it was.
Commissioner Dahle asked if the City requires the builder of an
apartment building to put up a certain amount of money for parks
and things for children. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that in
3
Kent Planning Commission
September 28 , 1992
multifamily development there is a requirement where 25% of the
site area must be retained in an open, green condition.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to take no action on this amendment and
to allow the Zoning Code to remain as is . Commissioner Morrill
SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Haylor said he understands everyone' s concern about
multifamily, but people can 't find affordable housing now and are
restricted to going into multifamily units . He can also understand
property owners ' desire to have a little control over what they
build on their own property. The staff recommendation would take
away a tremendous amount of control as far as what the property
owner can do when it comes to developing his own property. There
are controls right now that limit where they put multifamily. He
feels that no action is the way to go until we find a better way to
do it. He has read all the other alternatives and is not happy
with any of them.
commissioner Heineman conceded that people have to live somewhere
until they can afford to buy a house, but Kent already has the
highest ratio of multifamily housing in King County and possibly in
the state. He doesn't feel that we have to guarantee that any
person owning land has a vested right to make a profit on their
investment. He feels that eliminating this conditional use would
help to get a little closer to the balance that we would like to
see in Kent.
Commissioner Haylor said that it is the job of the Hearing Examiner
to take a look at individual cases and determine how these pieces
of property should be used. Commissioner Martinez said she feels
we're not dealing with just a little piece of property; we're
dealing with three entire zoning districts . The only
responsibility the Planning Commission has is to decide what it
wants to have happen in those large areas . Commissioner Haylor
said he understands that, but the Hearing Examiner has to have a
little flexibility to be able to rule one way or the other. If the
Commission does anything other than take no action, they will be
creating more restriction for use of people ' s property.
Commissioner Heineman said it was his understanding that any
property owner could request a conditional use and the Hearing
Examiner could make conditions, but he could not deny it. That' s
what he sees happening if the Commission takes no action.
Mr. Satterstrom said that the Hearing Examiner does have the right
to deny conditional use permits, but it is very difficult because
the Hearing Examiner has the burden of proof to show that it is not
a good land use to be permitted in that circumstance. He couldn 't
4
Kent Planning Commission
September 28, 1992
remember a conditional use permit application that has been denied,
so that burden is fairly difficult to demonstrate. The lawyers
would probably say that conditional uses are principally permitted
uses that require a public hearing before they are permitted.
The motion FAILED with Commissioners Haylor, Morrill and Ward
voting in favor and Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Heineman and
Martinez voting against.
Commissioner Ward asked what examples of mixed usage we have in
Kent presently. Mr. Satterstrom said there is one example
presently under construction on East Hill at Kent Kangley and 109th
which addresses the case in point. There are 14 efficiency units
on the top floors and several thousand square feet of commercial
space on the bottom. He also pointed out that there are some sites
in the CC and O zones that are not real well suited for commercial
and lend themselves more to a mixed use development. The visioning
process the City went through seemed to indicate that people
perceive the benefits of mixed use and are more likely to accept
multiple family when in a mixed use scenario. He admitted that the
proposed zoning would create more restrictions .
Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the CC, GWC and O zones be amended
to allow multifamily residential use as a conditional use only when
included within a mixed use development. Commissioner Grant
SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Haylor spoke against the motion. He felt that mixed
use with multifamily is very difficult and would just about kill
multifamily in that area.
The motion CARRIED with Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Heineman and
Martinez voting in favor and Commissioners Haylor, Morrill and Ward
voting against.
Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the following definition of "mixed
use development" be added to the Kent Zoning Code Section 15 . 02 :
"Mixed use development shall mean two or more permitted uses or
conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the
same site" . Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion
CARRIED.
SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS - ZCA-92-2
Fred Satterstrom outlined the proposed amendment which stems from
an actual regulatory review application by Mr. Don Rust of the
Bagman Cafe, who together with Mr. Russ Stringham, the owner of the
Hungry Bear restaurant, is requesting that the sign code be
5
Kent Planning Commission
September 28 , 1992
modified to permit two sandwich board type signs per retail type
use in the M-1 zone. There are only three types of retail uses
that are permitted in the M-1 zone and those are restaurants, tire
and battery stores, and vending machine operators. A quick review
of the current business licenses indicates that in the M-1 zone
there are approximately five restaurants . Restaurants in the M-1
zone are required to go by the industrial signage regulations
rather than the more liberal regulations of commercial zones.
About a year ago, there was a street use ordinance adopted that
allows two sandwich board signs per business to be located in the
public right-of-way. The applicants are saying it does not make a
lot of sense to allow these on a public right-of-way and not allow
them on private property. The idea is that the two sandwich board
signs for the restaurants would be in lieu of the signs permitted
under the street use ordinance.
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission add a definition
of what a "portable A-frame sandwich board sign" is and amend the
sign regulations to allow the retail uses in the M-1 zone to
utilize up to two sandwich board signs to identify themselves.
These signs would have to be placed on the premises and would be in
lieu of the portable signs permitted by Ordinance 2998 . Also, the
Planning Department would develop procedures for processing
applications for the signs.
Don Rust, 12719 SE 256th, Kent, is the owner of the Bagman Cafe.
He supports the Planning Department ' s proposal . He views the
restaurants in the M-1 zone as support services for the businesses
which are coming into that area. But without the advertising to
show these folks where they are, they have the potential for
failure.
He also feels it provides a little more safety to place the signs
close to his business rather than on the sidewalk.
Russ Stringham, 524 W. Meeker, Kent, is the owner of the Hungry
Bear. He could purchase a permit under the street occupation
ordinance for the nominal fee of $10 per year. In his case, this
is fine because he has extremely wide sidewalks so the sandwich
boards would not create any access problems. The other restaurants
have much narrower sidewalks, so it would make more sense for them
to be able to use their private property.
One of the things that sandwich boards do for the little street
corner merchant is help to level the playing field. The McDonalds,
Wendys and Burger Kings of the world can spend thousands of dollars
on 40 foot neon signs, but the small merchants can ' t afford it. He
6
��
� Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 . 1992
ti Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS
JZCA-92-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the
recommendation by the Planning Commission to amend the Kent
Zoning Code to permit sandwich board signs in the M-1,
Industrial Park Zoning District. The Planning Commission
approved this amendment at their September 28, 1992 public
hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: St ff memo; Planning Commission minutes of 9-28-92
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: lanning Commission
(Committee, St ff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL P RSONNEL IMPACT: NO___� _ YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NO Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_ ij) oves, Councilmember seconds
to approve/ the recommended approval by the
Planning Commission to amend the Kent Zoning Code regarding
sign code regulations and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinances. ��W
�1
DISCUSSION: V r�
ACTION• ' " " C�""
Council Agenda
Item No. 4F �J
CITY OF JULD
a CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 17 , 1992
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (#ZCA-92-2) - CHANGES TO
SIGN REGULATIONS PERMITTING SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS IN THE
M-1, INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT
Following its public hearing on September 28 , 1992 , the Planning
Commission voted to recommend that the sign regulations in the Kent
Zoning Code be amended to allow on-premise sandwich board type
signs in the M-1 zone. As recommended, the amendment would allow
up to two (2) portable signs for retail uses, such as restaurants.
This proposed amendment was originally suggested through the
regulatory review process by Mr. Don Rust of the Bagman Cafe.
Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends the following
amendments to the zoning code:
1. Add a definition of "portable A-frame sandwich board
sign" which reads: "A portable A-frame or similarly
designed sign which is no greater than 36-inches wide and
42-inches tall . "
2 . Amend the sign regulations to allow retail uses in the M-
1 zone to utilize up to two (2) sandwich board signs to
identify themselves. These signs would be subject to the
following limitations:
a. Said signs would be required to be placed on
the business premises; and
b. Said signs would be in lieu of portable signs
placed on the public right-of-way; and
C. The Planning Department shall develop
procedures for processing applications for
said signs.
JPH/mp:a: zca922 .cc
cc: Fred Satterstrom
Ke t Planning Commission
Se tember 28, 1992
remem er a conditional use permit application that h s been denied,
so th t burden is fairly difficult to demonstra The lawyers
would obably say that conditional uses are pri ipally permitted
uses th t require a public hearing before they re permitted.
The moti n FAILED with Commissioners Hayl , Morrill and Ward
voting i favor and Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Heineman and
Martinez ting against.
Commissione Ward asked what examples f mixed usage we have in
Kent presen ly. Mr. Satterstrom s id there is one example
presently and r construction on East 11 at Kent Kangley and 109th
which addresse the case in point. here are 14 efficiency units
on the top flo s and several tho and square feet of commercial
space on the bot om. He also poi ed out that there are some sites
in the CC and O z nes that are n t real well suited for commercial
and lend themselve more to a m' ed use development. The visioning
process the City nt thro h seemed to indicate that people
perceive the benefit of mi d use and are more likely to accept
multiple family when i a m' ed use scenario. He admitted that the
proposed zoning would e e more restrictions.
Commissioner Heineman M that the CC, GWC and O zones be amended
to allow multifamily r ide tial use as a conditional use only when
included within a xed u e development. Commissioner Grant
SECONDED the motion
Commissioner Hayl r spoke agains the motion. He felt that mixed
use with multif ily is very difficult and would just about kill
multifamily in hat area.
The motion C RRIED with Commissioners ahle, Grant, Heineman and
Martinez vo ing in favor and Commissioner Haylor, Morrill and Ward
voting ag nst.
Commiss ' ner Heineman MOVED that the followin definition of "mixed
use de elopment" be added to the Kent Zoning ode Section 15. 02 :
"Mixe use development shall mean two or more ermitted uses or
conditional uses developed in conjunction with one nother on the
sa site" . Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion
CARRIED.
SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS - ZCA-92-2
Fred Satterstrom outlined the proposed amendment which stems from
an actual regulatory review application by Mr. Don Rust of the
Bagman Cafe, who together with Mr. Russ Stringham, the owner of the
Hungry Bear restaurant, is requesting that the sign code be
5
Kent Planning Commission
September 28 , 1992
modified to permit two sandwich board type signs per retail type
use in the M-1 zone. There are only three types of retail uses
that are permitted in the M-1 zone and those are restaurants, tire
and battery stores, and vending machine operators. A quick review
of the current business licenses indicates that in the M-1 zone
there are approximately five restaurants. Restaurants in the M-1
zone are required to go by the industrial signage regulations
rather than the more liberal regulations of commercial zones.
About a year ago, there was a street use ordinance adopted that
allows two sandwich board signs per business to be located in the
public right-of-way. The applicants are saying it does not make a
lot of sense to allow these on a public right-of-way and not allow
them on private property. The idea is that the two sandwich board
signs for the restaurants would be in lieu of the signs permitted
under the street use ordinance.
The staff recommends that the Planning commission add a definition
of what a "portable A-frame sandwich board sign" is and amend the
sign regulations to allow the retail uses in the M-1 zone to
utilize up to two sandwich board signs to identify themselves .
These signs would have to be placed on the premises and would be in
lieu of the portable signs permitted by Ordinance 2998 . Also, the
Planning Department would develop procedures for processing
applications for the signs.
Don Rust, 12719 SE 256th, Kent, is the owner of the Bagman Cafe.
He supports the Planning Department' s proposal . He views the
restaurants in the M-1 zone as support services for the businesses
which are coming into that area. But without the advertising to
show these folks where they are, they have the potential for
failure.
He also feels it provides a little more safety to place the signs
close to his business rather than on the sidewalk.
Russ Stringham, 524 W. Meeker, Kent, is the owner of the Hungry
Bear. He could purchase a permit under the street occupation
ordinance for the nominal fee of $10 per year. In his case, this
is fine because he has extremely wide sidewalks so the sandwich
boards would not create any access problems . The other restaurants
have much narrower sidewalks, so it would make more sense for them
to be able to use their private property.
One of the things that sandwich boards do for the little street
corner merchant is help to level the playing field. The McDonalds,
Wendys and Burger Kings of the world can spend thousands of dollars
on 40 foot neon signs, but the small merchants can ' t afford it. He
6
Kent Planning Commission
September 28 , 1992
can demonstrate that his sandwich boards do generate business and
increase his sales.
In the M-1 zone, restaurants provide a service and encourage
businesses to move in. They reduce traffic by providing a local
place for people to eat. The sandwich board signs benefit the
consumers by helping them find an establishment. They also help
generate revenue for the City because some of the restaurants get
catering jobs as a result of their sandwich board signs.
Jerry James, 24228 104th Avenue SE, Kent, offered his support for
the proposal.
Commissioner Morrill MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve the following amendments to
the sign code regulations in the Kent Zoning Code:
1. Add a definition of "portable A-frame sandwich board sign"
which reads: "A portable A-frame or similarly designed sign
which is no greater than 36" wide x 42" tall" .
2 . Amend the sign regulations to allow retail uses in the M-1
zone to utilize up to two (2) sandwich board signs to identify
themselves. These signs would be subject to the following
limitations :
a. Said signs would be required to be placed on the business
premises; and
b. Said signs would be in lieu of portable signs placed on
the public right-of-way; and
C. The Planning Department shall develop procedures for
processing applications for said signs .
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion . Motion CARRIED.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Morrill MOVED to promote Linda Martinez to Chair.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Grant MOVED to elect Edward Heineman as Vice Chair.
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
7
Kent Planning Commission
September 28, 1992
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and
the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
1
JJas P. Har is, Secretary
JPH/ljh: 92892 .min
8
����� Kent City Council Meeting
,) �. � Date November 17, 1992
Category Other Business
11
1. SUBJECT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
JZCA-92-3
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This meeting will consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation to amend the Recreational Vehicle
Park Code and the Kent Zoning Code to allow recreational
vehicle parks as conditional uses in the CG (General
Commercial) zone. The Planning Commission approved this
amendment at their October 26, 1992 public hearing.
i
i
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, memo from Robert Kapela d ted September 10,
1992, Planning Commission minutes of 10-2 -92
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission /
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMP CT: NO X YES
FISCALJPERSONNEL NOTE: RecDmm ded Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOIIIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS: /
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: /
Councilmember (�,titi moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the Recreational Vehicle Park Code and the
Kent Zoning Code to allow recreational vehicle parks as
conditional uses in the GC (General Commercial) zone, and to
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION• C,"
Council Agenda
Item No. 4G 4
CITY OF LMU!2 LS
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 17 , 1992
TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RE: PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (#ZCA-92-3) - RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE PARKS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONE
Following its public hearing on October 26, 1992 , the Planning
Commission voted to recommend that the Recreational Vehicle Park
Code and Zoning Code be amended to allow recreational vehicle parks
as a conditional use in the GC (General Commercial) zone. This
proposal originated from a regulatory review request filed by Betty
Lou Kapela in 1990.
Specifically, the Planning Commission recommends the following
amendments to City codes:
1. Amend the Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 140 (D) by adding
recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the GC
zoning district; and
2 . Amend the Recreational Vehicle Park Code by adding the GC
(General Commercial) zone to the list of districts where
recreational vehicle parks may be located by conditional
use permit.
JPH/mp:a: zca923 .cc
cc: Fred Satterstrom
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 26, 1992
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7 : 00 P.M. on October 26, 1992 in the Kent City
Hall, City Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Edward Heineman, Jr. , Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Albert Haylor
Kent Morrill
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Christopher Grant
Greg Greenstreet
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Leslie J. Herbst, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the September 28, 1992
minutes as presented. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion.
Motion CARRIED.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS IN GC ZONE - ZCA-92-3
Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department said the proposed code
amendment stems from a regulatory review action that was before the
Planning Commission in 1990 wherein Betty Lou Kapela requested that
recreational vehicle parks be allowed as a conditional use in the
General Commercial zone. When someone comes to the City and finds
that the Zoning Code does not permit the kind of action they are
proposing, they can request that the Code be changed. When
Ms. Kapela requested this change a couple years ago, the Planning
Commission decided not to go forward with it because Planning staff
said they would be proposing some amendments to the Recreational
Vehicle Park Code. Nothing has been done to the Recreational
Vehicle Park Code and it is not in the work program for 1993 , so
the matter is being brought back to the Planning Commission.
Planning staff and the Planning Commission were positive in terms
of the proposed code amendment two years ago and staff felt it
should not be delayed further.
Kent Planning Commission
October 26, 1992
The current regulations only allow RV parks to be established in
multiple family districts. The applicants own some property
between I-5 and Highway 99 which they feel would be .appropriate for
an RV park. Staff agrees that for the most part RV parks would be
an appropriate use in the GC zone, particularly if there is a
hearing process established such as would be the case with a
Conditional Use Permit. It would require a public hearing before
the Hearing Examiner where the impacts to neighboring properties,
traffic issues and so forth could be addressed.
Commissioner Haylor asked if they were talking about RV parks
similar to the KOA on 208th. Mr. Satterstrom said we are talking
about recreational vehicle parks for short term stays, not mobile
home parks where people live permanently.
Commissioner Dahle expressed concern about the safety issue and
wondered if fencing would be required between the park and the
highway. Mr. Satterstrom thought that would undoubtedly be a
concern which would be addressed at the public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner. Also, that would be a typical Code requirement
when the property in question abuts neighboring properties.
The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to
the Council that Section 15. 04 . 140 (D) be modified to add
recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the GC zone.
Robert Kapela, 5650B 132nd NE, Bellevue, said his mother initiated
this action mainly because their property is directly south of the
Midway landfill. The landfill is in the process of being cleaned
up, but has made it tough to find uses for their property. Their
neighbors are commercial; they don't have any multifamily
neighbors. Regarding the safety issue, the entrance to the
property will be from 240th which is a dead end road and there is
a state fence which runs the length of the property which abuts
I-5 . Also they feel this use would be appropriate because it is
similar to a motel/hotel situation which is allowed in a GC zone.
Commissioner Haylor asked how many spaces they would have on their
14 acres. Mr. Kapela said they planned on having 50 spaces in the
beginning with another part of the land set aside for RV and boat
storage. The majority of the land would remain raw land for the
interim period simply because it's too expensive to develop a 14
acre RV site. It would probably be developed in phases.
Mr. Satterstrom produced a copy of the Recreational Vehicle Park
Code to answer some of the questions asked earlier. There is a
section dealing with park operation which addresses the licenses,
registration of occupants, inspections and occupancy limit. There
2
Kent Planning Commission
October 26, 1992
is also a section that requires that all RV parks shall be
surrounded by a five foot high, 50 to look view obscuring wall,
fence or planting strip.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Ward MOVED to modify Section 15. 04. 140 (D) to permit.
recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the GC zone.
Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED.
CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1
Mr. S terstrom reported hat the wetlands ordinance that the
Plannin Commission reco nded went to City Council on October 6.
At that ime, the Counc' was also presented with an alternative
from the hamber of C mmerce. The City Council remanded the
proposed we lands ordi nce back to the Planning Commission because
the Commissi n had no had a chance to review the document from the
Chamber. Co cil as ed that the Planning Commission go through
this review as qui ly as possible and send it back to Council
within 90 days. B ause of the upcoming holidays, there is not a
lot of time to de with this as a Planning Commission. One of the
ways of helping t Commission work through this ordinance would be
to form a citize s a visory task force or committee, comprised of
people represen ng a umber of diverse perspectives on this, who
know something out th Chamber' s recommendation and the Planning
Commission' s r commendati n. This group could work its way through
and, to the b st of its a ' lity, try to come up with a consensus
document tha would be advi ry to the Planning Commission.
Chair Marti ez pointed out that the City Council had asked that if
anyone els had a plan, that it e submitted. She asked if any
more had b en received. Mr. Satte trom said that at this point,
there are my the two alternatives.
Chair Mar inez said that she ould like to have
Commissi ner Heineman chair the committee hich would be composed
of a sm 11 group of people who would at mpt to hammer out a
comprom' se. She felt that since there is ch a little bit of
time, i would be better to do it in a small ommittee and then
bring t back to the Commission. She asked th opinion of the
other ommissioners.
Commis ioner Dahle said that each time the Commission has assed an
ordin ce and sent it to Council after working on it for ear,
some her organization decides they have a better idea. She asked
what ind of time limits should be put on people and if any more
3
V V Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 17 , 1992
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: KENT SENIOR HOUSINGG WATER MAIN EXTENSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT:
''n�rror�cs
-eo mitt,es-1 acceptance of the bill of sale and warranty
agreement submitted by Bellewood Corporation for continuous
operation and maintenance of approximately 513 feet of water
l main extension in the vicinity of 615 West Harrison Street and
,Y release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period
,191 � .
o
� nu, V
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Director of Public Works and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Telephone polling of Public Works Committee
(3-0 vote)
(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 W ,V moves, Councilmember /LV seconds
-fo acceptarme .of the Bill of Sale for Kent Senior Housing for 513
feet of water main extension.
DISCUSSION• VkA)
ACTION•
V "h C/1
Council Agenda
Item No. 4H J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 13, 1992
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUJL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: KENT SENIOR HOUSING WATER MAIN EXTENSION
Bellewood Corporation, developer on this project, anticipates
closing on the 17th and in order to do so, the Bill of Sale for
their watermain extension has to be accepted first. Bellewood was
unaware of the normal procedure of going first to the Public Works
Committee before full Council would act on it. To assist
Bellewood, the Public Works Department got verbal concurrence from .
the Committee members to accept the Bill of Sale and place same on
the Council agenda.
Therefore, it is our recommendations that Council accept operation
and maintenance of the watermain described in the Bill of Sale and
for the Public Works Department to release the cash when it so
determines it' s appropriateness.
NIL:'Nnr RO
Y — -- Y
LNG 3siN AVE 73 TN AV 5
3 i P 3
~ o - TH - --"•• ~ t k
1 _ NI 1 TART R
a N N O
zz
u, 9 w. n �, �nsr RIc s ' ti a r
p 42N0 AVE s I-. ()' l � Z
ZIS
O E S
a
i 43fl0 AVE s
.. w E
N fl T IN
Ou JS3Hl 43u _
� S 43TM PL 3 p
Y ,,lmN2j Ml 177
SYTH RYE 8
� m
r
PL 3
ER
r•�� IN f1 ' -.-.0
x � VTH RV
- 8 iH RYE 3 m - -
- -aC.
m
� N YRLLET1,'
a
0 181 88TH RVE 9 aO n
O
x
R0 AVE O I /1
' 7VT� LINCOLN
N 8T AVE
3 STM AV a' a
4 O H
t pa L ti. N siH RvE .J/
TH
3 3R0 RYE _ • N
N 3fl0 AVE o
�a9 .N 2NO AVE y
N 2N0 AVE
4 13T RVE ❑E N IST RVE
_ AO AVE
CENTRAL AVE
- ❑ 3TR TE �a Z s`
m n
-' 'RENNEBECN AVE-
o f q CLARN AVE
lR3ON RVE
PROSPECT AVE 'l
V z
y�
v
KENT SENIOR HOUSING
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
J B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
J D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
!lk
1
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
4G. BUDGET COMMITTEE
5 3() w
H. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Li�C Z 1 �/lSk }1 CJ71�
L cd oc-µ "c
�5 �'T ��
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE Mliiu i r-.-j
OCTOBER 1 % 19929 4:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Jon Johnson - Chair, Jim White, Norm Angelo, Jeff Bond, Vern Dwight, Bill
Doolittle,Andy Gomes,Roger Lubovich,Tony McCarthy, Don McDaniel,Alana
Mclalwain, May Miller, Dee Moschel, Raul Ramos, Fred Satterstrom, Paul
Seeley, Tom Vetsch.
Committee Chair Jon Johnson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
September Financial Report
Finance Director McCarthy reviewed the September Financial Report with the Committee.
After reviewing the Cash and Investment Schedule, McCarthy noted a more detailed report
Is available in Finance If the Committeemembers wish to review It. During a discussion of
the remaining funds in the Library project, White asked why the additional parking was
never purchased. White noted that he recalled that part of the Council motion was to
purchase the pawn shop property and asked for an explanation of why it was not done after
the Council approved it. McCarthy stated that he would look into it and bring his findings
to the next meeting and explained the remaining exhibits.
1993 Budget Review
McCarthy distributed a one-page summary of the 1993 budget highlights. He explained the
four prong approach to financial security:
A. Balancing the Operating Budget
B. Reestablishing the Capital Improvement Fund
C. Enhancing the Contingency Fund
D. Planning for the Future
McCarthy reviewed the Mayor's plan to balance the general fund on page nine of the 1993
Preliminary Comprehensive Budget. He noted the revisions made due to Council input from
the original proposal which includes the increase in the Parks programs revenue. McCarthy
reviewed the 1993 CIP program outlined on page 12. He noted that there will be public
hearings on November 3rd and November 17th. McCarthy pointed out that the Council had
mandated that the contingency fund be increased by 1% which would be approximately
$330,000 while the preliminary budget would increase the contingency by $723,158.
Page 14 of the preliminary budget outlines the City staffing. McCarthy noted that there are
20 positions vacant currently and there have been two additional vacancies since the
printing,. McCarthy said that these vacancies will be kept open until after the impact of
negotiations is determined. The Executive Committee has been reviewing vacancies. In an
attempt to right-size instead of down-size, options are being looked at such as in-house
recruiting and cross-training. After reviewing the budget downsizing plan which was
implemented in January of 1991, McCarthy explained that to reach the targeted goals,
excluding critical services, 17.9 vacancies are needed.
Additional 1993 Funding for Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP)
Kent Downtown Partnership President Don McDaniel referred to the funding proposal letter
from himself to Tony McCarthy of October 23, 1992 which included the Kent Downtown
Partnership's goals and proposals. McDaniel noted that the funding requested would fund
1
CITY COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1992, Cont.
the KDP from October to December of 1993. The KDP would report back in mid-1993 at
which time they would make any funding request for 1994 so their progress can be
evaluated as to whether it is a good investment for the City.
Budget Discussion Continued
Committee Chair Johnson referred back to the previous agenda Rem and asked if there was
a projected forecast for the general fund for 1994 and 1995 based on the present numbers.
He noted his concern that R seems the proposed budget continues to spend more than is
received in revenue. McCarthy related the fact that the City has a history of over collecting
revenue and under spending expenses due to normal hiring trends. The 1992 budget
forecast that the City would end the year with $500,000 and the actual trend indicates the
ending balance will be approximately$2.3 million. McCarthy stated that he will bring a four
year forecast to the next Budget Committee Meeting.
White voiced his concern over the vacancies still being included in the budget. A discussion
followed of the vacancies taken out and those left in. White asked what would happen if
the union settlement was over the 1.8% increase forecast. McCarthy replied that if they are
not settled at 1.8% the current 20 frozen positions would offset additional costs. A
discussion followed regarding the CIP projects proposed. McCarthy noted that two public
hearings are scheduled in conjunction with the general budget. Johnson recommended
deferring action on the CIP until after the public hearings.
A discussion followed of outstanding items to be discussed at future meeting dates.
Committee Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
2
BRENDA JACOBER
(please put in
CITY OF "L22 Council agenda packet)
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
97ECtp- NOVEMBER 3 , 1992 4 : 00 PM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF
Leona Orr, Chair Norm Angelo
Jon Johnson Mary Berg
Laurie Evezich
Bob Hutchinson
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Alana McIalwain
Tony McCarthy
Jim Bennett - Larry Webb
Don Wickstrom
PLANNING STAFF
GUESTS
Lin Ball
Sharon Clamp Steve Burpie
James Harris Don McDaniel
Rachel Johnston Paul Morford
Margaret Porter Raul Ramos
Fred Satterstrom
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F. SATTERSTROM)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom informed the Committee that at
their October 26 meeting, the Planning Commission formed a
subcommittee to work on the wetlands ordinance. The subcommittee
is chaired by Ed Heineman, and committee members include Ted Knapp,
Paul Crane, Joe Miles, and Sharon Rodman. They will meet weekly
and had their first meeting on Friday, October 30. The Planning
Commission instructed the subcommittee to submit a recommendation
to be reviewed at the December 14 workshop. A public hearing on
the recommendations will probably be held in January 1993 .
The City of Kent submitted its nomination for an urban center and
manufacturing center one month ago to the Growth Management
Planning Council. The GMPC also received nominations from Bellevue
Federal Way, Renton, Sea Tac, Tukwila, Seattle, Redmond and
Issaquah. On or before December 1, 1992 the GMPC will convene to
consider the nominations and select 7-11 centers. An urban center
designation is important because the cities chosen will receive
regional dollars for transportation improvements to include rapid
transit dollars. If selected as an urban center Kent will propose
a streamlined permit process within the urban center and will
consider an area-wide environmental impact statement which would
subsequently streamline the SEPA process for subsequent development
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 31 1992
PAGE 2
permits. If selected, Kent will have other incentives to consider
to promote development inside the urban center.
HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. BALL)
Lin Ball, Manager of the Office of Housing and Human Services,
reported that the Roundtable has decided to put the housing
information and referral project on hold due to limited available
resources. This project addresses individuals at risk of being
homeless with the goal of keeping them from becoming homeless and
looking at how to improve the service. The Roundtable's main
priority is child abuse, and they decided that there are not enough
resources countywide to fund another regional system at this time.
Ms. Ball also distributed a report, Roundtable-Sponsored Regional
Systems, Are they Cost Effective? , which shows what the Roundtable
has been able to do as a group to address issues on a regional
basis that cannot be accomplished at individual local levels. The
report focuses on three areas. The first is the domestic violence
regional systems. The DAWN confidential shelter opened August 1992
and to date has provided 736 bed nights and 2, 300 meals to women
and children. Training money has been received for domestic
violence training of emergency room nurses, police officers and
others in the legal field. Six of the 28 families DAWN has housed
in the confidential shelter are now in permanent housing. The
report also talks about the child care resource and referral
networks located in Seattle, the east side and in Kent. These
networks provide parents better access to child care and training
for childcare providers. The third item the report addresses is
legislative advocacy.
Planner Rachel Johnston distributed a report comprised of
information taken from the first and second quarterly reports of
the Domestic Violence (DV) Client Information System. Proposition
2 funds pay for the cost of this data collection system and pays
for Kent's community advocate. The reports are based on
information provided by 47 City of Kent and 1, 034 county victims
who received face-to-face services from 12 DV programs which
participate in the King County DV client information system. The
Kent clients received services through six DV programs. In order
to show a comparison between the Kent and the County DV client
statistics, twelve categories were looked at. There are a greater
percentage of Kent victims that are low income and a greater
percentage of Kent victims who have a physical disability. There
is a higher percentage of emotional issues among the abuser of Kent
victims. Children in Kent households were abused or neglected on
a greater level than the children in King County households. Kent
had a higher percentage of children in trouble with the justice
system, who had emotional issues, and children who were physically
abused in general. The Kent client received a smaller number of
police referrals for DV assistance but received a higher percentage
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 3 , 1992
PAGE 3
of referral support from social service agencies. The report
concludes that the Kent DV victim overall is more disadvantaged
than the King County counterpart. Lin Ball also noted that the
data shows that the greatest percentage of victims countywide are
from South County.
PERMIT PROCESS REPORT
Chair Orr announced that no action will be taken on this item today
due to the fact that another meeting between the Chamber of
Commerce and department heads is planned.
Fire Chief Norm Angelo presented organization charts of the fire
department and code enforcement division to show the relationship
between the permit process and the department's overall
responsibilities. He then reviewed the department heads proposal
in detail. Chief Angelo also presented the Committee with a memo
addressing key items which are needed to fully implement the
department heads proposal. He stressed that there is currently an
inspection backlog and plan checkers are getting burned out on the
overtime they are working to help cover unfilled building inspector
positions.
Steve Burpie commented that the contact he has had with people
regarding permits has not only been developers, but also developers
representing existing business which represent jobs and provide tax
money. The permit process not only serves safety issues but also
serves the private sector in the business community.
Don McDaniel commented that in an organizational design change a
series of events take place. He feels we need to take the less
intrusive way and move the culture along as far as we can. If
that doesn't work we need to become more aggressive and make more
intensive changes. In order for an organizational change to work
he feels there should not only be accountability but also ownership
for the cause at the lowest possible level of the organization. If
you don't have this ownership, over a period of time, there will
- always be a problem with the end result. Accountability must be
internal in nature. He feels there is external accountability in
terms of feedback, and it is important for customers to be
involved. He feels one of the most important ingredients is
sponsorship. Once a plan has been developed, the Council and
Administration need to get behind it and support not only the plan
but also the necessary resources that must be targeted to make sure
that the individuals addressed are ultimately accountable for
performance standards. If there are additional demands or changes
there must be a commitment to retarget resources to the high
priorities. If you are not satisfied with the results after a six
month period, make a commitment to relook at options recognizing
the ultimate goal.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 3 , 1992
PAGE 4
Raul Ramos stated that expediting permits is only one of the
criteria and what the mayor's advisory committee is also trying to
achieve is improved public services. Getting permits out on time
is a positive result of a well organized permit process system, one
that is very structured and focused and not scattered among other
functions as was clearly shown by the fact that the permit
specialists are also performing other interrelated functions. He
feels that an organization set up this way tends to lose focus of
the major function of the organization. The mayor's advisory
committee report is very structured and very specific about what it
wants to achieve, and one of the things it tries not to do is
underrate or undervalue the importance of public safety. He
pointed out that the mayor' s response to the advisory committee's
report, a very specific resolution, sets forth criteria and
measures of performance which would establish, if approved by the
Council, the Council Is interest in processing permits and achieving
a level of preferred public service. Mr. Ramos feels we have not
even begun to measure what an acceptable level of public service is
in this community regarding permits. Right now Mr. Ramos does not
feel comfortable that we will achieve that objective. Any proposal
that the Council adopts must try to achieve a mythical objective of
what is an acceptable level of service regarding issuance of
building permits and other related permit applications. Mr. Ramos
stated this issue has been discussed for the past ten years, and he
asked the Committee to make progress in the area of determining
what an acceptable level of public service is in this area and make
some hard decisions about structures, organizations, management
styles and management direction.
Mr. Ramos supports giving the department heads the opportunity to
see if they can make some real progress which would be interpreted
by an outside evaluation committee reporting to the Council. He
feels the department heads proposal need more specific objectives
other than just reducing the time to review permits, such as the
quality and promptness of inspections. He wants to see a range of
criteria on how well the process can be improved over a six month
period. He wants the Council to link the progress of the six month
experiment, and if it is determined that there has not been an
acceptable level of progress made, he would like to see the Council
make a commitment to implement the advisory committee's report.
Chief Angelo stated he did not want to give the impression that the
permit specialists are performing many other duties. He has shut
down fire prevention duties and responsibilities to ensure a full
commitment to the permit process. It was only during periods when
time was available that other tasks were performed in order to
fully utilize the permit specialist's time. Chief Angelo believes
that the department heads report is more specific in many areas
than the mayor's advisory committee' s report. If the Council
chooses to proceed with the other report, Chief Angelo requested
the opportunity to present additional information about his
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 3, 1992
PAGE 5
concerns of that report. He stressed that no process is going to
be perfect and will require some modifications and upgrades.
Chair Orr thanked Chief Angelo for his presentation and commented
that we are headed in the right direction. She stated that it is
her hope that Administration will take a good look at the personnel
needed in all the plans and start looking at getting those
positions filled. She agrees with Chief Angelo that once a plan ,is
ready to be implemented, a certain number of people are needed or
else numbers must be revised. She asked that the meetings between
department heads and the Chamber resume and the results of those
meetings be brought back to the Committee at the earliest date.
Tony McCarthy responded that one of the ways to help the budget
crisis is to keep vacant positions frozen. He agrees that we need
to fill critical positions but, after recent budget committee
meetings, is hesitant and slow to want to jump in and fill a lot of
positions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
PC1103 . 92
CITY OF KENT
PUBLIC WORKS COMMTITEE
NOVEMBER 49 1992
PRESENT: Jim White Tony McCarthy
Jim Bennett Tim LaPorte
Paul Mann John Bond
Don Wickstrom Laurie Evezich
Gary Gill Mr. & Mrs. Walter Susanj
Ed White Mr. & Mrs. Rust
Kevin Lindell Andy Gomes
Paul Scott Charlie Kiefer
Tim Heydon
Request for Pedestrian Crossing
Wickstrom noted that this item had been carried over from the
previous Public Works meeting. Andy Gomes, Manager of Farrington
court, - addressed concerns regarding the safety of the Farrington
Court residents crossing Titus St. at Reiten Rd. Ed referred to a
report prepared by staff which summarizes the actions that staff
has taken in the last two weeks to take traffic counts and perform
visual surveys. Ed stated although there isn't an accident history
there, this is a heavily travelled roadway of approximately 21, 000
vehicles per day, with an average speed of 30 - 39 MPH. Ed stated
that it is staff's recommendation that the residents of Farrington
Court use the signal, which is approximately 300-400 feet north at
Canyon Drive. However, Mr. Gomes commented that he feels an extra
300-400 foot walk for a person 80+ years in age is quite a bit.
Jim White commented on the difficulty of turning left or right from
Reiten Rd. , however he stated is not willing to go for a traffic
signal at this time. Jim White and Jim Bennett felt that to ask
senior citizens to go from Farrington Court to the signal at Canyon
Dr. , is unrealistic. Paul Mann stated that the cost of a $56, 000
traffic signal is worth the expense. He further stated that the
activated signal would reinforce the legality of an individual
crossing the street. He feels we need to slow down traffic in
Kent. A brief discussion followed regarding the time-frame for
installing a traffic signal. Don stated that there are 60 projects
staff is managing totalling $80 Million Dollars and that stretches
everyone pretty thin.
At this point, Jim White suggested that the Committee meet at
Reiten & Titus with the Traffic Engineers and Mr. Gomes to review
the situation first-hand before taking final action and to bring
this issue back to the next Committee meeting.
1
94th & James Street Safety Problem (Mr. & Mrs Walter Susan
Mr. Susanj presented the Committee with photographs of previous
vehicular accidents wherein their property was damaged. Mr. Susanj
expressed concern for the school children walking in the area as
well as concerns for his property.
Ed White had talked to Mr. Susanj and explained to him about the
James St. Safety Project. Ed explained that staff will be talking
with the neighbors in that area hopefully in the next few months.
Staff is in the process of setting up two meetings - one with the
Church which addresses the access issues off of •James, Alvord and
Hazel Streets. Another meeting will be set with the neighbors to
outline whatever concerns they have regarding James Street. The
Church meeting then would be a "kick off" for the neighbors to set
a forum for their meeting on other concerns. Ed explained there
are several issues relating to the safety of James Street.
Ed stated that the best resolution at this point would be if Mr &
Mrs. Susanj could work with staff along with the other residents,
in identifying their concerns. Staff will work as diligently as
possible in trying to resolve these problems.
Jim White requested Ed to specifically take a look at the 94th &
James intersection (Mr. Susanj 's property) and bring back
suggestions for solutions at the next Committee meeting. There was
discussion regarding installation of a guardrail - Ed explained the
pros and cons on this. There will be further discussion at the
next Committee meeting.
Equipment Rental
Tony McCarthy opened discussion referring to the Draft Policy on
the use of City Vehicles. Regarding that portion of the Policy on
vehicles going home, Tim Heydon had prepared a list showing all of
the City vehicles by description, use, and primary drivers, taken
home and the reasons why taken home and that those vehicles are
strictly light trucks and cars. Tony stated that this list will be
inserted in the budget documents on an annual basis.
Tony noted he had informed the Park Director that his vehicle is
one that cannot go home. Tony referenced the motorcycles listed
and stated there had been a meeting with the Chief of Police and
Personnel and it has been decided that those vehicles can go home.
Per Tony, the theory is that the motorcycles are considered
personal equipment. The motorcycles are assigned to individual
officers - they are not traded off where several people would drive
the same motorcycle. For safety reasons and certain amount of
call-back, those vehicles are going home.
Tim explained there are fire, police and signal people taking
vehicles home. The departments that have made changes as a result
2
of the new policy, are the Fire Dept. , reducing almost half and
Public Works, reducing half the number of cars going home, with
trade offs. Tim stated that back up will be less in those two
departments on emergency situations, however there is a cost factor
to consider.
The "action" portion of this issue is on the list of surplus
vehicles. Tony explained that in 193 budget shows a replacement of
8 pieces of equipment, and Tim has actually deferred from 193 to
194 another list of equipment. He stated that this is part of the
program to reduce the budget charges thru all the departments by
20% and by deferring these vehicles allowing another-year of life
out of the vehicles. Tony explained there is a fund with
approximately $2 Million which pays for these vehicles. Tim stated
however, that in 194 they will need to be replaced. Tony stated
that there were some vehicles that had been put on "hold" at the
shops and those vehicles will be put back in service.
Tim explained that the City has a fleet of approximately 205
assigned vehicles and 58 vehicles in a pool. of that total, 20
vehicles/equipment were to be cut. of these, there are
approximately 124 cars and trucks assigned; approximately 94 of
those are in the General Fund and 70% of those 94 are Police and
Fire.
Included in Tim's presentation he briefly discussed the problems
with the Toro lawnmowers. Jim White stated that before more mowers
are purchased, the entire golf course issue needs to be addressed.
Discussion followed regarding the sander as a piece of equipment to
be surplused. Paul Mann stated he felt the sander should not be
included and in light of that, 19 pieces of equipment should be
surplused rather than 20 .
At this time, Jim Bennett stated that he does not see this
equipment rental issue as a short term thing and to get accustomed
to doing more with less.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize Equipment Rental to
surplus the vehicles which have been replaced and are no longer
needed by the City.
LID 336 - East Valley Highway
Wickstrom stated that this is a matter of accepting the contract as
complete. Gary Merlino was contractor on the reconstruction of
East Valley Highway. Committee unanimously agreed to accept LID
336 East Valley Highway improvements as complete.
3
Metro Sewer Rate Increase
Wickstrom explained that Metro has a rate increase due to the
Federal Water Quality requirements having to do with secondary
treatments on all of Metro's facilities. In conjunction with this,
last year the City authorized signing a contract which changed the
equivalent unit, which is the basis for their rate. Originally
Metro had based their rate on a 900 cu.ft. /month charge. Wickstrom
stated that subsequent studies have been made and now, apparently
thru conservation, the sewage generation has dropped to 750 cu. ft.
As such, the contracts have all been amended to reflect that
change. The study also shows that over the years,: the single
family residences have been subsidizing the industrial/commercial
complex. The result is that because our single families are on a
fixed monthly charge, and our industrial/commercial accounts are on
a cubic foot charge, with this change in the rate base, the costs
to the commercial accounts will raise while that to the residential
accounts will go down. This rate change represents an approximate
15% - 18% increase to our commercial accounts and a 3% reduction to
our single family accounts. However, it is equitable.
Wickstrom further stated that after looking at our portion of the
rate, it was adjusted because with an increase in the total number
of service units (rate base) , collecting at same old rate would
result in increased revenue. As such, to keep it revenue neutral,
it needs to adjust. Wickstrom explained that we need to pay the
Metro bill beginning January 1st; we need about an $800, 000
increase over 193 . As such, we had to pass it on thru in a fair an
equitable manner, the same as we would normally do. This year we
had to incorporate the rate base change, which resulted in the
industries picking up the burden.
Jim Bennett stated that the customers who will be affected by this
increase, should be notified.
Committee unanimously approved the rate increase and forward to
City Council for their endorsement and approval.
Kinct County Solid Waste Management Update
Wickstrom explained that the County has updated our Solid Waste
Plan and that King County wishes to make a presentation to the
Committee. Wickstrom noted that the basic change is our being
mandated to do different types of recycling. Wickstrom stated that
we need to respond back to King County by November 30th.
Committee agreed to have a 20 minute presentation made by King
County at the next Committee meeting. Wickstrom will coordinate.
4
LID 333 - LID 338 - LID 339
Wickstrom explained these LID's are construction complete and we
would like to finalize these projects. Tentative dates have been
scheduled to set these items for public hearings.
Committee unanimously agreed to set public hearing dates on LIDS
333 , 338, and 339 .
Property Acquisition
Wickstrom explained that the City has been negotiating with Mrs.
Ramstead, one of the major property owners on the 277th Corridor.
Wickstrom stated that we have an earnest money agreement for
$700, 000. This is in accordance with the appraisal. The property
in question is approximately 96 acres. Wickstrom stated that Mrs.
Ramstead has a logging permit and the City's concern is, once Mrs.
Ramstead clear cuts her property, King County can, under State law,
and will issue a moratorium on the entire site for 6 years; which
would eliminate any building permits or additions of any kind
including us. Wickstrom explained that this is far beyond what we
would want and that is what initiated this negotiation with her.
Wickstrom further explained that a school is going in adjacent to
the property which will bring in sewer and water to the property.'
This could very well increase the price and could make the property
more potentially developable.
Jim Bennett raised the question regarding what phase we are in
regarding the 277th Corridor. He noted that approximately $500, 000
was authorized to do study, survey, etc. Bennett asked how this
acquisition would impact that.
Wickstrom explained that we may become "landlords" on this property
but when the school is built in 194 the property could probably be
sold for a profit. He further stated that this is also the reason
why negotiations are under way with another property owner, Mrs.
Johnson, at the bottom of the hill. Mrs. Johnson is very willing
to sell and an appraisal will be in to the City on November 6th.
Wickstrom explained that there is money in the project fund; $2
Million in outstanding bonds on this project; $800, 000 in cash that
was set aside some time ago for and $500, 000 development fees that
have been prepaid by various developments.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize acquisition of the
Ramstead property.
Proposed LID Smith Street Sidewalk
Wickstrom explained that this was brought forward from the last
Committee meeting because of a 1-1 split vote.
5
Wickstrom stated that we did not receive much response in favor of
the LID, although we have adequate LID commitments to proceed with
the project.
Wickstrom also stated that the City could possibly contribute some
funds to the project. There is some sidewalk funding available.
Committee unanimously agreed to authorize staff to proceed with the
Smith Street Sidewalk LID with a suggestion of "sweetening the
pot" , on this sidewalk project, per staff recommendation.
1993 Engineering Division Work Program
Wickstrom suggested that the Committee review the program (material
handed out to Committee) and come back with suggestions. Wickstrom
stated that staff is managing 60- projects for a total of $80
Million. He asked that the Committee come back with suggestions
since we are requesting additional staff to be financed thru the
Street Utility and Drainage Utility.
Wickstrom explained that one unknown factor is that we have
submitted for a number of grants that are not shown in the program.
He stated that UAB has $40 Million of funds available for street
projects also noting that there is Federal money presently
available and another $20 Million in the three County region to be
distributed for road type projects.
Committee will review the material and discuss at the next Public
Works meeting.
At this time, Jim White did make note of the fact that staff is
doing a great job. He expressed his appreciation to Ed White for
everything done and the expediency with how things are addressed.
Sewer Connection Ordinance
Wickstrom stated that this item had been referred back to Committee
from Council due to a pending lawsuit and requested that this item
be put back on the Council agenda.
Committee unanimously agreed to place the Sewer Connection
Ordinance back on the Council agenda.
6