The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 10/19/1993 City of Kent Council MeetingCRY s Agenda 0 CITY OF { YI &i Mayor Dan Kelleher ! E y Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr Jon Johnson Jim White o , October 19, 1993 Office of the City Clerk CITY OF ) SUMMARY AGENDA _ KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 19 , 1993 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 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Keck Rezone (RZ-93-1) Appeal - Jack Keck B. Keck Rezone (RZ-93-1) Appeal - Lower East Hill Residents 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Building Code Amendment - Ordinance D. Building Code Fees - Resolution E. Contract Form Review - Resolution ' F. Approval of Reclassifications G. City of Yangzhou, China - Memorandum of Understanding H. Arts Commission Reappointments I . Street Use Permits - Ordinance J. Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements - Accept as Complete K. Central Avenue Improvements - Accept as Complete L. Canyon Ridge Plaza - Bill of Sale M. Peterson Short Plat - Bill of Sale N. Kingsport Industrial/196th Corridor Middle Leg - Ordinance 4 . OTHER BUSINESS A. Keck Rezone (RZ-93-1) B. Metro Sewer Rate Increase - Ordinance 5 . BIDS A. Uniform & Linen Services B. Emergency Generator at Station 74 6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS 7 . REPORTSi, EXECUTIVE SESSION - LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, - AGENCY ENFORCEMENT ACTION, ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY 8 . ADJOURNMENT NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal 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) Proclamation - Red Ribbon Week l� Kent City Council Meeting lC Date October 19 , 1993 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: KECK REZONE (RZ-93-1) APPEAL - JACK KECK 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Jack Keck has filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval, with conditions, of an application to rezone 1. 4 acres from R1-7 . 21 Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. The property is located on the north side of Smith Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Jack and Barbara Keck' s Appeal letter dated August 6, - 1993 , and verbatim minutes from the April 21, 1993 and June 2 , 1993 hearings (see additional information in Other Business Section 4A) 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 4/21193 and 6/2/93 (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: i Councilmember tj: moves, Councilmember � ;=seconds to approve,(deny the appeal by Jack Keck* and if approved, to allow city staff to recommend conditions to go with the approval and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the ne.ces-sary ordinance. DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Procedure on Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation Pursuant to City Resolution No. 896 FROM: ROGER LUBOVICH I. Staff Report. II. Appellant present argument. A. 30 minute limit and may reserve time for rebuttal . B. Appellant ' s argument must be based on the record. IV. Additional Presentation. A. Council- has the option, if it chooses, to request "additional information" from the parties, City staff, or the public. B. Additional information does not have to be confined to the record. V. Conclusions. A. The Council reviews the hearing examiner' s recommendation under the following standards: 1 . Recommendation based on substantial error. 2 . Procedural irregularities that materially affected the prior proceedings . 3 . Decision unsupported by material and substantial evidence. 4 . Decision inconsistent with the City' s comprehensive plan. 5. Insufficient evidence as to the impact on the surrounding area. VI. Decision. A. The Council may take any of the following actions: 1 . Approve and adopt the hearing examiner' s findings and recommendation. 2 . Modify and approve the findings and recommendation. 3 . Reject the hearing examiner' s findings and recommendation and approve/deny the proposal as originally submitted based upon Council findings. 4 . Remand for a further hearing before the hearing examiner. hearexam.doc LAN% 07EICES ERIc A AASERL'D CURRAN, KLEVVENO & JOHNSON TE_EPHONE THERESA M.AHERN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPOP.AT'iV (206) 852-23=7 C PETER CUM,N _ I.tARK W DAMS KENT PROFESSIONAL P--.AZA GSCROw DEPARTMENT JEN\IFcR A.Fu ERS 555 WEST SMITH STREET (7C6) 859-I090 O S=-PH T EN L.JOHNSON ST FFI PO OCE Box 140 FACSIMILE TEPH L. MELVIN L.KLE`vENO.JR. KENT,WASHLNGTON 95035-0P0 (206) 852-2030 JOSS H A.MCKAM.EY Kim AD.A]6 PRATT JANE C.R40DES LARRI"R.ScHR_rrER August 6 , 1993 IJIOs f'fvf„u Q �/! � DAUG - 6 1993 Cityof Kent CITY OF KENT Cit Council Cdry CLERK 220 South 4th Avenue Kent, WA 98032 Re: Keck Rezone No. RZ-93-1 Request for Appeal and Public Hearing Gentlemen: Pursuant to City of Kent Ordinance Section 2 . 32 . 150 , the applicants , Jack and Barbara Keck, respectfully request an appeal from the conditions of the rezone by the 'nearing Examiner, Theodore P. Hunter. The applicants , Jack and Barbara Keck, specifically appeal the imposition of Conditions ( 1) through (5) on the recommendation to grant the rezone . Applicants do not appeal the grant of the rezone but only the conditions 1-5 imposed on the rezone. The reasons for the appeal are that the applicants feel that the conditions are unreasonable at this stage of the proceedings since this is an application for rezone and is not an application to change the current use of the property nor to develop the property other than it currently exists . Taken on a point by point basis , the reason for the applicants ' anneals are as follows : As an initial natter, the square footage of Parcel "C" , the Keck residence, when ta'.:en with the various floors of the hone and the outbuildings , exceeds 3 , 000 square feet already. If an application were made for a remodel of the premises , would this be taken as a development of the property. If so, then some of the improvements currently existing on the property and perhaps the home itself would have to be down-sized to fit the 3 , 000 square foot limitation . This seems patently unreasonable and , as indicated, anv such restriction on the develo-_me: c. of the cronerry after the rezone should be left tc the Planning and Euildina Deoartments , at such time as anv Clans are submitted for a remodel or r2develcDment of the property . Li]cewise, a!-l-:ouc Nre do not represent the Masonic Lodge en Farcel "B" , the same %.ould hold true inasmuch as I am sure their c'_,rre^.- bu_ld1i:C eXceeis 3 , 000 square feet . City of Kent Page 2 Condition 2 provides that with the number of parking spaces for any development on Parcel "C" , the Keck residence , shall not exceed 12 . This condition also is unworkable to the applicants . I assume that it is for the purpose of limiting the number of people who can be on the site at any time. I think this is a totally unreasonable condition applied at this point when the Hearing Examiner has no idea whosoever as to what use anv future owner of the property may desire for the property. It almost amounts to an illegal taking of the development rights of the property without any testimony or without any rationale whatsoever. Condition 3 which limits commercial activity to the properties between the hours- of 8 : 00 a .m. and 6 : 00 p . m. Mondav through Friday apparently applies to all of the properties , including the Masonic Lodge. Again, although we do not represent the Masonic Lodge, this seems like a restri cticn on the current uses of their property which would be unacceptable to them. They currently rent the Lodge to various activities which conduct activity on the property at times other than 6 : 00 a .m. to 6 : 00 p . m. , and again this seems almost to be a taking of the property to limit the property to uses during that period of time. Also, this property is extensively used not only by the owners for their Lodge activities but also by others on Saturdays and Sundays , and these uses have been for an extended period of time. The Kecks have no idea as to the future uses of their property. What if it were used for a church; no Sunday services? Condition 4 relating to the alley way that adjoins Smith and East Temperance and crosses the Pringle property shall not be used to access Parcel "C" , the Keck residence . The objection here again is that this appears to be almost a taking of the right which the Kecks allege they have in existence , inasmuch as the factual testimony, I believe, would show that t'.:is entry wav and easement has been used by the Kecks for a period of at least 30 years during the time that the Kecks have lived on the property. It appears as though the Hearing Examiner is attempting to remove a legal right which the Kecks may have to the utilization of this alley way. In such capacity the 'nearing Examiner is apparently viewing his role as being judicial . I do not think that anything in the enabling legislation for the Hearing Examiner allows the Hearing Examiner to remove property rights from an owner . Certainly , this condition removes what the Kecks view as a valuable property right which is a portion of their property. Condition 5 relating to Special :errkit Uses and Accessory Uses shall not be allc•.;ed unless approved a conditional use again appears to be an =-:,arranted and unre.:: z-able restriction on the property. City of Kent Page 3 It is interesting to note that the Hearing Examiner finds that all of the conditions for a rezone have been met by the applicants and, therefore, is authorizing the rezone. It is also interesting to note that the initial application and the Environmental Review by the City of Kent staff did not raise any concerns which would authorize the imposition of the conditions now put upon the property by the Hearing Examiner. The DNS indicated that two things be accomplished, both of which prior to the finalization of any rezone will be accomplished by the applicants . Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Rezone Application be granted without the imposition of the conditions as set by the Hearing Examiner. " Certainly, after the rezone at any time as any current or subsequent owner of the property applies for a remodel or redevelopment of the property, the City has the ability to place whatever conditions are reasonable when they have in front of them a specific plan for the remodel or redevelopment of the property. Respectfully submitted, CURRAN, KLEWENO & JOHNSON, P.S . 1 Melvin L. Kleweno MLK: jdb cc: Mr. and Mrs . Jack Keck 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. KECK 2`RZ-93-1 April 21, 1993 A proposal to rezone approximately 1 . 4 acres from the current R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. The subject site is located on the north side of Smith Street near its intersection with Jason Avenue . The site size consists of three tax lots totaling approximately 1 . 4 acres. (Second item on the agenda . ) Hunter: We ' ll turn next to the rezone application, the Keck rezone, RZ-93-1. There are some individuals that arrived late after we began the first hearing. Are you all here for the Keck rezone and those of you that plan to testify, can I see. . . I want to do this once again, so I give everyone a chance to testify. Those that are here in support of the rezone, if you would just indicate with your hand. O.k. , and those that are here that are opposed to the rezone. O.k. We have about 12 people that want to testify. What I would like to do given time requirements and what not. If each of you are comfortable with limiting your remarks to about five minutes or less that will give everyone a chance to speak over the next hour. Does that seem agreeable to everyone. O.k. , those of you that arrived late, I have to do this once again. It is required that you testify under oath, so I ' ll ask you to just raise your hand, those that arrive late and do expect to testify. Do each of you, swear, affirm, to tell the truth and the whole truth in the testimony that you give today. If so, please answer I do. Voices : I do. 1 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: O.k. We' re ready to begin with the hearing on the Keck rezone request. I have reviewed the file which included the City Planning Department report, for those of you that came in late, it is available on the front table here. If you have not seen it, feel free to pick up a copy right now. And as your coming forward o do that, I ' ll also note that we have a sign-in book if you want to receive a copy of my recommendation on this rezone, it will be mailed to you directly if you sign in on that red book. While the individuals are doing that, I ' ll note my review of the file, included a review of the staff report, of the environmental checklist, the review by different city agencies, and I also want to note some written comments that were received and that we will be placing in as exhibits. The file is noted as exhibit 1, exhibit 2 is a letter from Andrea Gorder . Is . . . is Ms. Gorder here today. O.k. , we have the written testimony . We ' 11 mark this as Exhibit 2 . A summery of this exhibit is that the letter is in opposition to the proposal . The feeling that she expresses is that the indirect results of the action will increase traffic, and pedestrians using nearby streets to gain access to businesses that would be built if the rezone is approved. She feels that there is sufficient office space currently available and that the rezone would disrupt a stable neighborhood. We ' ll have that marked as Exhibit 2 . Any of you that want to review these, feel free to come forward and look at them. They will be made a part of the official record. We ' ll mark as Exhibit 3 a note from. . . it looks like Verna Atwater. Verna Atwater here today. O.k. Her written testimony is that she' s against rezoning and we ' ll mark that as Exhibit 3 . And finally there ' s a more detailed set of comments from the family of Verna Atwater, I 'm assuming that includes Verna Atwater, so I think we' ll roll these into the same exhibit . This will also be marked as Exhibit 3 , we ' ll have Exhibit 3A and 3B which is written testimony of the family of Verna Atwater and once again, this expresses concern about the proposed rezone. They reside near the area and they're concerned about the impacts on the residential community and particularly elementary aged children and again, they express that there would be ample office space without this rezone and express their opposition and they include as an attachment an office and leasing. . .this is a Bolma and Chamber study done on the availability of space. O.k. this will be marked and submitted as an Exhibit as well. Did anyone else here have written testimony that they wanted to submit at this time. We have some additional written testimony. O. k. and this is submitted to the Hearing Examiner, it is signed by Stewart Ainsley who ' s an attorney for Robert and Vickie Pringle. Are you Mr . Ainsley? Do you expect also to present oral argument today? Stewart Ainsley: A brief summary. . . . 2 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: O.k. , so rather than me summarize this at this point, we' ll just note that this is submitted as an exhibit. There are some photos attached to it and also a listing of available office space in downtown Kent. So this is noted as Exhibit 4 . Exhibit 41 I think, we identify as the written testimony with attachments, photos and listing of property. Voice: Those exhibits available for examination? Hunter: Certainly. O.k. , I think we can settle down here and then get started with the hearing on this request. Again, for those that came in late the. . . quickly, the order of procedure we ' ll follow is: we ' ll- take the recommendation from the City Planning Department, then allow the applicant an opportunity to testify. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show the rezone should be granted and then we will allow all the rest of you that want to comment on it to do so and we will give the City and the applicant an opportunity to respond to the comments and questions raised today. O.k. We have here Mr. Fred Satterstrom the City of Kent Planning Department, Planning Manager. Fred Satterstrom: Thank you. I 'm going to start this session out with a curve ball and I have just been notified by the Engineering Department that the two conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the Keck Rezone have not, at this time, been fulfilled. Those two conditions are first a mitigation agreement for a corridor improvement and secondly, is the development of a traffic impact analysis to be forwarded to the Washington State Department of Transportation. Those were two conditions that were put in the MDNS that was issued for the Keck rezone in late 1992 . They have not been fulfilled and they are requesting that this matter. . . .that no decision on the rezone be made until those two conditions of the MDNS have been complied with . So, I 'm at a loss of knowing as a staff member what to do . It seems like we have a couple of choices, that is to go ahead with the public hearing and take the public testimony along with the testimony of staff and hearing out the citizens that have shown up this afternoon and tabling a decision on this until those two conditions have been fulfilled and then, perhaps, either reconvening or having a. . . a determination or decision made by the Hearing Examiner or secondly, of tabling this matter now and re-advertising for a public hearing once those two DNS . . .MDNS conditions have been fulfilled and there may be other alternatives too that . . . that you know of . But, I just wanted to let you know that those conditions have not been met and we have a request by the Engineering Department to table this matter until those conditions have been fulfilled . 3 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: Well, that is a curve ball . . . is this baseball season. I 've never been very good at hitting the curve ball . But, let' s see what we can do to focus on this. I want to first look at what those conditions are. They both dealt with traffic impact, maybe, we can get some information on that because I note that a key criteria for my recommendation on rezone whether approved or denied is that the rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated and certainly the written testimony that we have already admitted as exhibits does speak to the increased traffic as a key concern. Satterstrom: The two. . . . Hunter: Let ' s look at those conditions . Satterstrom: The two conditions are outlined in a file entitled or called, ENV-92-77 , regarding the Kent Masonic Hall, Determination of Nonsignificance, it is mitigated. The two conditions are: I 'm not going to read this whole one but the first one deals with a mitigation. . . . an environmental mitigation agreement to participate and pay a fair share of the costs of the 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The City has determined that there would be four additional trips during the PM peak hour as a result of the project and the estimated dollar value that would be contributed to that Corridor improvement LID would be about $8 , 544 in 1986 dollars . That is the. . . .that is the first condition. So both of these deal with traffic. Although four PM peak hour trips is not a large number it is a traffic mitigation requirement. Secondly is, and this one may be more pertinent, is the developer shall prepare a focus traffic impact report for the Washington State Department of Transportation (Wash DOT) . The report shall identify the impacts of the rezone upon the operation of the roadways and intersections of the State Highway System including East Smith Street or SR516 . Now. . .that. . .that focus traffic impact report is. . . is not available. I do not believe that it has been done. I also don 't believe, at least based on what I ' ve heard, that the mitigation agreement has been done either. So, both of the conditions of the MDNS have not been fulfilled. Hunter: I have the MDNS in front of me . It ' s part of Exhibit 1 and it does have the date on it of November 19, 1992 . The appeal period for it has expired . It was not appealed. There is no date, though, on when those studies must be completed. Is. . . is the representative of the applicant here? Yes, sir. Come forward. Mel Kleweno: Representative of the applicant - is here. I 'm. . . I 'm. . . 4 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: Would you please speak at the podium and identify yourself first, please. Kleweno: My name is Mel Kleweno. I 'm attorney practicing here in Kent, office address: 555 West Smith, Kent, Washington. Hunter: And you are the attorney for. . . Kleweno: Jack and Barbara Keck who are one of the property owners in the rezone area . I 'm. . . I 'm not clear whether a mitigation agreement has been presented to Mr. Keck. I 'm a newcomer to the matter and I 'm not clear who ' s responsibility it. . . it is to make the traffic study. Whether that ' s a City or the applicants ' responsibility and. . . Hunter: O.k. , well, then you have not seen the MDNS then? That ' s pretty clear, the answer to that question because it is the developer shall execute a mitigation agreement or the developer shall prepare a focus traffic agreement . I 'm more concerned about the impacts on your client from what has been suggested by the City as the. . .the City Engineer in anyway, the preferred alternative, which is they want to wait until those studies are completed before making any recommendations as to traffic mitigation that may be included with a rezone of the area . And . . . and what I 'm doing is exploring openly, on record, with you what . . .what course you and your client may think is appropriate . Kleweno: Could you give me about one minute. Hunter: Certainly, to confer with your client. Kleweno: Thank you. Our preference would be to move forward with the hearing today from speaking with the City officials and from my knowledge of the mitigation agreements . They are generally generated by the City, the mitigation agreements and presented to the applicant for signature. So that, I think, is just a matter of paperwork. The second is the WASHTA study, is that the acronym, I guess. . . Hunter: Department of Transportation. . . . Kleweno: And, it ' s my understanding again from just chatting briefly with the City staff that once that report is generated, it doesn' t take too long to generate it, but then it requires a review by the State and, of course, the City and you and I have no control over how long that takes . It could be a couple of weeks or a month. I don ' t think that that should and thinking about it out 5 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 loud, right now, should impact the. . .the decision or the testimony because the application or the approval of the application would depend upon meeting these two conditions; one signing the mitigation agreement and two, complying with whatever the terms where in the WASHTA study or analysis or their review. I think I 'm correct on that. Hunter: Think the only difficultly would be the criteria number 3 that I 'm required to issue a recommendation on which does have to do with the burden on the transportation system in the vicinity. Are there adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated, that strikes me through these. . . this study and this mitigation agreement, it does directly address that question . If both were perfected, that inquiry is handled in the reports that are prepared. Kleweno: Well, we ' re obviously. . .we obviously willing to do whatever the Hearing Examiner feels is appropriate under the circumstances. We would like to move the matter forward as expeditiously as possible but we will certainly accede to your request. Hunter: O.k. Here ' s the direction, I 'm. . . I think I might go on this. Mr. White, perhaps you can give us some indication on how long reports normally take to be prepared. I have some dates that. . .June 2 is my preferred date at this point that we may be able to do. . . take some testimony today and then look at June 2 as the day when. . .perhaps these agreements and studies could be behind us or in front of us as the case may be. Is that a reasonable period of time. Ed White: Well it ' s really hard for me to say because the State right now because of staffing problems and just the normal bureaucracy we 've had reviews, real simple reviews, take as short as may be two to three weeks or, in fact, we had one that we just got recision on and it took them four months. There ' s really no way to gauge what, you know, what their workload is or what their response time would be. The best think that I could offer is . . . is we could. . or I could make an inquiry personally and see if I could more or less make a plea to the State to do a speedy review of this. . .maybe reorganize their priorities a little bit. With the number of trips this only being four trips , this, of course, is not a major traffic generating use and I would hope by explaining that to them and saying, you know, you ' re looking basically at four trips, could they, in fact, do a review right away given this pending action. 6 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: Let me. . . let me ask you this, we 've had many rezone requests in front of us and you 've been a part of those hearings as have I . Normally, when we look at this criteria, that the rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system we have some study that has already been completed and we ' re able to speak to that to get information on this specific criteria. Are you prepared to speak to that question without the studies that we ' re talking about here. White: I could speak to the study but as to meeting the condition of the DNS, really I can ' t because that was a condition that was placed by the State and, again, . . . . Hunter: O.k. , I understand that as far as the DNS, but, I guess, what I 'm asking is something a little bit different as far as the rezone proposal, would you be prepared to offer your testimony, your expert testimony on this issue of whether the system. . .the transportation system in the vicinity of the property would be burden with adverse impacts that could not be mitigated. Could you testify to that or do you need these reports, the studies we ' re talking about, the MDNS studies, do you need to see those before you can offer your testimony. White: No, I don 't feel , just. . . the sheer number of trips that we're dealing with, I don ' t think there ' s really any additional information that I would need in order to. . .to make a recommendation or at least basically answer. . . . Hunter: On this issue of . . . White: On this issue. . . . Hunter: . . . burden of . . . on the transportation system. White: Correct . Hunter: O.k. , thank you. Well , with that comment by the City Engineering Department I think what we ' ll do is move forward with the hearing. Return to Mr . Satterstrom. Satterstrom: Well, thank you very much. To get started. This is a rezone from R1-7 , 200, Single Family, zoning to 0 or Professional and Office zoning. The location of the property is . . . is over near the Mill Creek Canyon. This is the site, in the shaded area here. . .this is Smith Street or Canyon Drive or Kent-Kangley Road or a whole number of different names here and this . . .this is Jason Avenue as it comes around here and intersects with Smith Street. 7 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Jason crosses Smith Street here and then continues around here and is called, I think, Titus and then becomes Gowe. This site entails three properties . A small lot on the corner of Jason and Smith that contains a duplex. A larger lot that contains the Kent Masonic Hall and its associated parking area and then the easternmost lot is the. . .what is called the Keck residence. It' s an old, turn of the century home. As I mentioned, the zoning is R1-7 , 200 . The surround. . . there is . . . .this site is located on the perimeter or on the edge of a single family neighborhood here, we call it lower East Hill . It lies across the street from the Mill Creek or Earth Works Park which is zoned RA. To the west, beginning at Jason Street is DCE or Downtown Commercial Enterprise, zoning. It used to be, I think, GC, it was rezoned last summer to DCE in conjunction with some of the downtown zoning amendments. As you continue up Smith Street to the east, MRD, Multiple Family zoning begins here at the intersection of Hazel Street and then continues on up, pretty much along the corridor all the way on up to Kent-Meridian High School . As I mentioned, the land use of the three sites is mixed. The. . . . to the west of the rezone site, in the DC area, you see a number of businesses located along Smith Street and the Kent Medical Clinic is over in this area, the Kent Senior Center is just kitty-corner from the rezone site here along Smith Street. As I mentioned, there was the MDNS that was issued on this site with the two conditions . As far as the physical features on this site, the slope is generally less than five percent. As far as vegetation goes, there are a number of mature, either deciduous or evergreen domestic variety trees that are associated with the residential use. The site has access on to Smith Street or Canyon Drive which is classified here as a principal arterial street. Now, it has a public right of way width of 110 feet while the actual width of the paving is about 60 feet. It' s improved with five lanes with curbs, gutters, storm drainage and so forth, sidewalks. The average daily traffic count on that street is 40 , 500 vehicle trips per day. As will be noted later on, the street has been. . . .the average daily count on the Smith Street has been. . .has increased over the years very significantly. The site is also served by water, sanitary sewer and the existing storm drainage system is adequate to handle the current land use on the site. Any new development on the site , of course, would have to conform to the Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code standards as necessary. That would be relevant were there to be any additional parking areas, for example, that were to be added in this area . The site has been posted with a public notice. The site has also. . . or the rezone has also been advertised in the newspapers and notice has been sent to property owners within 200 feet of the proposal . We looked at the Comprehensive Plan and I . . . I might indicate at this point that this has been the subject of a very 8 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 recent change in the City ' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Mr. Keck and the other two property owners applied for a change on the City-wide and Valley Floor Comprehensive Plan Land Use classifications. They previously were single-family and this passed in March. The City Council adopted by resolution an office classification for these three properties. They also. . . .the City Council also eliminated the single family overlay for these three properties because they had been subject to resolution 1232 , passed in 1990 and these three properties were designated on that overlay. They have since been removed from that overlay. I 'm not going to read them but in the staff report are some goals and objectives that are quoted from the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, also, from the Housing Element and from the Economic Element. Basically, talking about the preservation of neighborhoods and trying to buffer or protect residential neighborhoods from disaffinities such as the impacts of heavy traffic. One policy indicates that the City should utilize regulatory measures such as zoning to protect neighborhoods against uses incompatible with residential development. For example, major arterial locations, commercial and industrial development, etc. That ' s out of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. This is a difficult proposal to evaluate in terms of protecting single family residential neighborhoods. One could argue that, in fact, this area is part of a single-family residential neighborhood and make a good case. And, in fact, up until a month or so ago, this area was on the City' s designated single-family overlay and was, itself, single- family designated on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants in this case are. . .will argue that the area along Smith Street has been heavy impacted by traffic and that has become a disaffinity for their property in terms of its long-term desirability for single family residential use and will argue to that the condition that has changed over the years is the increase traffic on the street that has made that house not only difficult to live in but also difficult to market as a single family residence. In any case, we have found that there is some justification in the Comprehensive Plan to agree with that argument that. . . and. . .that the Office proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies in terms of attempting to protect single family residential neighborhoods . It ' s difficult to argue that the replacement of a single family home with an office use is seeking to protect the on-going nature of single family areas except that some of the alternatives open to the property owner were to request commercial zoning, that would not be appropriate because of the types of uses that would be allowed in DCE zoning were that to be extended or GC zoning if that were to be applied to the property. The office zoning inasmuch as the office zone helps to constrain 9 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 use to professional and other office type uses that generally operate during week days not on weekends and not late into the night, that generate less traffic than commercial uses, are more compatible with the surrounding residential area than certain other alternative designations that may have been applied for. In order for the City to approve a rezone, there are certain standards and criteria in the Zoning Code that apply. They are stated in Section 15 . 09 . 050 . There are five of those conditions and I wanted to go over those. Obviously they are important to the Hearing Examiner because you would base your recommendation one way or another on those criteria. The first is that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As I have mentioned, the City Council has changed the City-wide Plan and the Valley Floor Plan maps to indicate office for the property and as much as this is a rezone to office, it is consistent with that map designation. But, furthermore, there is some justification in the policy statements themselves that would speak to applying an office designation in this case in lieu of perhaps some other more intensive land use designation that would not be consistent with the single-family neighborhood nor consistent with the preservation of the neighborhood. Second, the proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. As we say in the staff report, the proposed rezone is not expected to have a negative impact on the adjacent single-family neighborhood. Office type uses are relatively compatible with the low-density residential uses and may fit into the neighborhood with little adverse affect. The purpose statement in the office zoning. . .the office zoned district itself speaks to applying that district as a buffer. In this case, the application of that zone would be as a buffer between the heavily traveled arterial street here being Canyon Drive and the single family neighborhood that is to the north and east of this site. Third, is that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significance adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. We 've already kind of discussed that . The environmental determination that has been. . . . that has resulted in response to the rezone has identified four additional PM peak hour trips and further testimony from the Traffic Engineer on this point may be in order but I think I heard him say that he did not believe there was significant impacts that could not be mitigated . But, I may leave further testimony to Mr. Ed White on that point . 10 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21, 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Fourth, circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. The actual land use in the vicinity of this rezone is not necessarily changed significantly. It is the condition of the street here that has impacted the three properties adjacent to Smith Street in a negative fashion and making those properties less desirable in terms of a residential character. The street has been widened. The duplex, at the corner here, of Jason and Smith, virtually has no front yard and what is in the front yard is a jersey barrier to protect it from vehicles that may stray from the street. The Keck residence itself on a couple of different occasions, I believe, had to dedicate more of its front yard for widening of Smith Street and the . . . a number of vehicle trips per day and, again, Mr. White may also testify to this, has increased significantly over the years to make that property less and less desirable as single family . Finally, the fifth criteria is that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Basically , we summarize it as much as it is consist with the Comprehensive Plan, that. . . in that subsequent development would have to conform with applicable development standards and that the traffic. . . . .the additional traffic on this site may not be increased and have any significant adverse impacts that could not be mitigated. We would also feel that this criteria was also fulfilled. Finally the recommendation of the staff is to approve the Keck rezone. Thank you. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to try to address them now. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Satterstrom, I think everything is very clear. I did want to seek, though, additional information from Mr. White in traffic and one question for you had to do with your last statement about. . . . in the report about subsequent development. The statement is any subsequent development will be reviewed during the permitting process to assure compliance with applicable development standards . Subsequent development is what concerns me. Is there a development proposal connect with this rezone proposal or are we just looking at a change designation. Satterstrom: There is no actual development as I understand that is being proposed with the rezone. All three sites are currently developed. However, if the Keck residence were to be changed to an office use there would be certain parking standards that would. . .that would go into effect and there would be permits that would have to be issued for that. At that time, storm drainage, 11 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 parking requirements and so forth would have to be adhered to in order that the public health, safety and welfare were to be provided for. But, there is no actual proposal to develop the property right now. Mr. Keck lives in the residence and there is nothing in the file - either the environment file or the rezone file that indicates that these properties have any change in use proposed at the current time. That doesn ' t mean that after the rezone is. . . is proposed that—that there couldn't be. I imagine. . . Hunter: Right . All . . . all that we are considering though in this hearing is in fact the change in designation, not the. . . any subsequent development proposals that may or may not. . . . Satterstrom: That ' s correct. That ' s correct. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Satterstrom. Mr. White, a couple of questions about traffic, both the impact, that number 4 keeps coming up and then if you have any sense of the history. The testimony was traffic has increased over the hears, give us a sense for what' s happening there. White: O.k. Well , since I didn' t have any immediate contact with this project, actually, the assistant Transportation Engineer did the review and did the actual conditioning, I can basically state though that he used, you know, what we normally use, the common practice is in order to assess the trip mitigation fee and if, you know, its recommendation that four PM peak hour trips be used in order to determine the impacts, then I feel comfortable with that four. Just a brief history of traffic volumes on Canyon Drive. It' s basically a State facility . Its State Route 516 . Its one of four major east/west corridors that go through the City. I did a little research just before the hearing and in 1971 they had an average daily traffic volume of around 26 , 000 vehicles as of our last count that was just done a couple of weeks ago, 1993 volume is now around 44 , 000 . So you are looking at basically a 70 percent increase since 1971 . You ' re also looking at a 40 percent increase over 1986 and a 25 percent increase over the years 1987 and 1988 . Hunter: O.k. , the figures. . . excuse me just a minute. That 44 , 000 vehicles. . . . White: Current volume. 12 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: . . .pass it each day. That was based on what point in time? White: O.k. , that was based on a traffic count. . . Hunter: Traffic count, when? White: . . . .that was done within the last two weeks. Hunter: Oh, within the last two weeks, o.k. The figure 40, 000 in the staff report was done. . . White: O.k. That was . . . again, that was based on the traffic flow map that we use. We don ' t do an actual traffic count for, you know, every review. It just so happened that we had one at this location and that was, again, in. . . in response to an inquiry that Mr. Satterstrom had. Hunter: Thank you. White: If you wanted to. . .me to list the numbers, the traffic volumes, again 1993 there was 44 , 000 . And, I 'm rounding all of these off, of course. Nineteen eighty-eight, and 1987 it was 35, 900 . In 1986 it was 31 , 000 and in 1971 in was 26 , 000 and so the respective increase is, again, where it was a 70 percent increase between 1993 and 1971; 40 percent increase between 1986 and 1993 and a 25 percent increase over the years 1987 and 188 . That to me would be a significant increase in the volume. I might add a note in that I don 't really foresee these type of increases occurring in the future just because the capacity. . . . . the facility is currently running very near to capacity. So, again, you ' re not going to be seeing those type of increases, but they are quite significant. Hunter: Very good. Thank you very much of that information. O.k. , I 'd like to now turn to the applicant or his representative For any testimony in support of the application. Jack Keck: Well , Mr. Hunter, I 'm. . . I have some mental problems in mind and after a little while sometimes I can ' t remember things. I might chat with you again after I remember those . I 've letters here from three folks. . . . Hunter: You 're Mr. Keck for the record. Jack Keck. . . O.k. Keck: Jack Keck. I live at 855 E. Smith Street. Then I have my three letters here from folks that couldn ' t come today to this 13 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 meeting, so they gave me letters and I assume you can use them as exhibits . Hunter: We ' ll have those offered here as exhibit and I need to identify these, so it' ll take a minute, as I open envelopes. First is from Lloyd Cohn and the indication is I have no problems with the proposed rezoning. It would have no bad effect on the properties around here. In the long run it will make my land more valuable. That ' s marked as exhibit 5 . This is sort of like Christmas here opening envelopes and reading cards, except they 're not gifts. The second one is from Alexis Koester and this statement is as a landowner on Temperance and Hazel Avenue, I don ' t object to the rezone of this neighborhood and wanted my views to be known. Marked as exhibit 6 . And finally, a letter from Frank Nowak, indicates that his father owned the property at 623 E. Smith and as executor of the estate, the indication is that there would be no. . .he feels that there would be no or little impact and in his opinion the rezone appears to be necessary. That' s marked as exhibit 7 . I 'm not going to retain the envelopes, I think that we ' ll just have the letters, if that ' s all right with you. The letters are. . .have been made a part of the official record. If anyone does want to review those, feel free to come forward and look at those. O.k. , Mr . Keck . Keck: Thanks. I 'm glad to see a lot of folks that I ' ve known for many many years here and some folks whose parents I knew and are now here. Our house was built in 1907 , it was built by E. W. Brider, he became the mayor of Kent in, as I understood it, it was 1912 and 1913 and he passed away as he was mayor. His adopted grandson or it was a grandson but it was an adopted person became the City Attorney here in Kent at one time and then he. . .he was City Attorney in Auburn at one time too . He owned, Mr. Brider owned the full block where we are and he had a backside driveway put in there, back to Temperance and that still exists, of course. We moved into this house in 1963 , we ' ve lived there thirty years, we 've done considerable work on the house and on the yard. The house was for sale last year for six months. Lots and lots of people looked at it and talked about it and everything and nobody wanted it just as a residence. They wanted it as a residence perhaps but also to do something else in it as a residence and they came and talked to the Planning Department and the Planning Department, in effect, told them, well , that would be o.k. but would take a while to do that, so then we took the house off for sale. The Smith Street in front of your house and the Masonic Hall and the duplex has been widen twice in the last ten years and I tried to convince the City to widen over on the park side but they didn 't want to do that. They widened on our side, of course. And 14 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 that moved us a quite a bit closer then to the highway and that ' s one reason why our house is not requested by the buyers just as a house for living in and we have purchased a house a year and a half ago in Des Moines. We still live in this house, however, but our house in Des Moines was a house that Johnnie Summers resided in for quite a while. He lives in one next door to it right now. It' s Johnnies IGA person, so he ' s . . .he used to be in this unit. He passed away but his wife still lives next door us. All the buyers we have talked to were not planning any huge office, none of them were. There' s one thing that I would like to tell people because it would effect the people that are on. . .nearby that road in the back and, on the back street too, we have two driveways on Smith Street. So, to -protect our citizens behind us if a buyer would want to have folks come and go there we would make an agreement with them when we sold that house that the folks only. . .these buying and selling folks or whatever kind of folks they were. . .they would drive in and drive out from Smith Street and, thus, the folks on the backside of the driveway, would not have any problems. The owner of the house and/or the person living there would have an agreement to run through that alley. It ' s not a city alley, but its been there 80 years, I would assume . But, we would keep out any other people, some way work that out to keep them out. Hunter: I want to make sure I understand that ' s the entrance. . .you ' re suggesting that you would put in a restriction on a deed of transfer that it would it be entrance only off of Smith Street? Is that correct? Did I understand you right. Keck: Right. But. . . but ' s that for commercial people or something like that. The person that lives, if its somebody living there, or owns it, they own the land and part of that back driveway is on our land also and so they would have option just to go back and forth. Hunter: O.k. , commercial off of Smith Street alone, but residential access off the other. . . . Keck: Right. Absolutely. Yeah. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Keck: I think that would be good for the people and also for the other people that live along Temperance Street back there, that' s my opinion. Many of the prospective buyers talked about working out an arrangement with the Masonic Hall where they wanted to do a little parking. . .having a little parking in the back or something and then they would run a line from the Masonic Hall over to our house and this would help the people in the community also, I feel . 15 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 And they felt that would be good too. Because a lot of times the Masonic folks have to park quite a bit of cars at night and sometimes you have to park around on the other streets while a lot of those parking cars, if they work that out, could then park over on our side and some of our people if they are going to be busy they could park during the day in the Masonic Hall, maybe. I . . . I can 't control that but, I think, a lot of people talked about doing that. The City of Kent probably about six years ago, started talking about buying our house as a museum since it was built in 1907 and very. . . . it ' s . . . . it ' s a nice house for its age and all the cities around us have museums but we don ' t here in Kent, you know. So, the Council, they were kind all in favor of doing that and the Mayor was in favor of doing that. The problem that we came up with or they came up with, they didn ' t have any money and they. . . .when the senior house was built down here , they had a bond, I guess you 'd call it for that, and so they had. . .they made (unclear) for a couple of years and some of them thought that maybe they could use that but the other people didn ' t think they wanted to do that because that was, in fact, senior money, so that wasn' t something they should use. So, they pretty well decided, no, they aren't going to do that. They. . . as Mr. Satterstrom indicated the Planning Commission okayed this change for 100 percent and the City Council okayed our arrangement on 100 percent . And now, they want to let the neighbors the know the minimal effect of this zoning, of course, and, I guess, that ' s about all I need to tell you. Do you have any questions, that I can answer. There ' s probably other things I should say but I can ' t remember them. Hunter: Well , that ' s. . . at this time, that ' s fine. I think you 've touched the main points . You ' ve given some history of the property. That ' s very helpful to my understanding of what ' s there. There may be some questions that come up through the hearing as others testify, so we may need to return to you. But, thank you for your testimony. Keck: O.k. , Rob is here from the Masonic Hall and I don't think the lady is here from that little duplex, is she? Oh, you got here, oh. O.k. , we ' re in good shape then. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Keck. Are there, then, other applicants that would like to testify at this time. Yes, sir. Rob Hamlin: Mr. Hunter, I ' m Rob Hamlin, Vice-President of the Masonic Hall Association. Hunter: Your last name is? 16 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21, 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hamlin: Hamlin. H-A-M-L-I-N. Hunter: Thank you. Hamlin: We ' re not really interested in doing anything different with the Hall than what we are now. We ' re just purely trying to help our good neighbor, Jack Keck . I know he had problems with selling his property and that ' s why we signed on with him on this and we support him. Do you have any questions for me? Hunter: It ' s pretty clear testimony . No questions about that. Now there may be some if you ' re able to stay for the hearing, appreciate that,- if other questions come up. Hamlin: Did you want me to answer. . . . this lady looks like she has a question or. . . . Hunter: What I would like to do is see if there ' s any other applicant that wants to testify then we ' ll take questions and look to the appropriate person to respond to. Yes, ma ' am, you want to testify in support of the rezone? Voice: I 'd like to respond to what I just heard because it does effect the point of view of (unclear) although I do not feel opposed to them. I 'm very sympathetic to the Keck' s and they ' re lovely people. Hunter• O.k. Voice: I represent my mother at this stage. Hunter: I ' d like to do this, ma ' am, if we could. The process that we laid out at the start of the hearing . I want to make sure that we give first the applicant the chance; we 've heard from two. There' s another representative of the applicant here. I want to allow that testimony come in. Then, we have all of it in front of US. So then, those that have questions about it, can raise questions after we have. . . . Voice: I 'm not plus or minus . Hunter: I understand that . Voice• (unclear) Hunter• O.k. 17 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Voice: (unclear) for or against it. I (unclear) . Hunter: O.k. , right and we ' ll get to the questions about it and the issues after we get all testimony in that' s in favor of. Are there others here that want to speak in favor of the rezone? Yes, ma 'am. If you would come forward to the microphone. Annette Koarkis : I own the duplex on the corner. Hunter: And your name, please. Koarkis: Annette Koarkis . Hunter: And Koarkis is spelled. Koarkis: K-O-R-A-K-I-S. And I just wanted to say we do not have any plans . . . any proposed plans for doing anything more with the duplex. As far as I know it ' ll just be a duplex and we' re here. . . I 'm here to join in with Mr. Keck to make this rezone possible and that ' s all I have to say . Hunter: O.k. Thank you very much, Ms . Koarkis . O.k. , now I would like to turn to those that have specific concerns or questions and if they could raise them at this time. I ' m sorry, we have one more individual , Mr. . . . Kleweno: Kleweno, I just to. . . to. . . a point to reserve the right to speak after the opposition has spoken, if I might. Hunter: Certainly and that ' s how we laid out the format of the hearing. There will be opportunity for the applicant to respond. Yes, ma 'am, you have been patient . I know you ' re burning to say this, raise this concern and please come forward, now, and you are? Patricia Cavendar: I am Patricia Cavendar and I 'm the executrix of the estate of Lillian Cavendar. My mother ' s property was directly behind the Keck property. I have lived in the home, since the time of the 1940 ' s. I 'm very aware of the problem that has happened with the increased traffic that has come and I 'm very sympathetic to the Keck' s who have done wonderful things with the house that at one time had been basically an unoccupied house. My mother' s issue, in her life, has been going to war with the Masonic Temple, when they put the Masonic Temple there, there was not adequate parking and it has been an issue with the Masons to get property to park on and it has been a very miserable circumstance to live at 812 E. Temperance because of the activity of the masonic lodge and I happen to be a member the . . . you know. . . the lodge from the women I s 18 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 point. So its not that, its that. . .they really are a pain in the neck with their bingo nights and the cars flashing and all of this kind of business . So, please protect the residential character of the neighborhood. Hunter: Thank you. We didn ' t have a sign-up order. Let me see again, those who want to testify now, raise questions or testify in opposition. Three-four-five-six seven, o.k. , eight individuals. O.k. , let me say as we begin, those of you that share the concerns that are raised by someone that testified earlier. You don't need to repeat it, you can just I 've well in support of the views of. . .whoever testified before you . I 'm just going to take in random order as" I see hands raised and as you feel moved to testify. I saw this man in the back row here and this individual, Mr. Ainsley, I think it is in the second row, and then this gentleman in the back row here. We ' ll take you in that order to begin with. Yes , sir. Jack Bush: My name is Jack Bush, Jr . and I live at 824 E. Temperance, right behind Mr . Keck. My concern is that my bedroom in the house we live is three and a half feet from this driveway he ' s talking about and that ' s why I ' m worried about it going commercial . Because there will be cars going past my driveway, and its a dirt road and kicking dirt into the house, you know, Monday through Friday . With no control because the house sits so close to the road that when you turn down the driveway, you can ' t see anything down the driveway until you ' re on it, you know. And 3 1/2 feet away with a gas main on the side of the house, you know, unless the City maintained it or something, ' cause they never have in the 14 years we 've lived there, you know, the road washes out and gets dangerous and sometimes they come up real close to the house. So, I wanted to make sure if this got rezoned commercial that we wouldn' t have people running past my bedroom window and the house, you know. Hunter: Does this. . .Mr. Keck raised a similar issue about access to the property, did he address that at all . The indication was that a commercial use, access would be only off of Smith Street. Bush: Well, you see the concern I have is, he ' s a good neighbor and everything, but he has these garage sales in the summer - estate sales and, I mean, for three weeks at a time, you know, all week and all weekend, you know. He ' ll have a 100 people a day, running past that and that ' s not a commercial use and we can 't restrict that. What guarantee am I going to have that, if it goes commercial, it will be restricted, you know. 19 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: Well, and I 'm not . . . I 'm not certain I can address that in a rezone recommendation but what I am asking is, I think, you have a neighbor, Mr. Keck, that is trying to address the problem and I 'm wondering if we are on the same wave length. Because he did raise that as an issue. . . . Bush: Right, but. . . Hunter: . . . . and suggested that he would be willing and offered here as a matter of public record to place a restriction of deed that would limit access only to commercial use. I think that could be better defined, that ' s what I hear your testimony that let' s define what commercial use means . Bush: Yeah, that ' s just it, I want to know what guarantee the neighbors will have, otherwise, I ' ll have people going by my window 100 times a day. Hunter: Right. Bush: And that ' s why I came down. Hunter: O.k. I understand your concern and I think there may be a way to address that and urge you to talk with Mr. Keck too further about how a deed restriction that he seems willing to make might address that problem. I think that what' s happening here. but, I 've noted your concern and appreciate you coming and raising it. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Mr. Ainsley? Ainsley: Mr. Hunter, my name is Stuart Ainsley. I 'm an attorney for Robert and Vickie Pringle. They live around the corner from the Keck' s on Hazel and . . . . it this house. . . . let ' s me see. . .right here. I 've submitted today a letter that outlines many of our concerns. My clients oppose the requested rezone. My intent with my oral testimony is not to repeat everything that ' s in my letter but I would like to focus on a couple of particular issues that has been raised through some of the testimony today and have you consider them in making your final determination. First, as an aside, I 'm. . . I would like to enter an objection to the continuation of this hearing without the prior mitigation having been satisfied and all the discussion that was done prior to continuing with this hearing. At no time was it told to the people here why those mitigation factors weren ' t satisfied by the applicant. Only some questions about when they could in the future and I think that one of the key factors that you already start to focus on is criteria number 3 in 15 . 09 . 050 which is the traffic impact from the proposed action. And that traffic study, I think, would have gone a long 20 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 way to help all of us understand on whether there ' s going to be an impact. Most of the testimony today, has been on the extent of trip increase along Kent-Kangley - Canyon Drive. To my clients, that' s really not the issue with this rezone. Changing the zoning of this property is not going to impact those trips, one iota. What it is going to do though is encourage the flow of that traffic into a residential neighborhood. One of the things you need to consider is traffic coming along Smith this way cannot turn left into these houses and into the Masonic Lodge . What they are forced to do is go up Jason, down Temperance and down Hazel and then go back up Smith. To change the zoning and, therefore, create a more intensive use on these properties is only going to serve to increase the flow of traffic through a residential neighborhood. More particularly, I 've submitted with my letter today some photographs and to try to give you a better appreciation of this alley way that Mr. Keck himself addressed in his testimony. The alley way comes from the Keck residence, domes back and goes across our clients ' property and the property to the north. There' s no recorded easement on the properties in favor of the Kecks to use this access point nor is there any dedicated right of way. The obvious concern is , and I think if you look at the pictures you can see it, somebody who ' s having to come around this way, can see a much quicker way to get into this property than simply continuing on around the block. This cuts right across the back of our clients ' property where their children play and so one of key criteria, the Valley Floor Plan, which is to increase the liveability of a residential neighborhood is undercut by creating a more intensive use there that ' s going to encourage more traffic flow through the neighborhood . The other concern I have is whether or not Mr. Keck, and I guess as an aside , although we have three applicants, from the testimony I ' ve heard today, it really. . . .this is designed, I think, to benefit Mr . Keck ' s property because of problems he ' s had selling it. To me that ' s not sufficient enough ground nor is it under the Court cases that I have cited for rezone. The Courts do not favor spot zoning which is essentially zoning for the benefit of an individual property owner, especially when its to the detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Keck bears the burden of showing a substantial change in circumstances and I think the City planner himself testified that as to the land use, it would be difficult to establish that substantial circumstances . Now, if we are at a situation where its fifty-fifty that there has been that change then Mr. Keck hasn ' t satisfied his burden and shouldn ' t be entitled to a rezone. Some testimony has been to the effect that well , there ' s been a change in the Comprehensive Plan and this is consistent with that change, therefore, he should be entitled to his rezone. Again, I would cite you to a case that ' s in my letter called Woodcrest Investment 21 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 in which the courts specifically noted that a change in the Comprehensive Plan is not depositive on the issue of whether or not an applicant for a rezone has met his burden of proof and showing a substantial change of circumstances . And the reason for that is that the standards for getting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan are much lower than the standards that must be satisfied to get a rezone. In conclusion I would ask you to give serious consideration to the impacts that this is going to have on a neighborhood that is primarily single family residence. If you are inclined to recommend it, I would ask you to focus very closely on the access issue, especially in light of Mr. Keck ' s own testimony that there is some need to deal with that issue and I think it can be dealt with through the mitigation requirements being more particularly tailored for the proposed application. Thank you. Hunter: O.k. I want to ask you a few things. Ainsley: Um hum. Hunter: First of all as to your objection to holding the hearing today. I want to make sure that I understand that you were in the room when we had that discussion. Ainsley: I was . Hunter: I feel its coming up a little late to do anything about it. Ainsley: I didn 't know if I should have said it then at the time. I understand because everyone ' s here it makes more sense to go forward. I 'm real concerned, though, that this study is going to come in later on and its going to show additional factors that the public isn 't really going to have an opportunity to comment on. Hunter: Well . . . . Ainsley: And again, I don ' t know why the study wasn 't done with Hunter: And its strictly related to environmental impacts and I understand the connection. I 'm struggling with the same thing. With the testimony of the City, however, that ' s why we decided to go forward. The City ' s Traffic Engineer saying that they could testify as to traffic impacts . Ainsley: Of course, I think I heard Mr . White say that he, himself didn't do the study and all he really did say that it appeared that 22 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 his assistant used the proper tools to conclude a four trip increase. Hunter: And you have the opportunity to examine Mr. White if you would like to do so. But, I want to look at some of the other issues that you are raising and if you do want to examine Mr. White we' ll be happy to give you that opportunity. on. . . on this side street issue, the impact on the side streets from increased traffic and particularly how it cuts across your clients ' property, I 'm having a little trouble seeing that as an impact of rezone, cutting across a particular property parcel . Am I missing something there, is that a private agreement problem, adverse possession problem, what. . .what ' s happened with that. Ainslev: Again, I can only assume that its only an adverse possession problem. From what I ' ve seen in reviewing the title documents. There ' s nothing on record and if I understood Mr. Keck' s testimony its been there for a long time so I would assume that his position is he ' s acquired it by adverse possession. My point was that if you change the zoning to allow office use here, as the City itself has testified, that ' s going to require some additional parking to satisfy the parking requirement of the O zone. Its going to have a clientele coming to visit these offices and because of the problems with dealing with Smith Avenue, when they get around to this point, I believe its going to encourage more traffic going down an alleyway whose origins are, should I say, somewhat lacking in detail . Hunter: And what I 'm trying to focus on is that a consequence of this rezone designation itself or might that rather occur dependant upon the type of development application, if any, that may come forward at a later time. Ainslev: Well, the application can never come forward without the rezone being there first . So, I think it is a direct consequence of the rezone. Hunter: O.k. Ainslev: One other aspect about the rezone that I failed to mentioned but its somewhat curious to me, too, on the duplex itself, you 've got a lot now that ' s going to a 10 , 000 square foot lot minimum under the rezone as opposed to the 7 , 200 that ' s currently in effect and no where in the staff report do I see that addressed and how the rezone is going to deal with the creation of a nonconforming aspect. 23 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Hunter: Um hum. O.k. Final area of inquiry regarding the change of circumstances and I believe your argument is that the burden hasn't been met just by change of the Comprehensive Plan. A couple of questions about that, were you or your client a part of the Comprehensive Plan process? Ainslev: First time we became aware of that was when we got the staff report on this proposed rezone. Hunter: O.k. And, secondly, as to your response to the testimony that the change of circumstances has a lot to do with the traffic increases. And, did you want to respond to that, the testimony that I heard was that primarily the change of circumstance was the increased percentages of traffic and they were given by Mr. White. Ainslev: Mr. White, correct, and that ' s the only fact I 've seen that ' s pointed to, but. . .you don ' t deal with the increased traffic flow by doing a rezone. You create new corridors of traffic which is, I think, is what the 272nd project is designed to do. If increased traffic alone caused the substantial circumstances, then you're creating a precedence for all the property owners along here. Why isn' t this property owner seeking a rezone also and I 'm afraid that if that becomes the basis for establishing substantial circumstances then we ' ll totally undermine the integrity of these neighborhoods that front along the highway. Hunter: So, what ' s your position. What should be done. I 'm the Examiner. . . . . Ainslev: I think the rezone should probably be denied. I don't believe that the burden of proof has been met just simply from the increase of traffic flow . I think that Mr. Keck has been compensated in the past when the roads been widen if his property was taken through condemnation and that was one mechanism that he ' s probably been compensated from some of the burden that were imposed by having a wider road adjacent to your property. I don 't think the rezone is the mechanism to address an increase traffic flow. Hunter: O.k. , thank you Mr . Ainsley . Ainslev: Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter . Hunter: Others that wanted to testify . who did I identify next, it was this gentleman in the white shirt and then you ma ' am here in the front and this gentleman in the front here. 24 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Vern Schultz : I 'm Vern Schultz from 704 E. Temperance, that is the lot on the northwest corner. My concerns also and I have to echo the Cavendar objections or comments about the traffic and disruptions from the Masonic Hall . My father-in-law originally built the house about 1946 and I 'm not sure exactly when the Masonic Hall was built but its probably been there 35 years. My opinion its been an albatross around that neighborhood ' s neck for that long. In addition, there is an alleyway that is directly behind 704 E. Temperance that leads directly into the parking lot from Temperance into the Masonic Hall parking lot. This alleyway is now used by many people during the functions that go on at that location and my feat is that by rezoning this area, this will only increase the traffic and the congestion and, in fact, lower my property value in such a manner. And that would be my objection to the. . . Hunter: O.k. Thank you, Mr. Schultz . O. k. , next . Doris Reed: My name is Doris Reed and I 'm here representing my mother, Verna Atwater, who ' s a resident at 318 Jason Avenue N. and to reiterate previous testimony here as in with Mr. Schultz , there is an alleyway that is . . . runs adjacent to Jason Avenue and I 'm very aware of a huge amount of traffic that already does go down that alley, it ' s commonly known. It does go completely through and I 'm concerned about the impact, I 'm not understanding where these numbers did come from on the four, this is all new information to us and we 're real confused about how we are already into an approval process and a Planning Department that ' s already recommending approval when the citizens have not really been able to speak about this. Clearly, it appears that two months ago this was an overlay to use the Planning Department ' s words, a single family residence or a residential community and I 'm not understanding how so quickly we ' ve gone now into an approval process to turn this into professional office space. It doesn 't. . . Hunter: Let me stop you right there, because I did want to clarify. The nature of this hearing today is to get public comment and testimony on the proposed rezone. The Planning Department ' s recommendation is just one piece of evidence that I need to consider in making my recommendation to the Council . So, when I come into this room, I don ' t have feelings for or against. My job is to listen to all the testimony and that ' s why I 'm here and the Planning Department does need to make a recommendation. They 're required by your City ordinances to bring that forward so that gets the ball rolling, so to speak. But this is a very important part of the process, we allow everyone a chance to express their 25 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 concerns and bring their testimony forward. There is no decision or recommendation at this point, we ' re open to all testimony. Reed: As a citizen, I am confused though as the previous testimony, how we come into a situation where the applicants are not ready to show their side of the case and the evidence is not before us. The environmental impact statements are not available, the Washington State Department of Transportation information is not available and yet we are. . . . Hunter: I think its an important issue and let me address that too, and I 'm not doing this as an advocate for or against the proposal. I do feel , though, as Hearing Examiner, one of my roles is to make sure we all understand the process . I 'm very focused on the process, I 'm the protector of the process , it ' s got to be done fairly. what. . .what has happened is with the environmental checklist, there were disclosures that this may have an environmental impact if its changed . What the City did in reviewing the proposed changed from residential to office was they said that if traffic is mitigated with those two studies that we're talking about and then conditions that came out of those studies, that they didn ' t feel that the impact would be such that an environmental impact statement would need to be prepared. That ' s all we focused on in the "so-called" environmental review, do we need to do an environmental impact statement. The City said that if traffic studies are done, a full-blown EIS is not necessary for this proposal. That ' s all that we did with that SEPA checklist and that environmental determination. That information is relevant to this hearing but it is not a necessary pre-requisite by law, it' s just. . . helpful by custom, the city has had that information prior to rezone hearings . What ' s happened today, your City Traffic Engineer testified that he could speak to traffic impacts from the rezone without the need for the environmental studies that would have been prepared under the environmental review. So, there ' s two separate processes, the environmental review process which was prepared openly, that could have been appealed, it was not appealed, so in some ways that is already happened. The studies do need to be prepared, they are not pre-requisites to this hearing. That' s. . . . I know there ' s a lot of processes going on, I 'm trying to do the best I can to explain to you how we got to the point we are to day and why I decided to hold this hearing even without those traffic studies that were done for the purpose of environmental review, does an EIS need to be prepared. This is a separate process, should the rezone be granted and I 'm open to hearing comments on that, as I am. I 'm hearing a lot of them and particularly on the traffic impacts , as the last gentleman testified. There are some traffic considerations that need to be 26 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 looked at in the rezone request . Does that help on your understanding on where we are? Reed: It does . My concern is the erosion of the residential community and I 'm concerned that the impact to traffic will be shown to be Smith and, perhaps , Jason, but not around through the alley or through perhaps this corner access through. . . .that sounds like is an adverse possession situation, so, clearly there will be many, many cars out there wandering around looking for the proper, least hazardous way to entry into this . And, I 'm sympathetic to these three property owners . And they certainly have stated that they have no changes but we all know that things do change and we know that Mr. Keck, for one, did try to sell his property and no doubt upon rezone he will continue to try to sell his property, again. He already has another residence that he is in ownership of, so things will change . And, my concern is the erosion of that residential community. The lines are clearly defined now, at what point are you going to erode further and further and further into that community. And, there are children that do, on the corner of Temperance and Jason, Jason, and these are small children, these are grade school children, that walk to that corner every single day. I watched the bus myself from my mother ' s home. Many mothers, even at this point, are sitting in their cars watching their children because they are concerned about the traffic that is already on Jason and they are picking their children up there and walking to that bus stop in the morning . So, to continue this, five - seven days a week, the impact of more professional office draw. My further point is . . . is there really a need. I mean, I did do some research with some commercial leasing agents and there is an abundance of vacant space and it seems to be pretty common knowledge by leasing agents that once Boeing has completed their Longacres facility, their comment is its going to be a ghost town in the valley because of the available office space. So, I see the impact and need for residential communities and not professional office space. Thank you for your time and your explanation. Hunter: Thank you, Ms. Reed . Next, was over here and then you, sir, right behind him. Are there others remaining that would like to testify and then you, ma ' am, after that. Do you mind, sir, before you testify, there ' s a switch on that, unless you're going to use it. Ted Nixon: Well , I was going to use the overlay, yes . Hunter: Well, let ' s leave it one, then. O.k. 27 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Nixon: Again, my name is Ted Nixon . I live at 911 E. Temperance. I 'm an architect by profession. So I have some exposure to these types of things . I never thought I would be talking in opposition to anything but here I find an opportunity . I . . . again, this is a. . . .referring back to some earlier testimony and that does refer to Canyon Drive or Smith Street. Again, Canyon Drive or Smith Street is. . .there ' s only access for traffic headed from the east onto the subject properties . Any traffic from our downtown core who will be using the office building, would be forced to make the route between Jason, Temperance and back on Hazel to hit Smith Street. I mean to hit Smith or Canyon Drive westbound and then they could make their access onto the subject properties. Temperance Street is about a twenty foot wide road, poorly maintained. There ' s probably about 25 percent of the whole roadway has sidewalks on it. There are no curbs and gutters and, again, my daughter stands on the corner of Temperance and Hazel where the kids play and any traffic increase on that road, just increases the hazard. There are no marked crosswalks . Its a residential community. As far as the traffic count, that ' s based on what' s there or existing with an O occupancy , the person is entitled to develop that O zoning. Looking at the 1 . 4 acres , you know, and quickly calculating a 30 percent building size for that size we' re looking at about a 60 , 000 square foot building potentially sometime in the future bordering this residential areas, whose only access from the west would be Jason, Temperance and Hazel and back onto Smith Street. The corridor in the DCE zoning below, along that, has a two-way turning lane . Since, there' s a controlled intersection at Jason and Smith Street, there ' s a. . . . all of the area to the east of that is dedicated to a left turn lane and there' s no opportunity to create a two-way turn lane. Again, this would go back to the State Highways as far as being able to mitigate a two-way turn lane in there and I don't see that as being feasible. Thank you . Hunter: O.k. , Mr. Nixon. Yes , sir . John Seaquist: My name is John Seaquist and I own the house at 322 Hazel and I am against the rezone also. What I would like to say is that I have a couple of other . . . . residential homes that I own in Renton and we 've had this same problem in Renton with the office space right next to a residential area and it contributes tremendous amount of parking and traffic problems right with the residential houses that are right near- the office space. Because people that can ' t find space, say in the parking at the office area will start filling up the nearby residential areas which create tremendous problems to the point we had to, even have cars with permits with a meter maid patrolling the area to keep them out 28 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 because the people that lived there couldn ' t find parking. And I would just be opposed to that because of what it does to the residential area . That ' s all I have to say. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Seaquist . Yes , ma ' am. Catherine Eagen: My name is Catherine Eagen and I live at 347 Hazel. I 'm a homeowner. I lived there, it ' ll be sixteen years in May. I 've lived there since May of 177 and I don ' t have a family history with the City of Kent . I 'm just a working class person, so I don 't, you know, have a mayor or anybody in my family background. But, I 've made some points here, you know, over the years, the neighborhood has- gone from a lot of run-down rentals that people are taking pride in their homes, fixing them up, we ' re trying to raise families there . I brought two children home from the hospital, raised them in the neighborhood . This is to say that the people that lived on that main highway , they knew what the deal was, they were compensated when that road was widened. There' s three pieces of land we ' re talking about . Two of them, the people that own it don ' t even live there. So, we ' re talking about profit here. We 're not talking about them living in the neighborhood. The third person, they ' re going to move out . The Keck ' s have been wonderful neighbors over the years, this is not about trying to bash Jack and Barbara . I wouldn ' t do that to save my soul but my point is, they ' re going to move on . Its profit versus the neighborhood and they say you can ' t fight City Hall but, you know, the deal is, would you want an office building in your backyard or a parking lot. I don 't think so. Thanks . Hunter: Thank you, Ms . Eagen . Are there others that would like to. . .oh, yes, sir, you and then you, sir, in the middle of the back. Ed Turner: I 'm Ed Turner, 207 Alvord and my feeling is that you have a chance here of possibly work something out between the Mason entrances and the other entrances that are there . But, I 'm hard pressed to see any possible reason why the City can force this burden on the Keck ' s . Because it ' s a terrible tax burden and I live in the area and he would be impacted similar to me. But, unless you can guarantee no more tax increases, why I don't see how you can in good conscious turn this thing down. Thank you. Hunter: I wish I could do something about taxes . I can't do a thing. You sir, in the back and then, you, ma ' am, next to him. 29 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Scott Manthey: My name is Scott Manthey and I live at 701 East Temperance. Hunter: Scott, what was the last name? Manthey: Manthey . M-A-N-T-H-E-Y . I lived in Kent for, oh, I don' t know, since I was in third grade and I 've lived in this particular neighborhood for five years . I ' ve had a very strong concern for quite a long time about the traffic coming down Jason. Initially, and, in fact, coming . . . . before coming to this meeting, I hadn 't fully made up my mind what I want to do on this and I feel like if it were properly handled and, I 'm not sure what the legalities are how to do that, it could work. What I 'm really concerned about is, I 'm not sure how long DCE has been the way it has, but if you look at the neighborhood here behind, in particular the. . .what used to be the Kent city . . . . the little shopping. . .the Big O Tires and all that . As soon as that got downgraded that thing turned into a junkyard. I 'm mean its terrible if you walk back there and its one block up. The creek is the only border and I wonder whether. . .when you start eroding, you know, the corner of the foundation, you know, it starts to rot, does that mean it goes through the rest of the neighborhood . And I 'd really hate to see the neighborhood turn into what it looks like right next to the school. That ' s. . . that ' s really my only objection. The traffic is an issue, I work out of my house on occasion and I . . .where I spend most of my time, I look out the window on the corner of Jason and Temperance and I would say, I see six . . . seven accidents a year happen at that particular intersection. Its a yield sign, its not a stop sign and people don ' t yield all the time. I 'm sure my neighbors would agree, we often have to call 911 for the people to come and pull them out of their cars and any increase in traffic is probably too much and it would be a very high concern to me that if they have to loop around through this process , I think we 'd see more accidents and no fewer . I have a four-year-old daughter and she ' s lives right on the corner . So, that ' s all I have to say. Hunter: Thank you very much for your testimony. Ma ' am. Francis Nelson: My name is Francis Nelson and I live at 620 E. Temperance. About everybody here that talked is my neighbor, either across the street or three houses away. I 'm in favor for Mr. Keck to get the zoning . I appreciate his concern about living in a great big house when we ' re getting up to the golden years and taking care of it . And, I also appreciate the problems that these people have with families that live in the neighborhood. We do have lots of fast traffic. It goes by there even in spite of . . .they tried barriers at one time and some of the 30 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 people talked them in to taking those out. It did help us. I frequently called the Kent Police Department and said, come on up and sit on my corner and you ' ll make yourself lots of money. In fact, last Friday night I talked to a policeman up at a restaurant up on the Benson and I said, why don ' t you sit down there, on the corner of Jason and Smith, and they come down there - its supposed to be 40 and then it drops down to 30 about in front of Jack and Barbara ' s house and. . . but I doubt if you would find five percent of the people that go 30 miles an hour coming down there and so the policeman explained to me, well , they can ' t do that. I said take their license number. He said, no, I can ' t do that. In order to take them to court, I have to catch them myself. I can 't call another car and say, license so-and-so is heading such-and-such a way. So, I sympathize with your problem to grant this. But, for Jack and Barbara, I hope they get their appeal . Thank you. Hunter: Thank you, Ms. Nelson. Are there others, who would like to testify. Yes, ma ' am. Anyone else after this one who has not had a chance to testify . Mr. Ainsley, I see that you want to respond, we ' ll allow that . Ainsley: I . . . . . (unclear) . . . .questions . Hunter: o.k. Good afternoon. Phyllis Alvord: My name is Phyllis Alvord. I 'm the executrix of my father ' s home on 802 E. Temperance . He ' s located right directly behind the Masonic Hall and the alley runs right along his home, right along the side yard and I too voice an opinion or concerns of everyone here who ' s opposing it. How are people going to get into this property that is to be rezoned . Jack and Barbara are very dear friends of mine and I sympathize with their problem but I too am going to have a problem, I think , trying to sell my father' s home, now, if that ' s rezoned because no one ' s wanting to live on a busy street in a residential area that was originally designed for. I don 't know how they are going to. . . . as it was stated going east, you can't make a left-hand turn off of Smith and you have to either use Jason, go up Temperance and around Hazel or you go up Jason to Temperance to that alley. And, as Doris , was that your name, your mother just remodeled the home there. Wanted to live in a residential area in the downtown. . . . close to downtown, close to the senior center. So, she changed her home and took the driveway from Jason Street because it was so busy and rerouted it to the alley. Now, she' s an elderly lady and when she backs out, I have a concern about her and both she and Betty Van de Mark ' s mother walk up and down that alley a lot. A lot of older people as well as children riding bicycles up and down that alley , use it constantly. And in 31 office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 conjunction with the person that said the Masonic Hall is a real pain, it is . When there ' s any doings over there, they back. . .the people that are there, back up in to the fence my father built, put a retaining wall and built a fence and the Masonic ' s were gracious enough to put some concrete blockades up but they 've broken those and did away with them. Now, I understand from Mr. . . . Hamlin: Hamlin. Rob. Alvord: Rob. That they repaired the fence today, so this is an on-going process. My husband and I are out there with a hammer and nails all the time repairing that fence from damage. so, my main concern is am I going to be able to sell my father ' s home. What is it going to do to the residential area , the property taxes and the property value, there? so, I can ' t say I ' m either for or against but I do have those concerns and I wanted them to be known. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you for your testimony . I understand those concerns. Mr. White, I think we need to . . . . I need to ask you a few things based on the testimony I just heard and then I allow also Mr. Ainsley an opportunity to examine you and, Mr. Kleweno, if you wanted to ask questions, you have that opportunity as well. A lot of the testimony I just heard does focus, Mr. White, on the traffic concerns, not on the main corridor, which I heard you testify to in detail earlier but on the side streets . There are several streets that have been mentioned, Jason, Temperance, being the key streets that I 've heard mentioned and what I ' d like to ask you is whether impacts on those streets were part of your impact analysis that allowed you come forward at the hearing today and address the criteria of the rezone. Have you examined the impacts on those streets? White: I had an opportunity when previous testimony was given to talk to the assistant Transportation Engineer who actually did the review and what we basically looked at was a proposed professional office type building of around 3 , 000 square feet and in looking at that, even though the original condition was placed at 4 PM peak hour trips, using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual and, actually its a piece of software that we use, we calculated 5 PM peak hour trips which are the trips we are most concerned about. But, also, 35 daily trips that would be impacting the site. Now, without really sitting down and doing any distribution, its really difficult to say which trips are going where depending on, you know, what activities may occur on the site. But, normally, when we take a look at a significant traffic impact, we are looking in the neighborhood of probably 500 to a 32 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 1, 000 for residential streets . When you are starting to get into trips in the range, you know, probably 500 or less or 2 or 3 hundred you are looking at activities that could occur as a result of normal residential use. In that someone has a house party which has been discussed earlier today, a garage sale, its real easy to generate that type of volume just with those type of sales or I should say those types of activities. So, again, when we take a look at significant impacts on residential streets we try to, first of all, take a look and see what types of impacts they 're going to be. What ' s happening on the site, what the generation. . . .you know, what type of generation is it going to be . Hunter: Let me -ask you this . Isn ' t it possible that the proposal is for an O zone, an office rezone to look at the range of activities that may be allowed on the site under that designation and then go that next step and . . . and determine not only the number, but the distribution. I guess I 'm not quite certain your response to that. Did you look at possible distribution of traffic impacts on these streets given the testimony that we ' ve heard that there is access off the main arterial only for those that are headed westerly. White: Right. No, I did not have time to do any type of analysis on the distribution. But, again, given 35 trips per day, just looking at the site and dealing with the information that I have, you 're looking at a large majority of those trips would be utilizing Canyon Drive, probably about 20 or 30 percent and so now you've reduced the, you know, 35, down to less than 20 and then if you take a look at the other two alternative accesses, and even divide those in half , you ' re looking at possibly 10 trips a day and maybe one or two during the PM peak hour impacting the residential streets. And, again, any times you ' re dealing with a number less than 100 you ' re not going to be looking at a different use than what currently exists there under the single-family use. I think that' s been a . . . . several statements made is that there ' s going to be a significant impact caused by the additional trips that would be added by this use and I really, at least with the information I have, can ' t see where its going to be, you know, that much different. There ' s is a difference . You ' re going from 1 PM peak hour, 10 daily trips to possibly 4 to 5 and 35 , but. . .but, you' re still looking at, again, at that range , that ' s not uncommon for a single-family use. Hunter: O.k. Thank you, that responds directly to my question. If you stay there, at the podium, Mr. Ainsley, you wanted to ask a few questions . 33 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Ainslev: Just a few. Mr . White, I found this in the staff file, do you recognize that document. White: O.k. , this is . . . . I looking at a document dated December 3 , 1992 and its called a Trip Generation Calculation sheet that' s done. . . doesn' t have who it is actually done by, but what it basically identifies is the number of inbound and outbound AM and PM peak hour trips, total PM or total number of family trips and the approximate breakdown for the mitigation purposes . Ainslev: And I believe that indicates how many total trips per day. White: Well , again, not knowing where this was generated and again, using the most current information that we have available, we come up with a different number than that, so. Ainslev: O.k. How about, I ' m looking at a document that was referred to before, its ENV-92-77 which, I think, was the response environmental checklist and . . . . Hunter: Is it 93 or 92? Ainslev: 92-77 , don ' t they use the same numbers here, daily of 87 . . . White: Yeah, they use the same numbers . Ainslev: So, I 'm somewhat confused . I think you are referring to 35 trips per day before, both those documents indicate 87 trips. White: Correct. O.k. , I was also referring to the information that I had available to me which �:as the 3 , 000 square foot office building that is currently . . . . that is the proposed use at this time. Ainslev: Is that for all three properties or just for one properties . White: Well, to my knowledge , just . . . Satterstrom: I think the difference is . . . . Hunter: Mr. Satterstrom or the Planning Department. 34 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Satterstrom: I . . . . I think Mr . White is talking about the additional traffic that might be generated by the office use on the Keck property, right. White: Right. Satterstrom: Now, the information in the report here is looking at the entire area of the rezone as if there were changes on the Masonic Home. . .Masonic property as well as the duplex property. In other words, if the entire area were changed to office, there would be this. Hunter: O.k. , before we go any further with that. I want to make sure that we are looking at the same document. Mr. Ainsley, I believe, you ' re about to offer those as exhibits or. . . Ainsley: If that ' s necessary . I took them from the staff report. Hunter: Well, that ' s what I want to make certain, what you ' re looking at is the same as I have in front of me. It sounded like it was, in which case they ' re already part of exhibit 1 . Yeah, these documents are part of exhibit 1 which is the staff file. Ainsley: So, just so that we are all under the same understanding, is it your testimony that the 35 anticipated trips generated from the 3 , 000 square foot development on Mr . Keck ' s property. White: Right, that ' s correct . Ainsley: And then 87 if we had development on all three. White: Well, again, not knowing exactly, you know, what the total square footage are. Again, I ' m a little hesitant to dealing with this information because you just presented to me. I wasn ' t the one who originally did the analysis . This was done in 1992 , there. . .there is a difference in the way that trips were generated between 1992 and 1993 because the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual came out in late 1992 . We didn ' t receive it until the earlier part of this year . And so we. . . again, you're talking calculations that were done and that were done last year versus what the information we have this year. Ainsley: Do I understand your testimony is the way you do your calculations, you make certain assumptions about how the property would be developed, plug that information into the software and it generates a calculation . 35 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 White: Correct. Ainsley: O.k. So, there really hasn ' t any actual studies done in this particular neighborhood. White: That ' s true. Ainsley: o.k. And, in connection with this neighborhood, the testimony has been that there are restrictions on left-turn access. Is that correct? White: That ' s correct. Ainsley: So that the only way to access is going eastbound and turning left on Jason and then coming all the way around and go back west. White: That' s correct or on Hazel . Ainsley: So couldn' t that restriction on journeying affect your guesstimate on how much of the traffic flow will be deflected into the side street. White: O.k. Again, that could, yes . Ainsley: Now, on the factors that were listed below as mitigation conditions. I noticed there ' s a long condition but the first one talks about a traffic impact study to decide on the impacts within the side streets , is that correct? White: Well, no. Its evaluating all of the level service E or F intersections within the area . Ainsley: Would that most likely include the adjacent Temperance intersection. White: No, it would not . Ainsley: So that wouldn ' t even be looked at. White: The only intersection that would fall into that category would be 516 and Jason or Smith . Basically, the intersection of 516, Titus and Jason. Ainsley• So. . . 36 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 White: Signalized intersection. Ainsley: In connection with this proposed rezone, we have no real evaluation of the impacts on the side streets . White• Right. Ainsley: Thank you . Do you feel that I need to submit these or do you. Hunter: No, what you ' re referring to and Mr. White ' s responding to, are already part of Exhibit 1 . Ainsley: Thank you. Hunter: Any one else want to ask any questions of Mr. White while ' s he there. Maybe before we do that, I ' ll tell you what I 'm inclined to do at this point and I can have you react to this. Based on the testimony I heard today, I think its a critical need for further traffic information studies particularly on the impact of the neighborhood based on development projections for the entire rezone. I just heard the response of Mr. White, the Traffic Engineer, to the questions raised by Mr. Ainsley as well as responses to my own questions and I think what we ' ve learned here today is that the traffic impact on the neighborhood from potential development of this entire rezone if it were approved is really necessary to have in front of us before I can make a recommendation on the proposed rezone. One of the key criteria on making a recommendation is the finding one way or another about the burden on the transportation system in the vicinity of the property that might occur because of the proposed rezone. Certainly, the main corridor SR156 , Smith, Canyon Drive, is the main corridor and that has been studied, and I think, typically , that ' s what we would look at for rezone. I think the testimony , however, from the neighbors has raised sufficient concerns and questions in my mind that I would like to see the additional traffic study, especially because of the special circumstances of ac ess that has been raised today with the need to make special turns in order to get to the property, if it had an office use on it. . I think that ' s a little different than typically what would be analyzed by computer trip generation studies and would take a little bit of extra analysis to make those determinations . And this , Mr. White, isn ' t to disagree with what you stated, I think your testimony has been very accurate and right on mark in terms of the studies that have been done. It is my opinion, however, that we don ' t have sufficient information given the special situation of these three properties to make the determination on traffic impacts at this time . What I proposed is 37 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 doing is that we continue the hearing . I want to get some feedback from you Mr . White on how long it might take . The proposed date I would have would be June 2 , if that ' s enough time to look at not this. . . nothing to do with the MDNS studies but rather than an opportunity to examine the data that ' s there already that you have already gathered and bring your own expertise, your staff expertise, and, by the way, I think the staff person that does it should be present at the hearing, so we can get precisely at this issue of what might happen in the neighborhood as a result of any proposed rezone. Does that make sense to you, Mr. White. White: That' s something we, we certainly can do. I 'm not quite sure we can do it within the time frame . Hunter: Well , that ' s what I ' m asking . What time frame would be appropriate. We typically have sessions on the first and third Wednesdays, that' s when this room is reserved. White: So, I guess, the next . . . . the next time that we would meet would probably be May, be the, first or second week in May. Hunter: All right, and I 'm proposing June 2 . White: Yes, we could have a report prepared evaluating this site by that time . Hunter: O.k. , now, I do want to give the applicant ' s attorney an opportunity to respond because I . . . . this is a development. . .this came up based on the hearing and I '.could like to certainly have an opportunity for the applicant to respond to this and Mr. Ainsley or any other citizen. Ainsley: Personally, I 'm going to be in Washington D. C. on the 2nd, so I would not be able to be present . White: I could supply another copy of the report . Hunter: Is there someone else in your firm that might be able to handle that. Ainsley: Actually. . . . . (unclear) Hunter: O.k. , let me hear from Mr . Kleweno what his client ' s reaction. Kleweno: Well, our reaction is that we would like to the matter resolved as soon as possible . I can sympathize with your concerns 3S Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 and certainly we have no objection to extending it to June 2 for the additional studies which you ' re requesting from the traffic people. our. . . I would like to state a couple of things, first in. . . if I could figure out how to turn this on, Fred. . . . the testimony, so far, has been that everyone that came into this area, unless they came down the hill from. . . going west on Smith Street, would have to go around the block, basically here, well, that ' s not exactly true. Because people coming from the east or coming from town, there ' s a lot of different ways to get into the site. Here ' s, streets come here , certainly will go past these houses, come in and feed in, don ' t affect the neighborhood at all. So, it ' s not as if its a captive. . . . Hunter: Please, please hold your comments. I 'm giving him the time to respond. Kleweno: Thirty years . So there are a lot of places to get into Smith Street to go west other than going around that block. Now, certainly, some people may be inclined to do that and I 'm not. . . Hunter: Right, and you can understand that ' s exactly what I 'm trying to get at with having that as a matter of factual discussion as there seems to be a variety of opinions about it and, I think, you know, its important to have both sides looked at. That ' s what I would like to do with the continued hearing . Kleweno: Right. And, I don ' t have any question, but what some people currently to reach the. . . the Masonic Hall and people currently to come visit Barb and Jack Keck for their garage. . .no, its estate sales, not garage sales . . .what their sign says. And, so for their estate sales, you know, some go around that block an I certainly would concede that if the rezone were granted why there would be some people that would do the same thing. Being familiar with the office situation in the City of Kent, and understanding the current uses of the duplex and the Masonic Building and looking at the Keck property and knowing what the requirements would be to convert that to office use, the existing structure and also understanding the economics in the Kent. area currently and they could change. I don ' t think they ' re going to get any better but the testimony is that Boeing is going to have a lot of office space, so I can ' t imagine that developers are going to be willing to pay a lot more per square . foot for buildings and tear them down and build in the foreseeable future . so, again, looking at that and projecting into the future the traffic impact and knowing what someone is going to have pay for the Keck property in order to pry it from Barb and Jack, I don ' t know the exact figures , but I know Jack. The. . .my opinion would be, for whatever its worth, for the 39 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 foreseeable future that . . . that building is going to stand and so, looking at that building and converting it to office space, I don't know how many square feet there is in the home but its only two floors . I just don ' t think that the traffic impact is going to be that great for the very foreseeable future and into the distance in the future. Hunter: Well , that ' s exactly what I 'm proposing we need to find out about it. Kleweno: Right. And I , you knoe:, . . . . Hunter: . . . from: . . from your perspective as well , this finding that the rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system is one that ' s required . I 'm fearful that even if I were inclined, I 'm not telegraphing one way or the other which way I might make a decision, but, if I were inclined to agree with your opinion, I would still need this strong , fundamental base of facts to base it on and I would think from your point of view you would want that as well to protect the vulnerability of the decision. So. . . so, that ' s. . .that ' s what I 'm suggest and that ' s the only reaction I was looking for, are you in agreement with that . . .that is needed or otherwise I 'm fearful . . . Kleweno: I 've no objection to the June 2 continuance. Hunter• O.k. Kleweno: Does that get us where we want to be. Hunter: Thank you, yes . O. k. , I think that ' s where we are then. Mr. Ainsley I don ' t know what to do with the calendar, its a problem here with the City, we schedule this room way in advance and there ' s a lot of other activities that go on and we 're really only given first and third Wednesdays at 3 : 00 are the time slot. We 've tried to accommodate concerns other times and we always run into problems . so . . . so, I really . . . Ainsley: The 15th is too far? Hunter: Well, we have additional hearings scheduled and you know the problem. Its not as bad as the court system, we do try to get decisions out more quickly . I just don ' t. . . don ' t know what to do to accommodate that. We ' d need to be into, you know, probably into August, if we can ' t do June 2 . Well , I think what I need to do, you know, just wait a minute folks before you start chattering and I ' ll, I ' ll try to refine this a bit . I think I ' ll issue a written 40 Office of the Land Use Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes of April 21 , 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 notice of continuance and pick a date when we can have that available in consultation with Mr . White on that issue alone, we won't talk at all about the substance of it and make it available to you. And make that available to you, Mr. Ainsley so you have an opportunity to review it perhaps with an associate or fellow with your firm and as well give citizens an opportunity to review it, so that when we meet on June 2 , everyone will have had a change to at least seen that. . . that study . And, we ' re not talking about a major comprehensive study, this is but an opportunity to see the expert analysis applied to the issues raised to today and then on June 2 we can move on with that one issue . I don ' t see a need for other issues to be brought up at that hearing . I think we 've given a full opportunity to have those raised today. So, I would focus June 2 hearing on that issue of traffic impacts on streets other than the main corridor . Voice: Is it possible that the Washington State Department of Transportation study could be made available . Hunter: If those studies are available, they are relevant to traffic impact in as much they are , I think we would bring those forward. Testimony that I ' ve heard today, certainly part of that study, looking only at E and F intersections and we ' re fall below that in terms on numbers on the streets that people have raised concerns about today . Voice: As I understand the MDNS, the EMS study could be eliminated by just paying the mitigation fee, he doesn ' t even need to do that. Hunter: That ' s correct . Voice: . . . the Department of Transportation. . . . Hunter: O.k. , inasmuch as those studies are relevant, if they are completed, we ' ll bring them forward. I ' ve already determined that they are not a necessary of the need to make the rezone determine. I do think this side street study is a necessary part of the rezone determination. The DOT study and the other one, if they are available and if they are relevant, we can talk about those on June 2 , but I 'm not going to delay that. We ' ve already had that discussion, we ' re not going to delay it if those studies are not available. Does that make sense to everyone here. O.k. , then that ' s what we ' re going to do, we are continued to June 2 at 3 PM in this very room. Thank you all for your patience and for your clarity of testimony. Its been very helpful . We ' re adjourned today. e:rz93 Lver.min 41 CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE LAND USE 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. KECK #RZ-93-1 June 2 , 1993 A continuation of the public hearing of April 21, 1993 , to consider a proposal to rezone approximately 1. 4 acres from the current R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. The subject site is located on the north side of Smith Street near its intersection with Jason Avenue. The site size consists of three tax lots totaling approximately 1 . 4 acres. Theodore Hunter: We' ll take them in that order. The continuance on the Keck rezone was continued until this date to allow time for the City Traffic Engineer to prepare a traffic study on the proposed rezone. Particularly on the impacts on the residential streets around the site. The study was completed on May 24 as I indicated earlier before we officially began this hearing. Copies are available here at the front table. Copies were made available to any interested person on and after May 24th. What we decided to do last hearing date on April 21st, everyone present at that time decided that we would allow for the additional analysis and then, restrict our hearing today to that consideration of the traffic impacts. I received several letters of comment on the traffic impact issue between the time of last hearing and today ' s date. We have bundled these as Exhibit 8 and I ' ll just mention who they're from and briefly summarize the content of the letter and then if anyone wants to review the letter they may do so by. . . .during the hearing by asking to. . .to receive Exhibit 8 from Chris Holden who' s the assistant to the Hearing Examiner here at the front table. The letters contained in Exhibit 8 include those from Robert Weber and Jana Weber. . . .and, are any of you here today. . .the Weber' s here 1 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 today? And the content of their letter is briefly that. . .that they are concerned about the impact of traffic through residential streets and they would not be in favor of routing additional traffic through the residential neighborhood. Lewis Deal. . .Mr. Deal here. . .this is a letter that says they do not feel that any new buildings would happen and see no increase in the traffic and only a slight increase would happen if the Keck property were rezoned and he then is in support of the rezone. Elizabeth VandeMark comments that I 'm in favor of the Keck rezone. It would not cause any noticeable impact in the neighborhood. From a V. Atwater and the comment is that. . .actually this appears to be a letter to the residents around the neighborhood but it was also submitted as an exhibit here urging that you attend the hearing. Andrea Gourder who' s comment is in opposition because of the increased traffic and a concern that pedestrians would use Prospect Avenue to gain access to the site. From Mike and Buz Fleming generally against the rezone on the concerns about traffic impacts and Kim Portura who indicates that the best use for the Keck property would be as a commercial use and urges that" we grant the rezone. So these are bundled as Exhibit 8 , they ' ll be included in the file unless anyone objects to them. They're all comments on traffic analysis and the impacts of the proposed rezone. Chris, I ' ll hand these to you as Exhibit 8 . If anyone wants to see those, you're welcome to do so during this hearing. I think the order of process that we ' ll use today is to allow the Transportation. . .Engineering department, Mr. Ed White is here as well as. . . . is Kevin Lindell. . .next to you, yes, and Kevin Lindell are here who prepared the report. Is anyone. . .has everyone had a chance to see this report? O.k. , indications are that, yes, you have. I think I ' ll ask, though, first that Mr. White or Mr. Lindell summarize your findings of the report and then we will take testimony on this traffic analysis. I ' ll ask at this time that any of you that were not present at the last hearing but desire to testify. . . .testimony in this hearing is taken under oath, it' s a matter of record that we do so. . . so I ask that you raise your hand if you have not testified before and expect to testify and do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that you give today and, if so, answer I do. Voices: I do. Hunter: Mr. White, good afternoon. Ed White: I 'm not really sure how brief you, you know, you would like to. . .my presentation to be. I think the report in itself is fairly comprehensive so at the risk of maybe covering things a little to lightly but both my assistant and I will be here to 2 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 respond to any questions. So, if there are any areas where some further clarification needs to be made we will certainly respond. Hunter: I think that' s an appropriate way to do it. Indications were that most people have seen the report, so to give you an opportunity to touch on some of the key points in it and then to respond to any questions or concerns that might be addressed. White: O.k. , we were requested by the Hearing Examiner to do a traffic analysis of a potential build-out scenario; to evaluate what the potential trips that would be generated from the three- parcel site would be and that, again, at the direction of the Hearing Examiner, we did that and this report is basically a combination of our traffic count information, visual surveys that were made of the site of all of the streets in the site, a common trip generation methodology that we apply towards all new development that would occur in the City and the general analysis based on current traffic engineering technology and documents. What we are looking at is a situation of a developable site of around 6, 000 square feet and that ' s, if again we demolished everything on the three parcel lots and put, what we felt was a reasonable amount of development. What we came up with, was again, around 6, 000 square feet. Based on that we did trip generation calculations that, o.k. , that came up with a total net new trips, daily trips, of 113 with 21 p.m. peak hour trips occurring. Based on that information we concluded or, at least, the Transportation staff concluded that there weren't significant number of additional trips added to any of the residential streets to really warrant any corrective action at this point in time. That' s pretty much a summary of what we did. Hunter: A couple of areas I wanted to inquiry about and then we will allow inquiries from others as well. Particularly with reference to Jason Avenue north of Smith Street and I 'm looking at pages 4 of your report and page 5 as well. If I understand this correctly, the charts there appear to indicate that the existing p.m. peak volumes are in excess of the design capacity. Now I know that you have footnotes that are an important part of that. But, for Jason Avenue, now am I reading that correctly? White: O.k. Well, let ' s . . . let me go through basically what we have and I 'm looking at specifically at the summary, the three columns that are below. It says, based upon our analysis the following traffic volumes result at a build-out of the rezone. We have an existing range. Now, what we've done is that we've broken down for each of the streets. We 've again looked at the peak hour volumes here, not the total daily volumes. What we are. . .the first 3 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 column will represent existing p.m. , peak hour volumes. Being those were traffic counts that we actually counted, the existing background trips. The next column is design traffic peak hour capacity. Again, what that represents is what the peak hour capacity of the arterial would be. And the third column is the actual peak hour capacity, not the volume but the capacity of the arterial that' s calculated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and we, again, that' s where the reference. . . .reference no. 3 . So you're looking basically at adding 21 trips again for lack. . . . or. . . . just for simplistic sake that if we added 21 trips to each of those streets, being East Temperance, Prospect and Jason, you could possibly say that you're looking at a high volume on Jason of about 468 trips. A high volume on Prospect of 47 trips and a high volume on Temperance of 54 trips which would fall far below both the design traffic peak hour capacity and the actual traffic peak hour capacity. Hunter: That ' s what I wanted to ask about with reference to Jason Avenue, it appears that that number is in excess. You're design traffic peak hour capacity is 350 and existing for this project. . . . White: Right. Hunter: . . . is 373 to 458 . White: O.k. , but your actual, I guess, the real key element here would be the actual peak hour capacity in that normally when we use the design criteria that' s basically the number that we would start with in order to design the street. If there were no street out there, this is what we would use to, I guess is, at the beginning point to determine how many lanes, how wide the lanes are, so on and so forth. The critical elements is, again, the actual peak hour capacity which is what realistically could happen at any point in time. Hunter: O.k. , is that the same analysis on the next page then. Where you have the traffic volumes and the design traffic data capacity. White: Right. Only instead of, again, peak hour which is on the previous page this is the daily. So, the only difference is one' s occurring characteristically between 4 and 6 p.m. in the evening which is on page 4 and the total daily meaning a 24-hour log is on page 5. Hunter: Now that middle column, the design traffic daily capacity, on page 5, there' s a footnote indication, footnote 21 it doesn't 4 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 appear. . . .there' s no footnote 2 at the bottom on the page, was the intent that it be the same as footnote on the prior page, City of Kent street design standards? White: Yes. Yes, I 've been told that, yes, the reference 2 that is missing on page 5 is a reference made to the design standards. So, I guess the footnotes on page 4 would be same as the footnotes on 5. The only difference being one is a pm peak hour volume and the other is a daily volume. Hunter: O.k. , and again, here it appears on the first, on page 5, that first set of numbers you have the existing traffic daily volumes ranging -as high under this worse case scenario that you outline as 4 , 453 . White: So, in fact, you would get the maximum potential with the build-out. You would add 112 to that 4 , 453 and that would be the high volume or, at least, projected high volume with the development. Hunter: O.k. , which again is in excess of the design traffic daily capacity but below. . . . White: But less. . . . Hunter: . . . .the actual traffic daily capacity. White: Really, the only number, the only time that you will actually see the design volume used is either in setting speed limits or, again, the initial work that you would do in order to design a road. Once, the road has been designed the carrying capacity is dependant upon the development around it. Hunter: O.k. Why did you include them in this analysis. White: Well, again, to give, basically, a range so that we could provide the widest, I guess, the widest basis for the evaluation. Hunter: O.k. , so these. . .the design capacity is. . .has been used for mitigation measures ever? White: No, we don't. . . .we don't use it for mitigation. Hunter: Street design and street use limits, speed limits, is the intent of design capacity. I 'm wondering is the . . . . . White: Yes, right. 5 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: That ' s the primary use of the design capacity figure. White: Yeah, that would be correct. You could use it for more but, again, the primary use, at this point, would be for those two purposes. Hunter: O.k. , one other area that I wanted to inquire into and that regards the mitigation. I think that you reach a conclusion here on your page 6 that the currently proposed mitigation measures, and then, I believe, you reference those, participation in the City' s S. 272nd Street, S. 277th Street Corridor project should be adequate to offset the impacts of the proposed projects. White: At the present time, this is the general language that we apply to all the development that occurs in the City and it' s more or less a situation that the City has set up or process, I should say, that the City has in order to get equal contribution towards one of the three corridors that' s planned. Hunter: And. . . and, this mitigation measure was part of the environmental review, is that correct? White: That' s correct. Hunter: And is that where typically you would review what mitigation would be appropriate is in the context of the environmental review. White: That' s correct. For example, we even require single-family residences that only have one trip, we require that. . . that they sign the agreement and they participate in the LIDS as well. Hunter: Would it be fair to say that this mitigation measure isn't so much, then, sight specific as it is a general area-wide mitigation measure applied to all proposals within the area. Hunter: Yes that would be correct. Hunter: O.k. , as for as possible specific site mitigations and I 'm not, this is hypothetical. I don't know if these are realistic or not, but I 'm wondering if you have had an opportunity to observe Smith Street, the site there, by the site, and whether' s its possible to have any left-turn lane. White: Exiting out or entering into the site? 6 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: At the site itself, yeah. At the site of the Keck residence, entering into. White: O.k. , whether its entering or exiting, right now, because of the volumes on Smith Street or Canyon Drive are so high, with the vertical and horizontal problems that we have, it would be my opinion right now, especially since we have just completed that project, install the guard rail about a year and a half ago, that there would not be any provisions at any time made for a left-turns either into or out of this site. Hunter: O.k. , there ' s a left turn lane into the street immediately east of the. . . . White: Right, Hazel. At Hazel Street we provide a left turn and at Jason you can made left turns, but the next, I 'm trying to think, there is another section and right now I can't recall what the street is and. . . Hunter: Now, when you indicated and then going the other way, heading west there' s a left turn lane, is it Titus that' s at the bottom there at the light. White: Right, Titus or Jason, yes . Hunter: And, when you say it' s not feasible, is that not practicable to add another left-turn lane at this time. White• Yeah. Hunter: Is that based on the work that was done there over the past year. Did you look at where could left-turn lanes---where is it appropriate to add them. White: Correct. This is the actual project that constructed the guardrail is about, oh, I 'd say, five years old actually, if you want to go back to the original planning. The section of Canyon Drive where Smith Street, roughly between 94th and Jason, is one of the highest fatality areas in the City. In fact, it' s . . .that location there has had more fatalities accidents than any other location in the City. It ' s a combination, again, of the number of vehicles that travel that road on a daily basis, the volume, and the horizontal and vertical curvature of the road which tends to, I guess, it. . . it. . .tends to or, at least, tended to before we put the guardrail in to allow vehicles to drift into the opposing lanes. We'd tried several different methods of controlling that activity with some pylons that we had purchased and installed for 7 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 a period of about a year. Those were continually knocked down and they really didn 't do anything to curtail either the number of accidents or the severity of the accidents. So, at that time, we applied for and received a hazard elimination grant from the, at that the it was the old Federal Urban Systems Grant Fund. We then proceeded with widening the north side of Canyon Drive, oh, roughly between Hazel and, I think, we went almost as far as 94th. Hunter: Right. So, this site is west of where. . . . White: Right. Hunter: . . . .that rail area is or the dividing. . . . White: That' s correct. No, it is. . .the guardrail goes almost down to that, yes. This is the actual duplex where the property is, at the intersection and that' s where the left-turn pocket is. If you go just east of that, that ' s where the. . . . Hunter: And, that' s what I 'm trying to direct the inquiries at when it was determined that the left turn, it wasn't feasible into this site we 're talking about today, the Keck site, that was based on traffic volumes and other left turn areas provided. White: It was based mainly on, again, the vertical and the horizontal alignment and the speed and the volume of the traffic. Hunter• O.k. White: And, again, it was felt that providing left-turns at that location would not be prudent. Hunter: Feasible at Hazel but not west of there. White: Correct. Hunter: O.k. So it' s as much the configuration of the road, or more so the configuration of the road than any other criteria. White: Yes. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. White. I would like to allow the applicant the opportunity to ask any questions of Mr. White, if you would like to do that. 8 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Kleweno: Don ' t have any questions at this point but would like to reserve the right to ask any questions depending on what we've heard since. Hunter: O.k. O.k. , there was then a group of neighbors, or at least one neighbor represented by legal council at the last hearing. Judith Ramseyer: Yes, I 'm here substituting for Mr. Ainsley who was here earlier (unclear) tonight and I 'm. . . . Hunter: O.k. , and what I 'm trying to figure out is the best process now to take inquiries. Do you desire on behalf of your clients to ask questions of Mr. White. Ramseyer: I to would prefer to reserve, and, if possible, and perhaps in making my comments, that will raise additional questions in areas that would be appropriate to go at that point. Hunter: O.k. , and your name? Ramseyer: Judith Ramseyer. Hunter: Is it a group you are representing or an individual client? Ramseyer: Individual client. Hunter: Are there others in the room that had questions of Mr. White about the traffic report or they wanted to raise concerns about that? O.k. I . . . if you just indicate by raising your hand. I see four or five. O.k. What I would like to do then is go in order. Ma 'am you in the second row, I saw you first. If you would like to come forward and just state. . . . Voice: I just stand here? Hunter: Well, it's best that we get in on the record because this is all just tape recorded and all very official. It' s important that we do it that way. Voice: No, I 'm here to ask a question to Mr. White. . . . Hunter: And you name, first. Judith Taylor: Judith Taylor. I live on Prospect. I want to know who Mr. White, where ' s is he. . .oh, there he is . . . . .why wasn't Hazel 9 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 included on the traffic. . . . flow of traffic with the traffic counters. Prospect was. . . .Prospect does not go through, it deadends. That ' s why I was wondering, why? Hunter: Why wasn't Hazel included? In the analysis? Taylor• Yes. Hunter: O.k. And, did you have other questions? What I would like to do is get all the questions out in the open and then we ' ll ask Mr. White to come back up. Taylor: Yes. You know, how they come about coming to the conclusion if the streets are adequate or not adequate with. . .the sidewalks have. . . . if you 've ever tried to go through those areas when there' s been cars parked on both sides of the street and a car' s coming at you and a car. . .you know, you're going in opposite direction. Hunter: Um hum, so an analysis of when it' s parked up. . . . Taylor• Yes. Hunter: O.k. Taylor: You can try that during Canterbury Faire or any one of those that they park over in there. Hunter: O.k. , any other areas that you would like him to respond to. Taylor: And the traffic lights, and how they designate those on Jason or Titus as far as your flow of traffic between Jason or Titus through that section in there, creates a problem when I 'm trying to come home to get to Prospect. It takes me anywhere from a half-hour to forty-five minutes. I work in downtown Kent, to get through that light because there' s people cutting through on Jason to go over to James which is another busy street. They're coming back through, at night-time, to go home, to go left up the hill and I 've. . . .there' s been numerous times that I 've came across there and had people turn left in front of me. Is there a possible way to make that a left-hand turn lane there or a specific time of night that they can turn left going up the hill or whatever? Hunter: O.k. , so what are the possibilities for the traffic lights that now exist. 10 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Taylor: Well, either the traffic. . . .there ' s no way to make a left hand turn lane there because the road is not wide enough. So they would just have to stop people from making left-hand turns on Smith at peak traffic hour. They'd cut out a lot of traffic in that neighborhood by doing that, which should have been looked into when they put the road and widened it. Hunter: O.k. Good. We' ll have him respond to those. Taylor: But that ' s about all as far as my problems there. But, they should've have gone and put the counter on Hazel. Hazel is, I mean, thoroughfare. We get the traffic and the upset people when there' s a wreck -on James or Smith and they come through our neighborhood and there' s been wrecks on streets that shouldn't have been because of the fact that the people are mad. They route them through the residential area and they ' re mad and they're speeding and they hit people. Hunter: O.k. , what about the rezone proposal itself. Do you see. . . Taylor: I 'm against it. I figure when the people bought the property, that they have that they want to go commercial on, they knew when they bought it, it wasn't a commercial. I have a problem with a house that was grandfathered. . . . a boarding house across the street from me, so. Hunter: What about traffic impacts. Are you. . . Taylor: Traffic impacts? When there' s only one exit out and you have to go right on Smith, that to me is sheer nonsense. Hunter: O.k. , we ' ll get responses to your questions. You, sir, here in the front. Voice: Ah, yes. A bit of mine is a better presentation that I 'm going to ask for a response on. Can I get that set up and set here, set it somewhere so people can see. Hunter: O.k. , and your name, sir, as they 're doing that? Theodore Nixon: My name is Theodore Nixon. I 'm a professional architect. I 'm also a resident of Kent. I live on Temperance Street. I testified in the first hearing. Hunter: Right. I remember that now. 11 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Nixon: O.k. Set there. . . . everybody. . . . o.k. Just to familiarize before. . .this is merely an overlay. This is the area here of the subject sites. This shows Temperance, Hazel, Jason and East Smith Street, the location of the existing houses and curb lanes and everything else are identified on that. . . . Hunter: Are you intending to submit this as an exhibit or is this just for helpful use. Nixon. I will submit this as an exhibit too. I would like to get the aerial back when you're through with it, if that' s possible. Hunter: Well, once they're submitted as an exhibit. . .that' s why I asked. You have a choice as submitting it as an exhibit or we can just reference to it. It looks to me like you have an aerial photograph that could be helpful, o.k. Nixon: This is an overlay. This shows a schematic site development plan. The blue indicates the location of sidewalks, the short dotted lines indicates travels to access the sites. The solid dashed lines indicate the exit routes. . .possible exit routes for the site. Hunter: O.k. , I may ask then this is exhibit 9 and we' ll mark it as that. I want to make sure that the applicant' s attorney has an opportunity to look at it, and see if there ' s an objection to using this, I gather to look at possible routes. No, objections, fine we' ll use it. Nixon: O.k, as a preamble to my questioning and my presentation here. I 'm going to repeat the Valley Floor Plan circulation element, goal 1, objection 1, policy 1, discourage through traffic routes in residential areas and that is my problem with the proposed rezone. I feel that the proposed rezone will elevate the traffic levels to potentially unacceptable levels on Temperance and I would add to that, contribute to the already congested Hazel and Jason. O.k. I 've started out, I 've redlines this traffic report, so I ' ll follow through. The first thing that I came across is that the concrete sidewalks border the majority of these roadways although no walks, there are no walks either along side East Temperance and. . .or Hazel Avenue. Hunter: Do you want to reference where in the report that appears? Nixon: That' s on page one. And, like I said, I think, this illustrates pretty much where the sidewalks and this happen, (unclear) . O.k. , the majority of Temperance is not covered and 12 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hazel ' s not covered and, I think, that should be the focus of the statement about sidewalks and, I think, the statement is misleading in that presentation. Hunter: Is any of that incorrect. There are no sidewalks along E. Temperance except along the northerly side and the block between Jason and Prospect or Hazel, I mean. Nixon: Yeah, this section that runs from here along. . . . Hunter: Yeah, is that. . . is that correct in this report. I 'm looking for the truth here. Nixon: The report is confusing. Hunter: I see. O.k. Nixon: If this was calculated across town, these streets, maybe there is a majority but in this immediate area that we 're talking about the rezone I think it' s an inaccurate picture. Hunter: I understand what you're saying, thank you. Nixon: O.k. , looking at the first. . .the significance of the actual traffic peak hour capacity, the design peak hour capacity and existing traffic pm capacity. To get a feel, I converted these to how many seconds a car passes by, remembering this is a residential neighborhood. The existing level is during peak hour traffic, a vehicle crosses, goes down Temperance, every two minutes nine seconds. The design capacity says that is acceptable during the PM traffic to have a vehicle transfer Temperance or going down Temperance every 36 seconds and this actual traffic peak hour capacity says a vehicle will be 2 . 4 seconds apart which, I think, is a statement, even if it ' s an upper limit, its unrealistic based on the fact that traffic control at Jason, Prospect and Hazel are yield signs which means that if you even get traffic through there, the traffic. . . .the traffic itself, the traffic controls do not allow that type of flow. So, I think that number is probably more based on saying if you an ideal situation road isolated without any cross-intersections or anything else, and it' s this wide, you can probably safely get this many cars down there if you had too. O.k. Now, the proposed project made some assumptions. These assumptions were said to come from the Planning Department and these are probably the most erroneous assumptions to this whole study. First of all, the existing lodge building is probably closer to 7 , 000 square feet by itself, the Keck house, I 'm not sure what that is. 13 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 But, as an architect, I want that. . . a. . . . a potential development on this and that' s not the maximum development. If I was looking at the maximum development of a building on this site, as an office building on both sites, where you tear one down. . .wreck it. I could put a 35, 000 square foot building on that site and three stories, 10, 500 something like that square foot. . . footprint and parking underneath. That would be the maximum configuration. What I have here is the existing lodge cut back to 6, 500 square feet which is a reduction in that building size, converting (unclear) to apple juice. . . . I have the Keck hour being leveled and a three-story 11,750 square foot. . . .total 11, 750 square foot building placed on that site. I supported it, demonstrated on this site plan with the appropriate setbacks, appropriate landscaping and parking for 11 or 250 , 000 square feet. So, this middle of the road approach shows that its probably more realistic to look for potential development of around 17 , 18 , 000 square feet on these two sites which when we go back to the study, I ' ll start giving some revised figures. While I 'm up here, I also point out a couple other things. These two red marks are nonsidewalk areas, shoulders of the road, and these are our children bus stops. Approximately, I counted, 24 children loading here. They all walk out the apartments up above and they catch the special education bus right here on the corner. This bus here, where my daughter catches her bus and the surrounding neighborhood children go to, there' s another location where the buses go. Hunter: Which street is that. . .Temperance Street? Nixon: That' s Temperance and Hazel and the other one is on Jason and Temperance. Now, I want to discuss before I go back and show what the impacts of this type of development would be on the site. First of all I want to talk about the two predominate traffic routes, it' s either east or west, is actually how you're going to be entering the site. There' s an alleyway that connects the site of the Masonic Hall to Temperance and there' s East Smith Street. If you're heading west bound on East Smith Street access to the site is pretty simple to accomplish and it doesn' t impact the neighborhood from a traffic standpoint. Hunter: Right. We've been through some of this prior. Nixon: O.k. , yeah. The reason I like to emphasize a few of the points is because of where some of the traffic studies were done and I don't think they looked at what the normal least resistive traffic cross would be. When I go home, I go in. . . let me just say for sake of one, coming from the east, it would be that you would have to circumnavigate. . . . coming in the alleyway with a connecting 14 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 the sites or going around Hazel, going down Temperance, around Hazel and back into the site. Hunter: Correct. That was the path that we asked to be analyzed. Nixon: This is Prospect here. Prospect really has no advantage over Jason, Hazel, except there might be less cars waiting, if they're making a left turn over on James Street and it is rough for making right if there' s no traffic, if they 're heading back towards the east, it would all be the same and they could also continue on to Temperance all the way up to the summit. O.k. , the. . . .the calculations. . . I originally had. . . . I had the City traffic department cooperated with me yesterday and ran some traffic studies. Now, the traffic studies that I had them run was. . . I looked at the ground floor of this building as being all retail, the second story being office and the third story being apartment which is allowed by your zoning in the Code. But, because there was no data available for what they would assess traffic for retail facility and it showed zero, I decided to go ahead and make this all office and then I took. . . I did a linear extrapolation to come up with my numbers that I will submit. O.k. , if we go to page 3 , on the. . .these numbers here, I 'd go to the third column which is rezone daily and down to parcel B. I 'm not going to speak of parcel A in this. I think Parcel A is pretty much, I don 't even know why it ' s included in the rezone because it ' s going to be a nonconforming parcel anyway and nothing will ever be allowed to be rezoned unless it' s incorporated in the other properties. But, the Masonic Hall if there ' s 83 per 3 , 000 square feet and that' s. . . .that' s. . . . I did a linear proportion and I come up with 180 trips, for parcel C I come up with 325, that' s based on this scheme here for a total trips of 525. And, rezone, a PM peak, parcel B, the 11 has been revised to 24 , the 12 for parcel C has been revised to 47 for a total of 73 . This gives new net trips a revision of 137/24 for parcel B; 315/45 for parcel C and a total trips generated of 452 that ' s net new/69 p.m. peak. O.k. , if I go on to page 4 , and I look at the second table which gives the existing plus the project, and assuming, as they state, in their assumptions about half these trips and I 'm assuming that half of these trips are going to generate from the east, half from the west, you know, that' s my assumption and it seems to bear out in some of their numbers. But, assuming half of the existing pm peak. . .pm peak volumes, changes from 34 to 44 , to 58 to 79 . I made no calculations about Prospect because to me Prospect or Jason or all of these other streets that continue on to James, it would be hard to tie down one street as getting the brunt of the impact, it ' s going to be whatever offers lest resistance. On Jason Avenue, those 373 to 458 would be revised to 408 to 493 . O.k. , on to page 15 Hearing Examiner Verbatim 14inutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 5, all right. The introd. ctory paragraph was very confusing, at least the assumptions. It says. . .this is sort of one of these garbage in, garbage out ones, I think. Hunter: Well, Mr. Nixon, let me put you on hold there for a minute. It' s not my role to object to the testimony but I will object if we disparage anyone else' s . Nixon: It ' s not disparage, it' s the assumptions, I think, are wrong. If we read them. . . . Hunter: O.k. , and let me say one other thing. I 'm not getting all of your numbers. - Did you prepare this, is it in writing, are you going to submit this. . . .because I 'm. . . . Nixon: Well, it ' s cursory notes right now. Hunter: O.k. , I 'm not able to track all of your numbers, you're running through them quite quickly. I . . . is the applicant' s. . .are you willing to accept these numbers are these. . . . o.k. I ' ll guess we' ll continue. Voice: We' ll read them into the record; whatever there value is. . . Hunter: Well, and that' s, we have a Traffic Engineer here and we're getting into a realm of traffic analysis whether they're correct assumptions or not, I 'm going to rely on. . .on expert testimony as to how the analysis was conducted. Nixon: O.k. the. . . . Hunter: What you're doing is springboarding from an analysis done by someone else and it' s getting a little confusing as to which numbers are the one' s we are going to be able to accept because I have expert testimony in front of me. Nixon: All right, that expert testimony in front of you and I 'm also an expert. Hunter: And, I don't think you're contradicting the testimony as much as you are making different assumptions. Nixon: Exactly. Hunter: And, it' s my role to try to sort out this testimony and you're making it difficult for me because I think I understood you up to the point you got into throwing out a lot of numbers at me 16 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 that the assumption of the 6, 000 square feet, you didn 't agree with that it would be developed to a higher level. I understood that and clearly if there are greater number of square feet there will be some additional traffic impacts, presumably depending upon the use. But, I . . . I don't think I ready to go to the next point of what those numbers might be. Nixon: Well, o.k. , I can avoid those numbers if. . . .what I was trying to do. I didn't know if you were thinking about re-delaying this so they could go back and run the new numbers. I was trying to give you something based on at least a linear projection and after meeting with Ed White and looking at the graphs, most of these. . . . somehow. . . . all of them have some bit of a curve but they are for all intents and purposes linear for this size of a calculation and I was just trying to assist you in understanding what the impacts of making these different assumptions would be. Hunter: Well, that' s . . . . .the point. Nixon: Go that and you can ask him to run these numbers based upon a revised assumption or the maximum development of the land of a 35, 000 square foot office. It ' s irrelevant. I was just trying to assist as far as the numbers. What I . . . . Hunter: If you're using it to illustrate your point, the greater square feet means the greater traffic impacts. I 'm there. I understand it totally. I do not want to get hung up on whether it's 85 trips or 95 or 65, the point' s well taken. The greater square footage means greater traffic impacts. I 'm with you to that point. Now, if you think it's important to get into specific numbers of what 35, 000 square feet means versus 6, 000 square feet. I think we have a long afternoon ahead of us. Nixon: O.k. , well, I ' ll try to keep this short. All right. Hunter: But, I 'm not cutting you off, but I want you to focus on that. Is that what you want to do? Get into the specific numbers of what 35, 000 means versus 6, 000? Nixon: I was under the assumption that. . . .whatever is read into this hearing is what you have to solely make your basis of a decision on and that if I didn't present these numbers to you, you wouldn 't be privy to my testimony that says that my square footage impact it. . . increase square footage impacted these numbers and to what point they were impact or, you know, in a. . . . 17 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: You're making a . . . .making a. . . . I think you are making maybe to big a deal out of it. I accept your testimony. Your testimony of greater impacts and greater square footage. Nixon: O.k. Hunter: I absolutely agree with you. And, I think, I 'm ready to move pass that without getting hung up on specific numbers. Nixon: O.k. Some of the questions then that I . . . I guess that I have, I didn't understand the wording on page 5, top paragraph, you want me to read that aloud or do you want me to read it. Hunter: I have it in front of me. Nixon: O.k. , if you read that. Hunter: I read it. Nixon: I don't understand no trips would exit on to East Smith since that' s the only exit onto. . . out of the site. Hunter: O.k. , that ' s a question we can ask of the author of the report. Nixon: O.k. There' s an. . . . a statement in here that. . . .that. . .that during peak hour that the people would go down to James Street but that during the normal majority of the day they would go onto East Smith. O.k. I would. . . . I would consider possibly. . . .that would probably be a reversal because making a left turn on James Street during peak hour traffic is almost. . . .a very difficult task and I don't know if those. . .those assumptions were reversed here in this statement. If what he' s trying to say is that during normal. . . .during pm traffic they would probably go down East Smith if they're going try to get to 167 and down to Central and out where you have traffic control all the way or, you know, rather than saying the PM peak traffic would exit to the north and, I don't know, how you'd get to the north without going out into East Smith unless you go down the alleyway and, if he ' s saying the majority of traffic is exiting through the alleyway, during PM traffic, then I think we have a bigger problem than what we 've identified. Hunter: The first sentence of page 4 and. . . . Nixon: The first sentence and then. . . .then the following sentences explain the. . . .the logic that was assumed and, in my mind, the 18 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 statement that they would exit to the north and not onto East Smith Street is also a problem in my mind. I don't know how they. . . .what that traffic route was proposed to be. Hunter: Well, regardless, isn't the final sentence of that paragraph basis of the assumption. . . Nixon: Yeah, and that the majority of those trips bound for SR16 would exit to the north to James Street without going on to East Smith. That was a question in the assumption, I don't understand that pattern. Hunter: Well, let me ask you. Did the final sentence of that paragraph, we would assume, therefore, on a daily basis, 50 percent of this SR 167 bound travel, demand would be served by East Smith Street/Central Avenue/SR167 path rather than the . . . . . of Prospect/James/Central. . . SR167 path. Do you disagree with that conclusion? Nixon: It' s not a bad conclusion but I don't know what the base line for that. I don't know what they are assuming, how many people are going to be bound for SR167 who are going into and off the site. One person. . . .two people, one of them is going to go one way and one' s going the other. I mean there' s no base line, I mean it' s not addressing the traffic flow to the neighborhood. Are these people heading east, all to 167 . . .this sort of leads me to believe that they are assuming that the majority of traffic, at last what they studied, is heading towards 167 and that ' s why they are talking about 272nd/277th Corridor alleviating this and I don't think it' s really significant to our situation in our neighborhood. Hunter: I understand your point now, o.k. Nixon: And so, I . . . I . . . I, you know, when we get to relatively negligible, what relatively negligible. . . .you know, if you can quantify what relatively negligible means. Looking at the assumption of 50 percent of the traffic on Temperance as generated by this proposal. I get 118 percent increase over existing volumes and, although, it' s below the 100 for design number, I still think it' s significant. And that' s the end of my testimony. Hunter: What was that remark. . . . it' s 100 percent increase. Nixon: 118 percent increase. Hunter: On Temperance. O.k. , that you, Mr. Nixon. And, believe me, if you want to provide the numbers, I 'm happy to look at them, 19 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 you feel all right on that. Is your point made, without the specific numbers. Who' s next. Ma'am, here in the front. Voice: I would like to thank Mr. Nixon for doing such a wonderful job. He took some of my work away. Hunter: Please, please, I can't allow applause again, we all want to get home for dinner and if we applaud to long we ' ll be here all afternoon. Applause is not appropriate in this hearing. Thanks is fine, but not applause. Doris Reed: O.k. Mr. Nixon did a wonderful job. My name is Doris Reed and I would like to submit these photographs of the (unclear) place. Thank you. Hunter: Let' s bring things back in order here. I guess you have an assistant here who pined up the photos. Let' s bring Exhibit 9 down that Mr. Nixon used unless you are going to refer to that. Reed: I was going to use the board to hold that up. Hunter: Well, the photos can be just submitted to me. I can look at the photos during her testimony. otherwise we ' ll lose track of all exhibits. O.k. And, if we can have that Exhibit 9, then, handed to the assistant here, it needs to be marked and admitted. And, you would like to have these marked and submitted as Exhibit. . . . Reed: I would. Hunter: . . .as Exhibit 10. And, what are these? Reed: Those are photographs taken in the morning hours and the afternoon hours on the corner of Jason and East Temperance and it helps add. . . Hunter: O.k. , o.k. and who took the photos? Reed: A family member. Hunter: O.k. , Mr. Kleweno, photos . . . Reed: I believe it does add credibility to us talking about numbers. There are children that do walk those streets. They do stand on unmarked intersections and wait for buses. They do exit the buses in the afternoon as some of the photographs do show and freely walk across what is already a busy street. And that was an 20 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 ordinary morning when those photographs were taken and there were in excess of 20 children. My name is Doris Reed. R-e-e-d. Hunter: O.k. , these will be then admitted as Exhibit 10, photos showing children waiting for and climbing onto a bus on a typical gray morning in Kent. Reed• Exactly. Hunter: O.k. Reed: Exactly. Thank you. And also to questions regarding Mr. White' s paperwork. When I arrived here April 21st I was given a document that City Planning Department had prepared. It was several pages. The comments that the City Planning Department made at that time did concern themselves with the impact of traffic and it said, in fact, I ' ll quote: The goals and the policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan were to seek and protect the residential neighborhoods from dissimilar and incompatible land uses as well as from adverse impacts of heavy traffic. That is a word for word out of a conditional approval presented by Fred Satterstrom and the same comments on that, he also said through the Valley Floor Plan that the policy enumerated above in the Valley Floor Plan, residential environments, the policy discourages through traffic in residential areas as one way of ensuring neighborhood liveability. Hunter: I need to know what you're quoting from. . . is it the staff. . . . Reed: I 'm quoting your staff report. Hunter: Report, o.k. Reed: Dated April 21, presented to us at the first segment of this hearing and those are direct quotes, verbatim, page 5 and page 6. Another comment that appeared on that same report this was the conditional approval report stated, and this was under the standards and criteria for the rezone request. These were conditions on that conditional approval. Number 5, on page 7 , stated: The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. I have now read which was presented to me a few days ago, the traffic impacts. I 'm concerned that on that traffic impact study, the concern is regarding the surface of the streets, the widths of the streets and, in fact, it was concluded that those streets were more than adequate state of repair to handle this traffic volume. 21 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Nowhere in this report did I see the concern for the citizens of Kent. That does alarm me because on the fourth page and also in agreement with Mr. Nixon' s comments, that same paragraph I 'm also concerned about because the words that appear in there state that the traffic exiting this would logically take place to the north, through the residential community to James Street. The comments on Mr. White' s report simply state, this would appear entirely appropriate. I don't consider this entirely appropriate, running more cars through a residential community. So my concern is today that this will be approved. I 've seen two documents prepared by the City government, I assume with taxpayer dollars. The second, prepared by the Public Works Department, states that these property owners. . . . it clearly states more than once. . .that, I ' ll quote them. . .there' s no intent for change of this parcel. Parcel B. —there 's no plans to change the current use. Then why are we here. We're here because people want. . .three. . . Hunter: Please, please. Reed: Three parcel owners a change. . .three. There are probably 250 families that will be impacted but three parcels want a change. I wish for you to look at that when you make a decision today. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you, Ms. Reed. There' s others that wanted to testify, have questions about the traffic impacts and analysis. Yes, ma'am. Catherine Eagan: Yeah, I have a question. Ms. Reed. . . I 'm Catherine Eagan, my address is 347 Hazel. Is this a democratic society. Look around, she said 250 families. Three people want a bigger profit margin. This is overwhelming, this is amazing to me. Hunter: Ms. Eagan, did you testify at the earlier hearing. Eagan: Can I finish. And, then you can go ahead a put me down. Hunter: Well, today we are looking at traffic impacts. Eagan: No, it' s more than traffic. It is more than traffic. It' s easy for you to sit there and say that. This is upsetting to me. Why can't we take a vote. We all pay our taxes. I just feel like this is a charade. We're going ahead and do this, we' re all taking our time and yet it' s going to go through anyway for a profit margin. We got to deal with safety and security and serenity of a neighborhood. These people will move on. We will stay. Let' s take a vote, it ' s a democratic society. 22 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: Fine. Others that wanted to comment on the traffic report. Yes, Ms. Ramsayer, is it. Judy Ramsever: My name is Judy Ramseyer and I represent Bob and Vickie Pringle who are residents and live on Hazel. Hunter: How is your last name spelled. Ramseyer: R-A-M-S-E-Y-E-R. I 'm a stand-in for Stewart Ainsley who spoke at the April hearing. And we do believe, we reviewed the traffic impact report and believe that it is flawed and the reasons for it's flaws are two-fold. One its based on premises that are very conservative and there 's, as Mr. Nixon ' s testimony demonstrated, represents only one low end of the continuum of potential development and there are other scenarios which need to be considered before this decision is made. Secondly, it. . .the report fails to. . .while it mentions other relevant factors, these more tangible factors, it seems not to have been included them in the calculus at all, in the final recommendation and I would like to just briefly speak to those additional factors. Foremost is that Hazel Avenue, while it 's mentioned in the report, is really not reflected in any way in the findings and yet it is highly significant to the potential traffic affect here and to this determination. That the fact that there is no left-hand turn off of Smith is a very important feature of these parcels and it means that if anyone is approaching this property other than traveling westbound on Smith, they must, in some fashion, circumnavigate "these side streets and one scenario is the left-hand turn on Jason and then turning eastbound on Temperance and then southbound on Hazel until you can make another west turn on to Smith and to the property. Another potential, would be a left-hand turn onto Hazel, this, however, is an unregulated left-hand turn. . . oh, excuse me, over very busy lanes of traffic and that ' s something that needs to be factored in. It would also require some kind of turnaround then once you get onto Hazel. Whether that ' s using property owners driveways or going up to an intersection and making a turnaround, but you would have to turnaround and come back and go westbound on Smith. Other possible routes include coming up from James and then traversing from the northend and coming down Prospect or some of the other roads there. But, again, it requires that you eventually hit Temperance and come south on Hazel before turning westbound again onto Smith. Each of these routes is a real possibility. It' s entirely likely that traffic will take all if not some additional routes and they all utilize Hazel. The only route that does not, is if you are already coming westbound on Smith. A traffic counter was placed on Hazel and sat there for eleven days, in the interim between the last hearing and today ' s hearing, and 23 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 yet no results have been reflected in this report whatsoever and so I would definitely like to ask Mr. White what the results were on Hazel and why Hazel was omitted from this report and I would also urge you to make sure that Hazel factors into your considerations because it is a key thoroughfare in this scenario. Another one of the intangible pieces that was mentioned in the report but doesn't seem to have really calculated into the recommendation is the character of the streets and the neighborhood in which these streets run. As Mr. Nixon stated, there are no sidewalks on all of Hazel, most of Temperance is without sidewalks, there is no traffic control, there are yield signs at the corners of Temperance and Jason and Temperance and Hazel but for the most part these are entirely unregulated intersections and. . .and most importantly and I think this goes to the comments of Ms. Reed, very specifically, is that there ' s no account whatsoever in this report for the fact that families live here. There are large numbers of children who, not only catch school buses and are deposited from their school buses on these streets but they play on the streets particularly the streets that don't have sidewalks, it' s certainly reasonable and not farfetched at all, to anticipate that children will be riding their bikes, and bouncing balls and running to other children' s houses. My clients, the Pringles, themselves have three children, ages 7 , 9 and 11, who are prime play outside age group and there are many, many children in these adjoining neighborhoods. I was interested to hear Mr. White say earlier that this area is already identified as a very high fatality rate area within Kent and the prospect of adding additional traffic and more congestion in a place where they already have, what is unreasonably high fatality rate, sounds very farfetched or very unrealistic to me. The other complaints that we have with the report are the underlying premises. And, I do believe that. . .that they represent just one conservative view point of how development might go and did take whole cloth the comments of the existing owners that they have no intention to change the current structures on these parcels. I agree, entirely that once the rezone is a fait accompli should that happen, then there is no way to say that the full potential of what is allowed under an "O" zone designation would not eventually take place on these parcels and that is the other end of the continuum that is not reflected at all much less a middle of a road of that continuum such as Mr. Nixon tried to illustrate at the hearing today. Apparently the assumptions, with respect to even the existing structures, 3 , 000 square feet of office space for the Mason Hall greatly undervalues the actual existing square footage of the hall at this point. The Keck residence is also presumed to allow for 3 , 000 square feet of office space. But, the 0 zone designation permits much more, up to 50 percent of retail. 24 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: so, are you arguing that there ' s no authority to do any conditional rezones of any nature. Ramsever: No. I 'm saying that if that is a possibility. There could be limitations placed on this but that, as I understand it, is not what is being proposed at this point and if the rezone is permitted as proposed there is a far greater potential than the current traffic impact report accounts for and that. . .that whole spectrum needs to be part of your analysis and taken into consideration that there are differing degrees of development that would be permitted and I believe this report is very conservative in its projections and that' s it is only fair to look at the potential that would be permitted under the current proposed rezone. Hunter: Are you opposed to it based on the projections in this study. This conservative one? Ramsever: Yes, yes. I think really undervalues the. . .the traffic effect and looks strictly on a car counting kind of basis and there are these other basis that I don' t believe have been factored into this. Hunter: Are your client' s absolutely opposed to any commercial development. Ramsever: In this immediate area, yes. I believe it' s been stated before that my clients believe this is a rank spot zoning and that it pulls away from commercial zoning that' s already been provided for within the downtown area and that there is no direct benefit. Hunter: What do you do with the Comprehensive Plan designation. That does designate it as Office. Ramsever: It does do that. That, as I understand it, is the only rationale that supports this rezone. I believe that the report also does not account, in any fashion, for a combination of these parcels. It looks only at them in discrete separate parcels as they are now exist and its certainly not farfetched to imagine that a new buyer, should the rezone be allowed, would want to obtain two or all three and develop as that increased parcel would permit. And, I 'm just suggesting for your consideration, that there are these other scenarios which are not out the realm of possibility and should be part of the evaluation that ' s given. . . 25 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: Well, what do we have in front of us though, it's a proposal for a rezone, there ' s no development proposal associated. What do you think the authority is, to look at those scenarios that you are suggesting of ultimate buildout. What point legally, are we getting on some thin ice here because we have a rezone proposal, we have no development proposal associated with it. Do you think there is legal authority to look at the entire spectrum of the kind of analysis you suggest in the context of a rezone without a development proposal. Ramsever: Yes, I believe that part of the consideration is what. . . as I understand today' s hearing its to look at the traffic effect and in order to realistically and comprehensively do that you have to consider what the potential development might be and under the proposed rezone, there are any number of scenarios and I believe the authority for evaluating the overall effect, the ultimate effect is to look at potential development even though there' s not a development plan currently on the table. If the rezone permits it, then it is in effect that the neighbors will have to live with should that ultimately be put into place. Hunter: It would be nice to have some case law or something that says that, not that I want to get all hung up on legal esoteric legal arguments but I 'm afraid that might not be supported by recent case law that it seems to suggest to the contrary that you can't hang up a rezone if it' s not associated with a development proposal looking at every possible scenario. Ramsever: Um hum. Hunter: so if you have some authority for your position, I would be very interested in seeing it. Ramsever: All right. Well, I will. . . . Hunter: And that could be submitted even after the close of this hearing if it is case law in support of your argument. Ramsever: Thank you. I would appreciate that. Even with the comments that I have already made, the fact that the report does not consider the less tangible features of the neighborhood. The existence of many school-aged children, the lack of sidewalks on many of the streets, the lack of traffic control in intersections and the failure to consider other potential development scenarios, the findings still show that Jason Avenue' s existing levels exempt. . . . exceed the Kent design standards. You may have had your questions satisfactorily answered, the one you posed to Mr. White 26 Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 in terms of why the design standards are in there and what they actually stand for, it was very confusing to me. I really didn't understand it other than what I seem to take from it was that the 30. . . .that once a street is built, then all you look at is what the concrete will support basically. How many cars can you run over the road until it just deteriorates and you have destroyed the thoroughfare. There must be a reason why in the Kent design standards they use the numbers they use in order to set speed limits or in order to design traffic flow and the fact that Jason already exceeds both limits and with even what I have testified and believe would be the conservative plans for development, it would increase that traffic flow, if you look at the potential of retail development or increased office space beyond what is being proposed then you have even greater congestion then currently exist and you have heard other neighborhood residents testify to the fact that Jason and Hazel are already congested streets. Another one of the features, though the report did state that Jason and Hazel were basically two lane roads, but as I mentioned Hazel does not have sidewalks, it also permits parking on both sides of the streets. When that happens, it greater curtails the passage-way that' s permitted for cars and depending on where people are parked, you may not have two-way passage and if you have two cars coming at the same time from opposite directions, one has to yield to another. That has not been factored in, just the basic. . . . Hunter: Where ' s all this parking coming from on Hazel. Is that residential parking or is that use of the Masonic Lodge. Ramseyer: No, its residential parking at this point, friends and residents who are parking, yes. Although, I might add that if these parcels are developed there could well be overflow into those areas and that also doesn't seem to be factored in in any way. I. . . .obviously, development would need to provide its own parking but that doesn't mean that every consumer of that service would chose to park in the parking lot. Well, I . . . I would just say in closing that I believe very contrary to the report' s conclusions these effects are not negligible. Its very important that these less tangible factors be considered, its not just a matter of counting cars, it goes beyond that and the report fails to do that and I would hope that you would take these other factors into consideration in making your determination. I will certainly try to substantiate my comments with case law or other legal authority and submit that in writing. Hunter: Well, on one specific topic and I want to alert Mr. Kleweno to this as well, whose the attorney representing the applicant. My concern with your argument is that the environmental 27 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 review for this proposal was completed and an MDNS was issued and the MDNS was not appealed and now I hear your arguments to look at a kind of worse case analysis or a variety of scenarios about impacts. You know that may or may not be appropriate, what I 'm concerned about is the authority to do something like that. Even if I agreed with you, what' s the authority to do that. Ramsever: I understand. Hunter: So, if there' s any support to require worse case analysis of a rezone proposal that does not have a development proposal associated with it, especially since the environmental review has been completed, "that' s what I 'm interested in seeing and I think that for fairness that should be provided to Mr. Kleweno and I should allow him to respond to that as well. Ramsever: All right. Hunter: So, we can leave the record open for an additional ten days on that. Ramsever: All right. I would just by way clarification, I was not urging necessarily a worse case scenario but other scenarios that there are a variety of scenarios that are possibilities and only one scenario has been presented and I believe it' s a very conservative scenario in the traffic impact. Hunter: Right, and I don't know how I would come out on that argument. . . .authority for that but I am concerned about this stage in the process when the environmental review has been completed. Ramsever: I understand. Hunter: And if there is something there, I think we all ought to know about that. Ramer: All right. Thank you. Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Are there others that wanted to ask questions about traffic analysis. Yes, sir. Doug Petrenchik: My name is Doug Petrenchik. It ' s P-e-t-r-e-n-c- h-i-k. I live at 504 Hazel which is up a few blocks from where this development supposedly or not development, rezone is to take place and I can say from living on that street that the reason it was involved in the or the numbers for that street weren't in the study is probably because they didn 't want to use them because they 28 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 are too darn high. We get a lot of traffic cutting across, up Hazel already to make that. . . .to bypass all the traffic going through Central. You got to stop through three more lights going down Smith to get to Central, to go north to the freeway. You cut across Hazel, you can cut out about six lights. So. . .and plus there' s no sidewalks on that street at all and if they used it, then they would have to lower their percentage of what sidewalks are actually bordering the streets. Basically, everything that I thought I was going to say people have covered pretty well. Hunter: O.k. , Mr. . .can I ask you a question? Petrenchik: Yes. Hunter: I wonder about Hazel, who' s accessing Hazel from that left turn off of Smith. Petrenchik: From the left turn off of Smith. Hunter: Right, is that heavily used in your experience or. . .when is it. . . . Petrenchik: That ' s not heavily used just because you can't do it. I live there, I 'm a professional at crossing that street and you have to be. . . .you can't do it. I mean sometimes I even get stuck. Hunter: The left turn, if you go into that left turn lane, is that what you're saying, that you can't. . . Petrenchik: Right, when it' s busy, no way. Even during, like 3 : 00 in the afternoon or 10 in the morning, it' s still hard. Hunter: Even if it backs up at the light, does that ever happen when then. . .you know the light at Jason. Petrenchik: I don 't know about the light backing up that far, if it did though that would at least have the cars stopped so you could sneak through. Hunter: But that doesn' t happen in your experience. Petrenchik: Not in my experience, but I always go out to the north mostly. Hunter: So, does anyone use the left turn off of Hazel or. . . 29 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Petrenchik: Oh yeah, it gets used. I use it if I come home that way. Hunter• O.k. Petrenchik: You take a chance. The fact is that' s already a busy street, you know. Twice a week someone will bomb through there at 70 miles per hour, the rest of the time, people are probably moving about 40, its a 25 and I guess my view on the whole thing is, its a residential area. I don' t know why you're counting cars, trying to say that we can put this many more cars in this residential area. It' s a residential area, we don't need any more cars . One more car is too many more cars. We've got kids playing, you have people working in the yard. If I need to wrap up my extension cord, I 'm out in the street, straightening it out first. That' s a neighborhood. We shouldn't have commercial traffic going through the neighborhood at all period. I mean, not. . . let alone. . .oh, we can squeeze this many more cars. You know these people are going to make a buck, they are prostituting us to extra vehicles. They're making their money, they're out of there. . . . Hunter: Let' s stick to the traffic. Petrenchik: And we 're stuck with the traffic problem and it will be a lifetime problem, it will never go away. There will never be less traffic, once you do it you can't take it back. Hunter: O.k. , thank you, sir. Is that it, there are others. Yes, sir, please come forward. Terry Dreblow: Yes, I 'm Terry Dreblow, I live on north Jason for 15 years now. Hunter: What' s the last name. Dreblow: Dreblow. . .D-r-e-b-l-o-w. And, I find Mr. White' s traffic impact study to be far less than comprehensive. I can assure you that there' s a great deal of traffic heading down westbound that does not continue west on Smith and go north up to 167 , it cuts across Hazel, it cuts across Jason, cuts across Clark. I feel the majority of the traffic that will be coming out this potentially commercial development, will go northbound. There' s no mention or little mention of any impact with the potential left-hand turns off Hazel, Jason and Clark up at 240th, where' s there no lights and there are numerous accidents on 240th and Jason. Hunter: You live on Jason, is that what you said. 30 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Dreblow: Jason, that' s correct. Hunter: What about the east bound traffic, turning left across Smith. Now, does that. . .the analysis in the report here, does that seem to be accurate in your experience as far as the numbers that it projected. . . indicated that there is quite a number of left turns already occurring off of Smith and Jason. Dreblow: That ' s correct, there are. Hunter: O.k. Dreblow: There's left turns. There ' s also through traffic which is heading up 240th, it comes down Titus, runs directly across Jason at peak hour traffic times, both AM and PM and turns either left or right and heads up 240th. There ' s great deal of traffic on these streets. Numerous small children, not to mention the junior high kids at 2 : 30 PM when school lets out, all walk up these streets, north, south and east - west, Temperance, Cedar and the aforementioned streets. Hunter: O.k. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. O.k. , I 'd like to give, I guess, first Mr. White a chance to respond. Yes, sir, you in the front, did you have further comments. Greg Gorder: Yes, I had questions. Hunter: O.k. , I 'm sorry I failed to see you earlier. Gorder: My name is Greg Gorder. G-O-R-D-E-R. And my question comes from page 4 of the staff report of the Keck rezone under Section 4, Comprehensive Plan. And it talks about that City-wide Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as office and it was just adopted by the Kent City Council on March 16 and I think that might explain why some of this information is not readily you asked about why things are kind of late in coming. Well, we got kinda got this kinda late too, so. I think that what we all are alluding too if we are following a procedure that sufficient time ought to be given to those affected to. . . .when the City Council does something I sure it has to be published and then put out to the community and when we became aware of it, it was probably April, April 21st. Being a normal citizen that ' s kind of short notice and in light of that then, several comments have been made about the purpose and that the traffic would not be allowed or the desire , was not to permit an increase in traffic into the neighborhood and this, again, as people mentioned already today, that seems to be the only thing that ' s being considered. Maybe 31 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 that' s the purpose of this section of the hearing process but it' s been my experience, my mother-in-law lives on Jason, she' s Verna Atwater, she' s the one that kind of got things going here to. . . .this being her street or being her alley or be in the front with the kids where my wife took the pictures, it' s already too much and I think, quite frankly, I think the City in probably entertaining this whole process, is kind of getting everybody up in arms. It is a residential area and we need to keep it that way, we want it that way, if the. . . .there' s plenty of commercial space already downtown that' s available, that ' s unused and, again, just to bring to the. . . everything happens very quickly here and we need to recognize that we're real people, we have jobs, we don't have time to get to the hearings when they are first published on .page to of the paper, down at the bottom, it ' s not always apparent to us what' s happening in the City and if we can just. . . . Hunter: Well, that' s. . .that' s why we do have this hearing process and. . . . Gorder: Right. . .right. . . Hunter: I 'm hear to listen, I 've not . . . . . Gorder: I 'm not knocking your listening, so far. . .so that' s good. . .that ' s good and we need to talk and I 'm not knocking the people for wanting to develop their property and that' s certainly in order. But, I think, that in this case since it is a residential, commercial zoning should be out of the question. Thank you. Hunter: Thank you, sir. Did I get everyone now that wanted to remark on traffic. O.k. I want to give Mr. White a chance to respond to some of the. . . .there were some specific questions raised, some of it was general testimony about traffic impacts. On our April 21st hearing we. . . .we had a lot of that as well and part of the way we agreed to respond to it, was to look for more information on traffic. I . . . I think it' s fair to say those of us that were part of the April 21st hearing, that the report that was prepared was a fair effort to try to get more information. It may have not gone far enough, but there was an effort to gather information fairly quickly, within a month' s timeframe so that we could begin to understand what the. . .what the traffic impacts might be. The Traffic Engineer was not asked to do a full and comprehensive study on all traffic impacts that might be associated with. . . .we looked for additional information on residential street impacts because on April 21st we had no information on that area. So, this is additional information, I understand there are some 32 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 limitations and concerns about it. What I would like to do at this point in the hearing is look to some of the specific questions that are raised about this particular report we had and, Mr. White, you may have some additional notes or if miss some, others can alert me to it but some of the specifics, I think, that I was looking for and questions raised about it, Hazel Avenue has come up. Why didn't we look at that in more detail. I think that' s may be appropriate to look at. What is the impact of parking on both sides of the street, those are some very specific questions. Traffic lights on Jason, what ' s the ability to control that or place a left-turn signal there. Explanation of the paragraph on page 5, the assumptions that went into that paragraph. What was the traffic count on Hazel, apparently there was observation of a traffic counter there, that was in place for a couple of weeks and do we have that information and, if so, what is it. Those are some of the specific questions about this report, perhaps you had some others to. . .to respond to. White: O.k. , well, let me, as brief as I can, as to what we use in order to do our assessment or analysis or study. When we look at a particular site, we generally try and compare it to what the norm is and that ' s what we did in this case, in that we compared or we tried to identify as closely as we could what common characteristics or what uncommon characteristics this neighborhood would have over any other in the city. The results of the study basically tell us that this is no different than any other residential neighborhood in any other section of the City of Kent at the present time. And that would be even with this rezone action. We try to draw from a fairly general base which the Planning Department supplied us in terms of the land use, we try not to be too high or too low, we try to be more of a practical or take a practical stance as to what really would happen, again based on the information of the proponents of this action as well as the information from the Planning Department. Putting all of that information together, we try to take a look, again, you know, at what would make this neighborhood or the traffic impacts on this neighborhood more than what normally occurs on any residential neighborhood. We could not find anything. In terms of the number of additional trips, we always look at that, I guess, first of all in that, are we in fact adding a significant number of trips to the area. In this case, we are looking at from 90 to probably 150 trips with. . . . or I should say daily trips with probably, I would say, a range of PM peak hour trips that would range from probably a low of maybe five or six to maybe, again, a high of 14 or 15 . 33 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: Right, I don't want to go over the report, again. I 'd like to get to the specific areas that were raised. What about Hazel Avenue. White: O.k. , Hazel Avenue. I do understand that there were some. . .there was a traffic counter put out there. I do not have a clear reason as to why the information was not included in this report. I would be more than happy to get back to the Hearing Examiner once I contacted the technician who actually placed the counter out there to find out why it was not. I know that all our preliminary evaluations, again, says that Hazel carries no more traffic on it than any other street in the that neighborhood or does not carry more than, again, a typical residential street. Hunter: There seems to be some dispute about that. How difficult is that to. . . .to get the information? White: O.k. , right now the tech is on vacation. He will not be back until Monday and so, again, what we are looking at is. . . . Hunter: Could I have it quiet in the room please, I 'm not able to hear the testimony. White: If there is a count that is necessary, we will conduct a count as soon as the tech got back and provide that information to the Hearing Examiner. In my opinion, it is not going to shed any additional light on this issue. We 've evaluated the critical streets as requested by the Hearing Examiner, those streets were specifically mentioned and that' s why they are in the report. What we tried to do is, again, try and find out why or if this. . .the streets in this neighborhood are different than . any other residential street. We could not. The practical basis that we used to evaluate is first of all on good engineering judgment and added to that we used a number of resources that are available to US. Those being the 5th Edition of ITE, Transportation. . . .The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual for the generation factors. The t-model which is a commonly accepted modeling tool that is calibrated based on Puget Sound Regional Council Trip Tables and trip distribution information modified for the City. Hunter: Right. Can I ask about peak hours. In your experience is the peak hour impact evenly distributed throughout peak hours or is there a tailing off or anything of that sort. White: It 's. . . .there' s really. . . . it would depend on the type of development. 34 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: O.k. In this case of a. . . .the analysis was of a potential office development. First of all what exactly are the peak hour that you use, that you analyze. White: O.k. , characteristically they are between 4 and 6 PM. For an office type use, you' re probably getting a peak close to 5: 00 when people do leave. Again, you are talking about a high of 21 trips. Hunter• O.k. White: I guess, without getting into some specifics, because we could be here a substantially long period of time for me to go through each additional, I guess, issue that was brought up. I guess what. . .what we do is, we provide a critical evaluation. The City is neutral in terms of this development. It will not impact us in any way. When we take a look at a development, that' s what we try to do. We try to look at it as impartially as we can. We do our traffic counts. We use the traffic engineering techniques, methodology and materials we have available to make our assumptions, to make our distribution. We put that information as clearly and as concisely as we can in a report and then we let the report stand on it' s own merit. Hunter: Do you also do some site views . Site observations? White: We do. And we did on this occasion. I, myself, went out on numerous occasions, both early evening, mid-afternoon and late evening and based on, again my observations and the materials that we had available to us, I still say that we do not have significant impact. Hunter: Um hum. I want to look again at the possible. . .because we do have this conflict here that we need to find a why to explore possibilities. Your testimony was that a left turn lane could not be any further west than it already was - Hazel is the furtherest west that' s feasible. White: Correct. Hunter: Are there any other parking locations in your knowledge around the area. Is it public parking spots across. . . . White: There are none. Hunter: O.k. What I was thinking of. . . .there' s a senior center or some other. . . 35 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 White: That parking is not available for general public. It is only available for those seniors who chose to utilize the senior center. Hunter: I 'm just exploring here. This is not a proposal of any sort. The parking impact on the senior center. Are you familiar with the senior center use. White: Yes, I am. Hunter: Would it typically be a packed facility where all parking is used at that -facility during the daytime or is more often an evening case. White: It is periodically depending on the event that are scheduled. I 've seen it occupied. . . . fully occupied during all times of the day and evening. I 've also seen it virtually empty. Hunter: O.k. Looking at the site that' s now proposed for rezone. Did you observe any vehicles coming in and out of the site, making either an exit on to Smith or trying to enter the property from Smith. White: No, I did not. Hunter: O.k. White: I might add that and presently, I believe, that this is still a residence and the Masonic Temple, again, conducts periodic events. Hunter: O.k. You responded to the specifics about Hazel, Jason was another issue raised, about a left turn light, I believe, White: O.k. , and I not really sure of the location, if they're talking about Smith and Jason, again. . . . Hunter: I believe that was the question raised. White: Smith and Jason Hunter: Smith to Jason and Titus. White: Correct, and you talking about the southbound to westbound or southbound to eastbound. Voice: No, north and south. 36 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 White: O.k. , right, you' re talking about. . . . Voice• Yes. Hunter: O.k. , north and south is a little different issue, we've been trying to look at the east and west. Voice• That same thing, you know, they're cutting through Jason to go to the. . . . Hunter: O.k. , fine. I think we understand the issue now. Voice: So the street is . . . . . . . . Hunter• O.k. White: And. . . .and, again, what you are looking at is the turning movements at that location do not warrant a separate phase. Traffic does clear making both left-hand turn and through traffic going north and south. Large outburst of people speaking. Hunter: You wait. You' ll each have a chance to testify. Can we allow Mr. White to make his remarks. O.k, I think you've respond to both specifics. White: Again, our task here is, at least as we were by. . .by you was not to go and evaluate what the current operations of either Canyon Drive or the signal were. Our task was to evaluate what the impacts of this rezone proposal is. Hunter: O.k. , that ' s correct. We had specific testimony at the April 21st hearing about some specific problem areas and that' s what this study was to address and we didn 't ask or have testimony at that hearing about the north - south, so we don' t need to address that any more at this hearing. I thank you for your responses and the work that you did to try to help get some information into the hearing. I 'd like to allow the applicant an opportunity to respond. Mel Kleweno: I ' ll try to keep my remarks brief. I. . . I feel a little out of place, I 'm usually not arguing on the same side of the coin as the City so, I don't know quite how to. . . I always think they're biased and here I think they are fair. Mr. White says they've been very fair with their analysis and so from that standpoint I 'm going to make my remarks based on the assumption 37 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 that they have no ax to grind and they were simply carrying out the task which they're charged to do. I think if we accept that. . .that then the . . . .the testimony and the reports which have been submitted to the Hearing Examiner lead to the conclusion that the rezone should be granted. There are criteria set forth in the City Code for the granting of the rezone. I 'm not going to go through each of those. The City staff in their report went through those criteria and came to the conclusion that the rezone should be granted. I 've not heard anything which in my view would. . .would lead to the conclusion that the City. . . .that the City staff reports and the conclusions of the traffic engineers are anything but correct. Based on that assumption then, I would submit to the. . .to you, Mr. Hearing Examiner, that the rezone should be granted because I believe that all the criteria have been met. It is part of the. . .the. . .the Comprehensive Plan. I certainly can sympathize with the people who've testified. None of us like to see change come about but that' s really not the question here. I came to Kent to practice law thirty years ago in the country. Now thirty years later I find that I 'm not in the country and I 'm upset about that also but there isn't anything really that I can do so long as people are complying with the criteria . I guess the only thing that I would say further is the. . .on the development. My. . . .my experience is that the laws of the market place do work. And that the use of property depends on, you've heard the old saw, the three criteria, location, location, location, and certainly things can happen and judgments can be made which are grossly in opposition to the market place but for this property to ever support a 35, 000 square foot office building, I think you're going to have some better circulation into it to have that kind of use. People looking at it to rent it are going to say, well, yes, you know you can't come across Smith with a left turn lane, so I don't think you're going to see 35, 000 square feet. But, I 've been wrong before. My point is that this is a. . . .this is a. . . . in my view an element which limits the future use of this property. But, I do think it has meet all the criteria for the rezone and would urge that the Hearing Examiner grant the rezone. Hunter: Um hum. You know, I may or may not agree with that depending on the analysis of the evidence. One reason we're here is the criteria dealing with the burden on the traffic system in the vicinity as well as the impact on general health and welfare and that' s the testimony that we're taking today. I 'm wondering if you have explored with your client. . . .we had testimony last time from your client about the desire to accommodate neighbors. To look at these impacts to see what might be done to mitigate whether there are any possible restrictions that might address some of these problems. We've heard this 6 , 000 square foot figure comes up 38 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 as the assumption and, of course, under the Code greater development than that is allowed. Are there any areas that you've explored that might meet the client ' s needs and as well address the concerns of the neighborhood. Kleweno: We haven It. . .we haven' t addressed that. Well, for several reasons, but we just haven't. Hunter• o.k. Kleweno: Any further questions. Hunter: No, I think not. Thank you. O.k. , I think I have the information in front of me that I need to struggle with a recommendation. It is not my final decision but it is my job to listen to all of the testimony that the citizens around the area have brought as well as the testimony of the applicant and the City. When I look at a recommendation to prepare for your City Council, I see in front of me three different types of groups, one is a recommendation of the City which was presented last time in the staff report, we 've had additional testimony of the City today from the Traffic Engineer, the second is the applicant ' s testimony and then the third is. . . is those that are concerned about the application or impacted by it and I 'm required under law to give weight to the testimony of the City. . .primary weight to that. But, I do listen and have been listening to testimony from applicant as well as residents around in the area. This is a difficult one to balance. I will reference to the criteria that are in your Zoning Code and I think all of you that testified spoke directly to those criteria---traffic impacts, clearly of the highest concern as well as the changing character of the neighborhood that this proposal represents. This is a commercial rezone proposal from residential to a professional and office and I understand the concern about that. I will weigh that concern and issue a recommendation to your City Council on this proposal. I 've requested, because of the testimony or arguments brought forward by Ms. Ramsayer on the legal issue of doing additional analysis indicated a ten day period. . . .that' s ten calendar days . So, we 'd be looking at June 13 for that and then I 'm required to then issue a decision within ten days. . .ten working days after the close of that date so that' s when the recommendation will come out and come forward. I want to thank you all for your testimony to keep it on. . . on the. . . . on point. That' s hard to do with proposals of this nature but I think you all did that and will help me in making my decision. We have a couple of procedural questions, do we. Yes, sir. 39 Hearing Examiner Verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Voice: I ' ll just like to make a short statement. Hunter: Well we did lot of time and opportunity for statements. I 'm trying. . . .clearly trying to close off the record at this point. We 've been here since 3 : 00 , we had an April 21st hearing, I 'm never of a mind to limit any testimony, I 'm usually very open but the hour is here to close testimony. We can' t open up new issues at this point, everyone had ample opportunity. Mr. Kleweno? Kleweno: Just procedural and . . . .encourage time to respond. . .ready for Council. Hunter: Can you two work that out? Can you do it before the 13th, I don't want a five page brief. . . IIm looking at. . . if there' s something out there, let me know so. . . . it ' s a page or two at the most and if you get that. . . .no you're presentation and his response by the 13th, I don't want to delay this think unnecessarily. Is that ample time to. . . . Ramsever: Yes, we can exchange something and get it to you by the 13th. Hunter: That sounds great. O.k. , other procedural questions. Yes, sir. Voice: Confused, sir, about your east and west directions. You say there' s left turn lanes west onto Ja. . . . Smith? Hunter: Well, if I misspoke, I didn't. . . . Voice: I don't understand where you're going with that. . .on downtown. Hunter: I misspoke then. I have maps in front of me, there are multiple exhibits, I ' ll be very careful when I make the decision. Occasionally, west comes out east, and east comes out west but I did not intend to mislead you. Other procedural questions, I take one or two more at the most---two more, back here. Voice: Invitation - if you still concerned about the traffic I would like to invite you to come and sit in my front yard. Hunter: Well, I 've. . . I 've visited the site. Other procedural question? Voice: If he gets a permit to build this one, what ' s stopping the other people? 40 Hearing Examiner verbatim Minutes Hearing: June 2 1993 Keck Rezone #RZ-93-2 Hunter: This is substantive, I 'm going to have to close off the hearing. You 're violating the rules . We've had ample time for testimony and now I will adjourn the hearing and issue the recommendation in the time frame indicated. We 're adjourned. c:keckvbmi. 62 41 ? Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 . 1993 Category Public Hearings 1. SUBJECT: KECK REZONE (RZ-93-1) APPEAL - LOWER EAST HILL RESIDENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Lower East Hill Residents have filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval, with conditions, of an application to rezone 1. 4 acres from R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. The property is located on the north side of Smith Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Lower East Hill Residents Appeal letter dated July 1, 1993 . Verbatim minutes from the April 21, 1993 and June 2 , 1993 hearings are in Section 2A. 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 4/21/93 and 6/2/93 (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 t moves Councilmember r' seconds to approve Wnyithe appeal by Lower East Hill Residents, a-nd -i approved, to allow city staff to recommend conditions to go with the approval and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the- necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2B OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: Procedure on Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s Recommendation Pursuant to City Resolution No. 896 FROM: ROGER LUBOVICH I. Staff Report. II. Appellant present argument. A. 30 minute limit and may reserve time for rebuttal. B. Appellant ' s argument must be based on the record. IV. Additional Presentation. A. Council has the option, if it chooses, to request "additional information" from the parties, City staff, or the public. B. Additional information does not have to be confined to the record. V. Conclusions. A. The Council reviews the hearing examiner' s recommendation under the following standards: 1. Recommendation based on substantial error. 2 . Procedural irregularities that materially affected the prior proceedings. 3 . Decision unsupported by material and substantial evidence. 4 . Decision inconsistent with the City' s comprehensive plan. 5 . Insufficient evidence as to the impact on the surrounding area. VI. Decision. A. The Council may take any of the following actions : 1. Approve and adopt the hearing examiner' s findings and recommendation. 2 . Modify and approve the findings and recommendation. 3 . Reject the hearing examiner' s findings and recommendation and approve/deny the proposal as originally submitted based upon Council findings. 4 . Remand for a further hearing before the hearing examiner. hearexam.doc July 1, 1993 � ®TO: City of Kent ECEa � � - 1 1993 JUL ATTN: City Council IO CITY OF KENT��\ (� RE: Keck Rezone NRZ-93-1 CITY CLE FROM: Lower East Hill Residents /� 05f ,J D REQUEST FOR APPEAL AND PUBLIC SEAR — ----- cri,D ERTNfNT Dear Kent City Council Members: NT Pursuant to City of Kent ordinance Sec 2.32.150 (Appeal of Decision) we respectfully request an appeal for the recommended rezone file number KECK NRZ-93-1. We believe the following items meet the necessary requirements for the appeal process. 1. Procedural error: MDNA (#ENV-92-77) conditions applicants are required to prepare traffic impact report. Hearing Examiner asked the City of Kent to prepare? 2. Procedural error: Action taken March 16, 1993 by City Council changing City Wide Comprehensive Plan Map for proposed rezone, thereby elimination of Single Family Designated Area Overlay. Goal: "Encourage the retention and Rehabilitation of existing residential neighborhoods on the adjacent Valley Floor, especially those within and around the CBD core." "Utilize regulatory measures to protect neighborhoods against uses incompatible with residential development--" 3. Procedural error: Valley Floor Plan Goal 1: "Discourage through traffic routes in residential areas. " Department of Public Works - "Traffic Impacts May 24, 1993 Page 5, "the majority of those trips bound for SR 167 would exit to the north to James Street. This from a strict modeling standpoint would to be appear entirely appropriate." 4. Procedural error: Omission of Haze:. and alleyway (Smith to Temperance) from Department of Public Works traffic impact report prepared May 24, 1993. 5. New Evidence: Recommended approval issued 6/21/93 page 15 item #4. In conclusion, we as citizens were alarmed to discover changes have taken place without fair knowledge being made available to the citizens. 200 feet notification does meet guidelines, however it is not fair and reasonable to inform the community at large with such great changes? Our community streets are already overburdened. One more car is one too many. Our citizens are at risk simply waiting for school buses or walking to the park. We feel the City has not adequately planned for the increased traffic volume for this rezone. We feel the City has not properly addressed ingress and egress to this new rezone. Mr. White believes the remaining alley is a proper access. This clearly puts the traffic flow to and from the rezone in the residential community. What happened to Valley Floor Plan Goal #1. Please find attached the necessary funds for the filing fee. Also please find attached signatures of citizens opposed to rezone. Sincerely, Lower East Hill Residents • P E T I T I a N R The following residents of Kent are opposed toh KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 �Upr-cP433 �d NAME (print) CITY SIGNATURE ADDRESS CITY CLERK 1 � leIV4 c �• _ Z ��r�i,��'/11`-(ice� r L r ( ter, o /i I IfI 5° I ` erli G, �, 6rri•5 � � �� LG' 36, -c s6 ut" ve- L< S�-r j ri LG� i V L1, G /v �Ng ffcl� zq ST�r� f Sdo � -7z � c /< mow"- 2 t- I� V o� mnn I PETITION The following residents of Kent are opposed to theuL _ 1p19e KECK Rezone number RZ 93-1 C1� OF93 KEN NAME (print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS lo 2�,r G 6 r c, NCE r It/ o ff. Leo � G�i�' s GG�( Y� I C I3l C� & N �a s a itU-1 d k. /if, �' � �/L.�/" �L�C� � I �� i✓�cr -P�'� /--ram /VD , arcs-pecf" AU2 Z AA IL L// P E T I T I O N The following residents of Kent are opposed to th JUL - l1993 KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 2MPRPNf _ CITY CLERK NAME (print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS kk � �i� �el� � iDi� � Cy✓�,q�v s7 -+GG2—W-rn N i ✓Jp �p�j �/9� Ke YU 3 i KELtr �e D . I� u S I I •sia NN-Z6-L .4 Vim- ,v. } l Nw fur�i Z �N n c- �- Z- xzt C° I �D n � Te l� nv 4� 2 � II P E T I T I O N I E c E 8 v r . The following residents of Kent are opposed to the propt59s KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 CITY OF KEN , NAME (print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS ob LPr 7� (e fCo teekv FL 4 0 Lc�r�a ese /303> a oZ-3i ie s u24LY U-14 i 3Lt10 1 Z+� places s w aGa3 Llyd VP . ,-,c £-7- 73� a-�d 4,Lc' wf� �O3Z 9 � 6- f� / I(� R�n ��co�S� n roo Sr� � id si R GFO3 I ea/ r P E T I T I O N RECHWED f JUL - 11993 The following residents of Kent are opposed to the ( 1rTvo e KEEVT KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 NAME (print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS RRi � pG S�7z Uc YVII r(j )fit t f� cry 2ZL A � J l S — LU D L H L-E"L 4�$x a /D./, Vr SAC, Ajli2 c� F /c2� �✓ .v L (tom Ke wT \1 3�a . � f P E T I T I 0 Iv D The following residents of Kent are opposed to the�pro ose,- J KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 CITY OFpKE' - NAME (print) SIGNATURE FAIDDRESS fl �/ 6ul yj I t hie /7kq 6 �i o� I i M /�-/ 1,4 All Iq%bb la TL 2ctVl , nzD S� re I-M 02Sy0 lea kav r U j I I o Ec Ell W Eg P E T I T I O N JUL - 1 1993 The following residents of Kent are opposed to tbprYpTppOEWd KECK Rezone number RZ-93-1 CITY CLERK NAME (print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS T RIf t PI K -J CtSOA AVQ N . D J CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through Xbe approved. Discussion -- Action �✓ 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 5, 1993 . 3B. Approval of Bills. 4 .' Approval of payment of the bills received through October 15, � 1993 , after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on November 2 , 1993 . k ti ,L Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington October 5, 1993 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Woods. Present: Councilmembers Houser, Johnson, Orr, and White, Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Acting Parks Director Thorell, Information Services Director Spang, Acting Finance Director Miller and Human Resources Director Olson. Councilmembers Bennett and Mann were excused. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Woods announced that COMMUNICATION Dave Owen, Golf Maintenance Supervisor at the Riverbend Golf Complex, has been chosen as -Employee of the Month for October. She noted that Owen strives to make Riverbend the best possible public course in the area, and that he is greatly respected by his staff, the public and his co-workers. Jack Ball, Parks Mainte- nance Supervisor, added his congratulations and Woods presented Mr. Owen with the Employee of the Month plaque. Regional Justice Center Update. Wendy Keller announced that a site plan for the Regional Justice Center has been chosen and that ques- tions regarding parking and traffic patterns can now be addressed. She noted that there will be a meeting at 7 : 00 p.m. on October 20, 1993 , in the Council Chambers at Kent City Hall. She distributed copies of the chosen site plan to the Council, pointing out that there will be no outside windows in the housing portion and that recreation centers will be in the center of the facility to avoid outside communication. Mr. Ernst and Mr. Hartung of TRA showed a model and explained that the courtroom facility will be five stories, the parking garage will be three levels and that the facility will be screened with landscaping. Hartung noted that entrance will be off James and that a gradual ramp will lead to the courthouse rotunda, which will face downtown Kent. White voiced concern about access to Kent Commons if left turns are not allowed. Keller stated that issues re- garding left turns and paid parking are being re-evaluated. She noted that provisions have been made to allow for changes if necessary. She added that there will be a covered walkway 1 October 51 1993 PUBLIC from the parking garage to the courthouse, and COMMUNICATION that room has been made available for expansion of government services. She noted for a lady in the audience that there will be parking in the garage for the handicapped and that it will be a short walk into the courthouse. Mr. Hartung pointed out the cooling towers for the facility, noting there will be from two to four towers of approximately 15 ' and that they are located south of the facility because that is the most economical place for them. He added that he does not anticipate a flood plain problem. Art Wallenstein noted that although the site plan -has been completed, citizens advisory and business groups will continue to meet to address concerns. Down Syndrome Awareness Month._ Mayor Pro Tem Woods read a proclamation declaring the month of October as Down Syndrome Awareness Month in the City of Kent and challenging citizens to look beyond a person' s particular disability and focus upon each person ' s diverse abilities and varied contributions to the community. She introduced Jeff Hall, his son Matthew and friends. Mr. Hall distributed information on Down Syndrome Community, a parent support group, and thanked Woods for the proclamation. Fire Prevention Week. Woods read a proclamation noting that the Kent Fire Department is dedi- cated to the protection of life and property from the devastating effects of fire and calling upon the people of Kent to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work and school. The proclamation was presented to Fire Chief Angelo, who commented that their greatest service to the community is to stop emergencies rather than to respond to them. Chestnut Ridge Utility Taxes. Doug Gesler, 9615 S. 203rd, noted that this area was recently annexed to the City, and that he has received a bill in the amount of $4 . 74 from the city for storm drainage and streets. He said he then received a letter from the city saying that the tax had already been paid in his property taxes to King County, and that he should contact the 2 October 5, 1993 PUBLIC county for a refund. Gesler suggested that the COMMUNICATION city look into collection of the tax. He also noted that Kent' s Clean-Up Week in November does not include the Chestnut Ridge area and asked that someone looked into that also. McCarthy explained that it is the City' s intent to be fair to all residents. Lubovich added that the many issues involved in this annexation, includ- ing garage and utilities, are being researched and that an informational letter will be sent out soon. Upon Orr ' s comment, he said he is aware that some residents have paid this tax six months in advance. Water Tower. Kelly Delabar Reed, 11215 SE 236th Place, showed pictures of a water tower at Soos Creek which is beautifully painted and suggested that someone look into similar ways of painting the water tank on West Hill. Wickstrom agreed to take this item to the Public Works Committee and to notify Ms. Reed of the meeting time. CONSENT ORR MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR J. with the exception of Item 3B, be approved, including the amendment to Item 3H. White seconded and the motion carried. Item 3B was removed at the request of Councilmember White. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 21, 1993 . HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) SANITATION Country View Estates. ACCEPTANCE of the bill of sale and warranty agreement submitted by Fanco Construction Co. , for continuous operation and maintenance of 659 feet of water main extension, 635 feet of sanitary sewer extension and 762 feet of storm sewers and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period, as recom- mended by the Public Works Committee. The project is located in the vicinity of 100th Avenue SE & SE 225th Place. 3 October 5, 1993 REZONE APPEALS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Keck Rezone Appeals RZ-93-1. AUTHORIZATION to set October 19, 1993 , as the date for a public hearing to consider: 1) an appeal by Jack Keck and 2) an appeal by the Lower East Hill Resi- dents, of the approval by the Hearing Examiner of Jack Keck' s Rezone Application. The property is located on the north side of Smith Street. REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) Keck Rezone RZ-93-1. AUTHORIZATION to set October 19, 1993 , as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s -recommendation of approval for a rezone application by Jack Keck, Kent Masonic Hall Association, and George & Annette Koarkis. The property is located on the north side of Smith Street. PRELIMINARY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) SUBDIVISION Cedar Meadows Preliminary subdivision SU-90-4 . The Cedar Meadows preliminary plat expires on December 41 1993 . The Planning Committee has recommended approval of a one-year extension to ensure that this plat is completed. ORR MOVED to approve a one-year extension for the Cedar Meadows Preliminary Plat (SU-90-4) to December 41 1994 . Houser seconded and the motion carried. STREET (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) VACATION 45th Place Street Vacation - STV-93-2 . At the September 7th Public Hearing, Council recom- mended that the 45th Place Street Vacation be referred back to the Public Works Committee for further discussion. The Committee recommended that the Public Works Department come up with possible conditions agreeable to all parties. The Public Works Director has recommended approval of this vacation subject to certain conditions. Based on the Director' s memo, the Public Works Committee recommends approval of this vacation. WHITE MOVED that the vacation of 45th Place South, as referenced in Resolution No. 1368 , be granted subject to the terms and conditions noted in the Public Works Director' s 4 October 5, 1993 STREET memorandum of September 30, 1993 and that the VACATION City Attorney be directed to prepare the Vacation Ordinance. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. CITY CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) AMENDMENT Short Plat Amendments. The Planning Committee has recommended adoption of an ordinance amend- ing sections of the Kent Subdivision Element of the City Code as follows: amending Section 12 . 04 . 170 to provide public notice of a proposed short subdivision to adjacent property owners; _ adding a new subsection 12 . 04 . 170 (F) describing the manner in which notice shall be given; and adding a new section 12 . 04 . 235, allowing for written public response to a proposed short subdivision. ORR noted that this will allow people an opportunity to be part of the process and raise concerns that otherwise would not have been noticed until after the fact. She then MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3136 amending the Kent City Code Chapter 12 . 04 , Subdivisions . White seconded and the motion carried. GROWTH (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) MANAGEMENT Growth Management/Projected Growth Scenarios. The Planning Committee has recommended adoption of the year 2010 as the target year for the Comprehensive Plan, and approval of Alternative C, a residential growth target for the Compre- hensive Plan based on the City' s development capacity, as opposed to growth projections done by the Puget Sound Regional Council . Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department explained that the Growth Management Planning Council is in the process of analyzing the implementation of county-wide planning policies, and that they are looking at whether the urban growth area boundaries that have been identified can accommodate 20 years worth of urban growth. He noted that each city in King County has been asked to estimate future growth targets for both households and jobs. He said that the Planning Committee was asked to consider the projections done for the entire region by the Puget Sound 5 October 5, 1993 GROWTH Regional Council and to consider the City' s MANAGEMENT ability to absorb future growth under the existing zoning. He stated that Kent has a large amount of development capacity for the employment growth projected by PSRC, but that that is not the case for households and employ- ment. He reiterated that the Planning Committee has recommended adopting 2010 as the target year to do the Comprehensive Plan, and adoption of a target for household growth that is based on existing land capacity as opposed to using the numbers given by the PSRC. He noted that PSRC ' s number for additional households between now and 2010 varies from 8300 to 9500, and that the Planning Committee' s number is between 7000 and 7500. ORR MOVED to adopt the year 2010 as the target year for the Comprehensive Plan and to approve Alternative C, a residential growth target for the Comprehensive Plan based on the City's development capacity. Houser seconded and the motion carried. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) CONTROL Reith Road/Kent-Des Moines Highway/Meeker Street Intersection Reconstruction. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the City/County Agreement and to establish a budget for this project, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. This intersection improvement will add exclusive turn lanes on the north, west and east legs of the intersection, and additional through lanes on the east and west legs of the intersection. In addition, the existing pedestrian ramps in the curbed turn islands will be brought up to ADA standards. AUTOMATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) PLAN Six Year Automation Plan and Budget Change. ACCEPTANCE of the Six Year Automation Plan and Budget Change. The citywide Automation committee has developed a Six Year Automation Plan, which includes the establishment of a systematic computer upgrade program. Principal funding sources include 6 October 5, 1993 AUTOMATION existing and future operating rates to user PLAN departments, fixed CIP contributions, specific criminal justice and central services amounts for automation-related upgrades, and the allo- cation of ending-fund-balances, as outlined in the Plan. Hewlett-Packard computer products are continued as the principal city hardware vendor. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - 3J) (ADDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WOODS) Council Absences. APPROVAL of requests from Councilmembers Mann and Bennett for excused absences from tonight ' s meeting, due to - illnesses. COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - 3H) WORKSHOP Council Workshop. The Finance Director has requested setting October 19, 1993 , at 6: 00 p.m. , as the date and time for a Council workshop on the 1994 Budget. Woods noted that the Acting Parks Director has asked for a 30-minute workshop on the Youth Center Design Plan on the same date. She suggested having the workshop at 5 : 30 p.m. and discussing both items. There was no objection and it was so ordered. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) Drug Traffic Loitering. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3135 establishing the crime of drug traffic loitering. The Public Safety Committee has recommended the adoption of an ordinance establishing the crime of drug traffic loitering. The ordinance prohibits loitering with intent to engage in drug related activity. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) (REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through September 30 after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting on October 5, 1993 . 7 October 5, 1993 FINANCE Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 9/16-9/30 134574-135116 $1, 330 , 657 . 17 Approval of checks issued for payroll: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/5/93 187023-187379 $ 273 , 003 .77 9699-10021 359 , 259 . 13 $ 632 , 262 . 90 White asked for a more detailed explanation of items having to do with airfare to Anchorage and a visa permit to China for Mayor Kelleher, as seen on the Operations Committee ' s printout dated September 30 . McCarthy explained that those items are asso- ciated with the Mayor ' s trip to Vladivostok, Russia, where he represented the City and the Green River Valley Trade Consortium. He added that the stop in Anchorage was the first leg of the trip and that the Mayor visited the cities of Maanshan, Yangzhou, and Kaohsiung, China, all of whom were represented at the recent Interna- tional Exchange where he received invitations to visit. He noted that Kelleher had made his own travel arrangements. McCarthy noted that the Mayor/Administration travel budget is $8 , 800 and that this trip is estimated to cost $6 , 500 . Lubovich noted for White that there are no provisions whereby the Mayor must request permission before going out of the state or country. White commented that he would like to see the Mayor reimburse the city for this expense. JOHNSON MOVED to approve payment of all bills except those encumbered by the Mayor for this trip. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Later in the meeting, McCarthy explained that the bill in question has already been paid, but that if the Council desires, the Mayor could be 8 October 5, 1993 FINANCE billed for it. He added that the Mayor has a City credit card and that the City would also pay those bills and could request reimbursement. Woods said it was her understanding that there is no process by which expenditure of the Mayor ' s funds is approved or disapproved. Johnson questioned the benefit derived from the trip and asked if Council will be apprised. He added that he hopes any official would obtain approval before taking such a trip, and said that the Mayor should have consulted with the Council, and possibly the business community, in case they had anything to send along. Woods noted that Councilmembers have not been traveling as times have become increasingly difficult in the economy, and those who have usually pay their own way. She concurred with Johnson regarding the benefit of a trip so late in a person' s second term when they will no longer be in office on January 1. White noted that although this issue was not brought up to create a negative situation, it does raise concerns. He added that an explana- tion may be made later by the Mayor. REPORTS Council President. Woods reminded Council- members that Suburban Cities will meet next Wednesday at the City of SeaTac, and that King County Council candidates will be interviewed. Budget Committee. Johnson noted that he had attended the opening ceremony for the Target store on East Hill and welcomed them to the City. Orr commented that the mural on one wall is a nice addition. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 00 p.m. 4 c� Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk` 9 y, Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE 2 . SUMMARY STEMpNT: As recommended(3?the Operationp ; Committee Adoption of Ordinance No. 3 amendin Cha ter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code relating to Building Code Fees// The 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code was adopted by the City of Kent pursuant to Ordinance No. 3052 as codified in Chapter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code. The adopting ordinance amended Section 3 . 04 of the Uniform Building Code to provide that fees for Building Fee Permits be set only39}}}}rsuant to Table 3-A of the Code. &dinanceaamends the restrictive language of Ordinance No. 3052 to allow flexibility in establishing building permit fees. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCALJPERSONNEL 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code relating to building code fees. WHEREAS, the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code was adopted by the City of Kent pursuant to Ordinance 3052 as codified in Chapter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code; and WHEREAS, the adopting ordinance amended Section 304 of the Uniform Building Code to provide that fees for building fee permits be only pursuant to Table 3-A of the code; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish fees which are not consistent with Table 3-A; and WHEREAS, to allow for flexibility in establishing building permit fees, as is otherwise authorized pursuant to Section 304 of the Uniform Building Code, the restrictive language of Ordinance 3052 needs to be amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: building code fees ii Section I. Section 14 . 02 . 020 of the Kent City Code is hereby repealed as follows: Sec. 14.02 .020 . Fees. seetien 1 n 92 nl n are hereby adept-ed- Seetlen-444-, Fees shall be afaended te read as fellews-t- hall be assessed in with t seeti'vir.-` The City Council shall by resolution, establish the fees to be assessed under Section 304 of the Uniform Building Code In the event any particular fee is not so established by Council resolution the City shall assess fees in accordance with the fee schedule for building permits set forth in Table No. 3-A of the Uniform Building Code as currently established or hereafter amended. Section 2 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 i APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 1993 . APPROVED the day of , 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK bldfees.ord 3 1 Kent City Council Meeting �✓ Date October 19 , 1993 }� Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BUILDING CODE FEES - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY--.STATEl Z __ As recommended--hY-_the.-perations - mittee doption of Resolution No. / 3'7/ is BuLillding Permit Fees,Y Table 3-A of the 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 3052 and as codified in Chapter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code, establishes building permit fees. The City desires to utilize the fees set forth in Table 3-A of the Code and to establish basic plan review fees. Table 3-A does not establish fees relating to basic plan reviews. GY$eZ,prD)aosaed Aesolution 1371 adopts the fee schedule set forth in Table 3-A of the Uniform Building Code as well as establishing basic plan review fees. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed 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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, establishing building permit fees. WHEREAS, the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code as adopted pursuant to Ordinance 3052 , and as codified in Chapter 14 . 02 of the Kent City Code, allows for building permit fees to be established by Table 3-A of the code or by a fee schedule adopted by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the building permit fees established under Table 3-A of the code except for fees relating to basic plan review fees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. Table 3-A of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code establishing building permit fees (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is hereby adopted as the City of Kent's building permit fee schedule, with the following modification: A. Basic plan review fees: The basic plan review fee, after payment of the initial plan review fee, shall be a flat fee of $50. 00 which will entitle the applicant to receive additional certified basic plans. Additional plan review fees shall also be assessed at an hourly rate as set forth in Table 3-A for additional plan review required for changes, additions, or revisions to approved plans. Section 2 . The fees established by this resolution shall become effective on the effective date of Ordinance No. amending Section 14 . 02 . 020 of the Kent City Code and shall remain in effect until such time as they may be modified by the City Council . The fees established herein for basic plan review fees shall be effective retroactively to July 7 , 1992 , the date the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code became effective and the date basic plan fees were eliminated as a result of the adopting language of Ordinance No. 3052 . Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 2 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of , 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK bldfees.res 3 3-A 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE TABLE NO. 3-A—BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE S 1 .00 to S500.00 S 15.00 $501.00 to$2,000.00 S 15.00 for the first S500.00 plus S2.00 for each addi- tional S 100.00 or fraction thereof. to and includmn,. S2,000.00 $2.001.00 to S25.000.00 S-15.00 for the first S2.000.00 plus S9.00 for each addi- tional 51.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including S25.000.00 $25,001.00 to 550.000.00 S252.00 for the first S25.CM.00 plus S6.50 for each additional S 1.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and includ- ing S50.000.00 S50,001.00 to S 100,000.00 S-t 14.50 for the first S50.000.00 plus S-1.50 for each addi- tional SI.000.00 or fraction thereof. to and including S 100,000.00 S 100,001.00 to S500.000.00 S6 39.50 for the Flrst S i 00,000.00 plus S 3.50 for each ad- ditional S1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including S 5(XH 0.00 5500.001.00 to S2.039.50 for the first S5(X).000.00 plus S3.00 for each S 1,000,000.00 additional S 1.0W.00 or fraction thereof,to and including S 1.000.000.00 5 1,000,00 1.00 and up S3.539.50 for the First S I.000.0(H).00 plus S'_.00 for each additional S 1.(W.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: I. Inspections outside of normal business hours . . S30.00 per hour` (minimum charge-two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of- Section 305 (g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S30.W per hour' 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated . . . . . . . 530.00 per hour' (minimum charge- -one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S30.00 per hour- (minimum charge—one-half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision,overhead,equipment.hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees in- volved. EXHISITL Y� �{ Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CONTRACT FORM REVIEW - RESOLUTION 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Ik' l vJAs recommended by the Operations_ qc!ommittee option of Resolution No. 137a establishing as a policy the requirement that contracts executed by or on behalf of the City be reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney' s Office, and -ttg*AYer- that contracts not requiring the signature of the Mayor under the City's procurement code be reviewed and executed by the appropriate department head. 3 . EXHIBITS: Proposed 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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to City contracts. WHEREAS, the City enters into numerous contracts each year for services and supplies; and WHEREAS , these contracts originate from various sources from within the City as well as outside the City; and WHEREAS, it is in the City ' s best interest that these contracts be reviewed and approved as to form and, where appropriate, standardized contract provisions be utilized for efficient contract management; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That all contracts entered into with the City be submitted to the City Attorney' s office for approval as to form prior to execution. Section 2 . That all contracts not requiring the signature of the Mayor be reviewed and executed by the appropriate department head. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1993 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1993 . DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day of 1993 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK contract.res 2 I Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATIONS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of employee reclassifications in accordance with City policy 2 . 2 . 1. , as recommended by the Operations Committee on October 5, 1993 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum to Operations Committee from Human Resources Director and financial impact sheet 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPAC �10 YES X FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: RecommendedT: (�\ Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $993 . 60 SOURCE OF FUNDS: absorbed within department budgets 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 1993 TO: Operations Committee FROM: Don Olson, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with City policy 2 . 2 . 1, the Human Resources Department has just completed the review of 14 reclassification requests. Of the 14 requests, six (6) have been recommended for reclassification and are therefore being brought forward to the Operations Committee for approval . A copy of the financial impact for the remainder of 1993 and 1994 is attached for your information. The majority of these requests had been on hold in the Human Resources Department for over 18 months pending direction from Administration. In June of this year the Human Resources Department requested authorization from the Executive Committee to move forward on the requests. Continuing to hold all reclassification requests was forcing departments to exceed City policy on Acting Pay and Work out of Class Pay. In addition, a number of positions are covered by collective bargaining agreements, which requires the City to process requests for reclassification in a timely manner. Although the Human Resources Department continues to receive requests for reclassification, we have not received the unusually high number of requests expected during periods of downsizing and reorganizing. our department will continue to review requests for reclassification in accordance with City policy, and bring forward only those which warrant reclassification. If you have any questions regarding this request prior to the Operations Committee meeting please feel free to contact Sue Viseth at 859-3356 . x n O m n r A j O 3• O N m O O n N < O J !D O D £ A m m D x A O O O A 10 io � n -•. n 7 vl P \ n n m \ r z O �•j n � rp N l Vf n D \ N J D O N N r N J N n N CJ N N `C •y N T •* J r a y A D N P P N N y Z \ \ \ N V m m m m o m m \ \ m m o \ W W N N N N N to > _ f W W w V •O W D y N W P O f f 0 A S W m •O O f V N < r y N N N N N ➢ A O tP M w w o •O W v n n •O O O P O P f o D y n W < O O OO O O V N Z A O O O 0 0 O O n m m n J r !A kp !A fp !A !A !R a D W W N N N W W to fD N D L a D N C - N W O W W jco D O m O T �- < N w N n O O D O O O 0 0 O O n y n W + G Z T D 'T f_ A W n a � n D w 'c J C r D m N y G c3i N 3 n N 3 •O •O D 0 J cn 10 � C w Z m d W r t� n N N m o 3 3 O j D C \ O O m Z G W Z m m 0N m m a 0 0 0Oi o N N VI n N D y m m m m m m W W N N N W W D r 3 to in P � d N N ➢ O •O `O N O •O •O K � � N V •O P P N W N N f N in V V O •O O f T p W W V V P W f P V y •O � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O b400 to 10 y O d N d f O Ca !A f m W co w O f N N P p) N V V O O O O O O O O O 0 0 v z z D D N D C) `p ro n y n n n 30 i i n z z .r O •+ m o \ �• v �• m 7 L t7i n O y n0 o to i0 y -� O J r n T N O N w n D v v 7 .y j O N n N M J• Q •9 -n to -4 A i O D T S y 7 C n \ ^ N n 7 n •O •O � o z 3 ii 7 v v o _ O N ➢ < N O •O •O O C e N f f e A •O N T f Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CITY OF YANGZHOU, CHINA - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Ratification of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Yangzhou, China, and the City of Kent, Washington, establishing a Sister City Relationship. This document was signed on September 28, 1993 during a visit to Kent by a delegation from Yangzhou. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum of Understanding, Operations Committee Minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher 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 moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G Igo 2204th AVE. SO. / KENT, WASHINGTON 98032-5895 /TELEPHONE (206)859-3328 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is between the City of Yangzhou, Jiangsu, China, and the City of Kent, Washington, U.S.A., in regard to establishment of a Sister City Relationship. After mutual visits by representatives of the two Cities, the establishment of business, educational and governmental relationships have been initiated on an informal basis. In addition, the Cities have had the opportunity to share the culture of our two Countries. The purpose of this relationship is to promote the common interests of the citizens of both Cities leading to mutual understanding and economic development. Following the establishment of these ties between the City of Kent and the City of Yangzhou,it is the intent of both Cities to formally sign an agreement establishing a formal Sister City Relationship. The dates for official signing will be mutually agreed upon in the near future. We look forward to many years of mutual cooperation and friendship. Having the opportunity to become knowledgeable about the countries and culture of our two Cities through formal Sister City ties will contribute richly rewarding experiences for the citizens of both Cities and promote peace among our people. This agreement is subject to approval by the City Council of the City of Kent. Signed this 28th day of September 1993. Vice Mayor, City of Yangzhou Chief Administrative Officer, bty t Kent • f f ,r M CITY OF KENT the effective date of implementation being November 1, 1993, if approved. Upon White's question Olson explained how reclasses are generated and handled. He explained for Orr what would happen if these recommended reclassifications were not approved. ORR MOVED to recommend that these changes be made. White seconded and the motion carried 3-0. YANGZHOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy explained that last week representatives from the City of Yangzhou visited the City of Kent with the intent to establish a Sister City Relationship, and that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. He noted that their main interest was in traffic, and that they were extremely amazed at the five-lane highways. WHITE MOVED approval of the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Yang,zhou, Jangsu, China. Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0. CABLE TV UPDATE - VERBAL REPORT ONLY Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, gave a brief update for live broadcasting from City Hall on Cable TV. He noted that TCI is ready to wire City Hall and create a studio type facility in the Council Chambers with a remote that can be taken out into the field. He explained that some of the lighting improvements originally bargained for were bargained away in order to get quality equip- ment and the flexibility needed, but that the existing lighting would be adequate. He noted that the FCC has re-established a new basic rate of service (basic tier rate) which is lower than what was previously charged by the Cable companies, and even though the franchise agreement brought the City's income up, the new rate regulation will have a downward impact on the rate. Brubaker explained that everything is on track with a live broadcast from City Hall planned for the last Council meeting of the year, but that a request for additional lighting, a cart to move the equipment on, or very minimal things may be requested later. :McCarthy noted that this will be a 24-h0ur station, and the proposal for next year's budget is to fund someone in the Graphics Department at 1/4 time to help with all input, coordinating, arranging, keying in, and developing what is to be put into the system and on this station. Alana McIalwain, Administration Mgr., explained that Cable TV is a rapidly changing field just like computers and in order to do a good job, more time, money and staff may be requested at a later date. Brubaker added that some policies will be developed to help make decisions on what should and should not be allowed on this channel because it will be restricted to government programs only. He also noted that ADA requirements may involve some additional costs. He stated that it can be kept as a small operation or a pretty spectacular one like some of the larger cities, if desired. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. t I1 Kent City Council Meeting jfl Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1 . SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappoint- ments of JoAnn Brady, Bev Domarotsky, Doug Gesler, Midge Sweley and Frank Zaratkiewicz to continue serving as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Their reappointments will continue to 10/31/97 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor Kelleher 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor Kelleher (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3H MEMORANDUM TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL RESIDENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS v FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1993 SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION I have recently reappointed JoAnn Brady, Bev Domarotsky, Doug Gesler, Midge Sweley and Frank Zaratkiewicz to continue serving as members of the Kent Arts Commission. Their reappointments will continue to 10/31/97. I submit this for your confirmation. DK:jb �/v�/ J Kent City Council Meeting N, lti Date October 19 , 1993 ), Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: STREET USE PERMITS - ORDINANCE 2 . -$UMbIARY STATEMENT: As recommended the Public Works , _Committee, doption of Ordinance No.recommended -by to Street Use 7ermits The ordinance repeals Chapter 8 . 02 relating to political signs, Chapter 6. 08 entitled, "Street Occupation Permits" , and Section 9 . 36 . 040 of the Kent City Code entitled "Street Closure" . Additionally, the ema;d— ordinance consolidates the permitting regulations for uses on public rights-of-way with Chapter 6 . 07 entitled, "Street Use Permits" which relates to uses in connection with property development and deregulates the permitting and license requirements of portable signs in public rights-of-way. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President' s approval to place on Consent Calendar (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. 3I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 5, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: REPEALING ORDINANCE RELATED TO POLITICAL SIGNS, BANNERS, AND STREET OCCUPATION PERMITS; AND AMENDING CHAPTER RELATED TO STREET USE PERMITS AND USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The City Attorney will be in attendance to explain ordinance 'in more detail. ACTION: Recommend approval/adoption of the ordinance to repeal. essentially will be throwing away money . Wickstrom said that since we have almost 80o in covenants we should do the improvements . Bennett feels that if all they were asking for was to asphalt along one side.; and there was so much negative response, Bennett feels the timing is off and there should be a better time to do this . Wickstrom said that we are proposing to pay 30% (approximately $39 , 000) and our out-of-pocket cost for the asphalt would be about $10 -$12 thousand dollars . White said that this was originally started by the school P.T. A. and students . Wickstrom said that in his experience, there is never a good economic time for an LID. committee unanimously, agreed to authorize staff to proceed with the formation of an LID. METRO Sewer Rate Increase Wickstrom explained that Metro is increasing their rate by $2 . 28 per 750 cu. ft . of sewage discharge and we are proposing to pass that on. Wickstrom went on to cover the information contained in his memo. White asked if Metro ' s rate increase was something we can negotiate with .them. Wickstrom stated no and explained that Metro will bill us at the higher rate independent of what we do with our rate. Wickstrom said, financially the Sewer Utility cannot absorb this rate increase . On $12 , 000 , 000 in revenue, there is only $500 , 000 in unencumbered funds for which some of that goes towards the annual Capital Improvement program. Wickstrom noted that within the last year the Utility absorbed about $600 , 000 in cost increases as attributed to the City ' s Utility Tax change (charge the Utility versus the customer) and the State ' s Budget Balancing Excise Tax increase . Wickstrom noted that in 1995 , besides another Metro increase, there may have to be a City increase. In response to [white, Wickstrom said that Metro furnishes a flyer and the City explains , on that flyer, that this is Metro ' s increase. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance passing on Metro ' s rate increase with the effective date of the rate being January 1 , 1994 . Ordinance Repealing{ Chapter 8 . 02 of Kent City Code Lubovich explained that this is a deregulation measure . He stated that about 2 years ago we dealt with street occupation ordinance. At that time there was discussion about real estate signs and licensing etc. , and this item became quite controversial for a while and for that reason, this new ordinance has been drafted. Lubovich said that he is recommending deregulating some of the measures in the Street Occupation Code . He explained that this new ordinance repeals Chapter 8 . 02 dealing with political signs; 6 . 08 Street Occupation Code ; Resolution 1303 regarding fees relating to occupation permits; and Chapter 9 . 36 . 040 dealing with street closures . Lubovich stated that we are consolidating any regulation 2 �/ of use on public right of ways with our current street use code, which basically deals with construction related street use permits of way requi ring no deregulating any portable sign on prights permits or fees . Discussion followed regarding enforcement of the Ordinance and Lubovich stated that the Public Works Director has the authority of enforcement. Committee unanimously recommended adoption Of the Ordinance repealing Chapter 8 . 02 , Chapter 6 . 08 and Section 9 . 36 . 040, and amending Chapter 6 . 07 . Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements - Accept as complete Wickstrom explained that we had a contract with Gary Merlino Construction for immediate work associated with wheelchair ramps in various locations and the project is now complete. White asked if we are required by ADA to be doing those on James St. In response t White, id we are to do all and essentiallywunderrADA,ickstomsaw e will have rtoubr indg all Avenue msidewalks up to ADA standards . Committee unanimously recommended the Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements be accepted as complete . Central Avenue Improvements - Acceot as Complete Wickstrom explained that this is an acceptance of a contract with West Coast Construction as complete . Committee unanimously recommended the Central Avenue Improvements project be accepted as complete . Recycling Yard Waste contract Wickstrom stated that our existing contract expires on December 31st, which includes a two month extension. He said that in getting a new extension of the existing contract, Kent Disposal submitted some costs and we didn ' t have any way of making a comparison. Wickstrom said we sought RFP ' s as a means of determining a fair rate and in doing so we received only one other submittal from Waste Management . Wickstrom said that depending on how we implement the contract, if we go with Kent Disposal we will need a utility tax rate increase on garbage service, if we want to continue to subsidize recycling . If not, we would have to have the customer pay it directly to the recycler. Wickstrom said the preferred option would be to continue subsidizing the recycling program and to add as a separate bill , the vard waste program. If we were to subsidize the yard :ante program, there would be a substantial increase in the utility tax on garbage service. Wickstrom said that under the yard waste program we are proposing e as re make it mandatory KingCounty . to �qi kstr j,, csaid waste theinto service would be required by King ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, repealing Chapter 8 . 02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Political Signs, Banners, Etc. " , Chapter 6. 08 , entitled "Street Occupation Permits" , and Section 9 . 36 . 040, entitled "Street Closure" ; and amending Chapter 6. 07 entitled, "Street Use Permits" , as this chapter relates to use of public property and rights-of-way. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1. Chapter 8 . 02 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Political Signs, Banners, Etc. " , is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2 . Chapter 6 . 08 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Street Occupation Permits" , is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 3 . Resolution 1303 , adopting a schedule of fees for permits relating to Chapter 6 . 08 , "Street Occupation Permits" , is hereby repealed in its entirety. STREET USE PERMITS Section 4 . Section 9 . 36. 040 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Street Closure" , is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 5 . Chapter 6 . 07 of the Kent City Code, entitled os "Street use permits" , is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 6. 07 . STREET USE PERMITS Sec. 6. 07 .010 . Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum rules and regulations relating to street use associated with property development and to other uses of streets sidewalks public property , public ri hts-of-wav and other public places for private purposes and to provide for enforcement. Sec. 6 .07 . 020 . Definitions. The fol owing words and phrases , wherever used in this chapter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section except where otherwise defined and unless the context shall clearly indicate to the contrary: "Banner" means any pliable canvas or cloth sign material or holiday or festival decor such as garland or similar decor stretched over or across any public place. "Director" means the director of public works of the city and/or his or her designee. "Portable sign" means a sian which is not permanently affixed to the ground or to a building or structure and which may be easily moved. "Public lace" means and includes streets avenues ways boulevards drives places alleys sidewalks planting (parking) strips squares triangles and other riahts-of-way open 2 to the use of the public, and the space above or beneath the surface of same. This definition specifically does not include streets allevs ways , planting strips and sidewalks which have not been deeded dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use. "Use" means and includes , but is not limited to, the followina tvpes of uses: to construct, store , erect, place, maintain , or operate in, upon, over or under any public place, anv sidewalk cafe food cart or restaurant staaina scaffold structure or material machinery or tools used or to be used in connection with the erection, alteration , repair or naintina of any building; or to move any building across or along anv public place • or to use or occupy anv public place for the storaae or placement of any material , eauipment or thing; or to allow any vehicle to be upon that portion of roadway designated as narking or curb space for purposes of selling or solicitina in addition to merely parking• or to open excavate or in anv manner disturb or break the surface or foundation of anv permanent pavement of a public place or to alter the established arade of anv street, or to disturb the surface of, dig uo, cut, excavate or fill in anv public place ; or to construct, reconstruct , maintain or remove any sidewalk or crosswalk, pavement, sewers, water mains , grading, street liahtina, or appurtenances thereto , except when permitted by ordinance , or to do anv work in , or erect anv structure under, alona or over any public place and other such uses. Sec. 6 . 07 . ( (020) ) 030 . (Permit required. ) Uses and Permits. A. Uses Related tc Construction and Property Development. 3 No person shall be issued a -project, building, ( (ems) ) grading or fill permit without first obtaining a separate street use permit from the department of public works except as follows: 1. An applicant for a permit to make an addition, alteration or repairs to a single-family residence; 2 . An applicant for a permit to make an alteration, repair or minor addition (less than twenty thousand dollars ($20, 000. 00) in value) to any structure other than a single-family residence. 3 . The director determines in his or her discretion that the issuance of a separate street use permit for each protect building grading or fill permit is not necessary to regulate the use on the public place. B. Signs. 1 . No person shall place a sian on any public place except as follows: a . Portable Signs Portable signs as defined herein may be placed on a public place without a permit upon the following conditions : i. No portable sian placed on public iproperty may reduce the unobstructed width of a sidewalk or walkway to less than four (4) feet or otherwise impede the progress of pedestrians bike riders or handicapped individuals. In addition no sign or banner shall be installed within four (4) feet of the face of curb or the edae of a traveled street driveway , highway, or allev. ii . No portable sians shall be installed or placed upon power poles telephone poles street light standards sian posts trees traffic controllers markers ; on 4 any railing, bridge overpass street crosswalk public building or lawn or open area surrounding anv public building iii . No portable sign shall be installed in, or within twenty (20) feet of a driveway, wheelchair ramp or intersection or placed or situated on a public place in such a way as to constitute a threat to the health safetv and welfare of the public or interfere with the use of the public place.. iv. Portable signs shall be installed so that the top of the sian does not exceed an elevation of 36 inches hiaher than the heiaht of the sidewalk bike oath or walkway. Where these improvements do not exist the 36 inch height limitation shall be measured from the highest edae of the street , alley or driveway. V. Portable sians shall be constructed of weather-resistant wood metal or plastic. Canvas cardboard and raper signs are prohibited vi . Attachment of paper, plastic balloons , or cardboard to a sign structure is not _permitted if such attachment extends the approved heiaht or width of the Sian vii . Portable sians shall not be weighted down , or otherwise attached to public property in such a way as to resist impact by a traveling vehicle bicycle or pedestrian b. Political campaign sians Political campaign sians may be placed on a public place without a permit except . however, no sian shall be placed or situated on a public Place in such a wav as to constitute a threat to the health safety and welfare of the public or interfere with the use of the public place. Owners of political campaign sians shall be responsible for their removal after their use 5 c. Banners Banners may be placed on a public place only by permit pursuant to the provisions cf this chapter. d. Other. All other sians are prohibited on public places for private purposes and on any eauipment, facilities and structures located upon public places including, but not limited to power poles telephone poles , street liaht standards sian posts trees traffic controllers markers , railings bridaes overpasses and public buildinas. 2 . Violations. In addition or as an alternative to the remedies provided in this chapter, the director may remove or relocate sians which are placed on a public place in violaticn of the provisions of this subsection 6 07 030 (B) or which the director determines in his or her discretion constitutes a threat to the health safetv and welfare of the public or interferes with the use of the public place. C. Other Uses of Public Property. It shall be unlawful for anvone to use anv public place for private purposes without havina first obtained a street use permit from the director, and without complying with all the provisions of this chapter in relation thereto. D. Street Closures . 1 . The city may permit the closure of a portion of a street or road within the boundaries of the Citv. No closure of anv street or road of any duration in time or lenath shall occur except in accordance with a permit issued by the director, and such other laws or regulations which may be aunlicable. 6 2 . The director may issue a permit for closure of such street or road if such closure is consistent with the general health safety and welfare of the citizens. The director is authorized to require that issuance of the permit is dependent upon fulfillment of such conditions as are necessary to ensure the closure is carried out in a safe uniform and reasonable manner, including but not limited to: a. The execution of a written agreement regulating access to the street by emergency vehicles and local residents during the closure. b. Procurement and posting of a bond, cash and/or proof of insurance in an amount sufficient to ensure payment for damages and/or all cleanup costs associated with the closure and a hold harmless agreement, as set forth in subsection . 060 below. C. Use of City-approved signs and barricades for the closure . D. City Development or Use - Exemptions. The requirements of this chapter shall not apply to: 1 . Street drainage water or sewer maintenance work performed by the City, including street drainage, water or sewer installation and improvement work authorized by ordinance, or street drainaae water or sewer improvement protects under contract with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. 2 . The City initiated closure of anv highwav, street or road. 7 sec. 6. 07 . ( (e3&) ) 040 . Permit application. To obtain a permit, the person shall file an application on a form furnished by the city for that purpose. Every application shall where applicable: 1. Identify the property by legal description and address for which a building, grading or fill permit is being sought or an accurate description of the public place or portion thereof desired to be used. 2 . - Provide the use desired to be made of such public place by the applicant. 3 . Provide the plans and specifications for anv utility or structure desired to be constructed erected or maintained by the applicant in or on. a public _place ( (-2 ) ) 4 . Identify routes to be utilized to and from the property. 5 . Identify the owner of the property being developed. 6 . Identify the contractor and subcontractor responsible for the development work. 7 . Include the state contractor' s number of such contractor or subcontractor. ( (b ) ) 8 . Include the city business license number of such contractor or subcontractor. ( (-7—) ) 9 . Be signed by the owner or the agent of the firm who will be actually responsible for the development work. ( (See- 6 - 07 - 040 L L Lhe l L shall be werks inspeetie e€_i• e La- ' ) ) 8 ( (See 6 07 859— N Cash-d=„e ' L } Ltiinjury, L LL that a-F�'eb ab i' ty--e€ ', `�s yte rrefa appr street, the applieant shall ..i. indemnityd 'Lti. r t L L the ei the Ler rpublie werks er designate .. the tom.. r appreving the i r 1. L Lazaeiant and extent _ L the ed • L deter=,iinedthe r .d�lie werksL`.. y as Sueh indennity fund L r shall surveys, plans and ether se�2v�ees r i resLering the .reiaevingL. fr the street, the replaeement e€ any idtility inteicrupted er ' ama" " ' rL unfinished and any eth---- expense the L. may sustainin eenjunetienwith the permitted were The balanee ef the eashrndemnity fund, 44 any, after- the fe:Fegeinq deddetlenS shall be returned L the L . I the indemnity y f f the Lwill liable fer thT- f ieiene ) ) Sec 6 07 050 Processing of applications. A. The director shall examine each application submitted to determine if it complies with the provisions of this chapter. In order to ascertain any facts which may aid in determinina whether a permit shall be aranted the director may inspect the premises which are desired to be used under the permit. B. If the director finds that the apolication presented to him or her for aunroval conforms to the requirements 9 of this chapter, and also that the proposed use of such public place will not unduly interfere with the rights of the public or unduly interfere or compete with adjacent uses on public or private Property, or otherwise constitute a threat to the health safety and welfare of the public then he or she may approve such application. Sec. 6 . 07 . 060 . Indemnit de csit• surety bond; liability insurance. - A. If the director determines that there is a probability of injury, damage or expense to the city arising from an applicant ' s proposed use of any public place the applicant shall provide a cash indemnity deposit to the department of public works The amount of the cash indemnity deposit shall be determined by the director, governed by the anticipated amount and extent of injury, damage or expense to the city, and determined at the time of application approval Such indemnity deposit shall be used to pay the cost of plan review, inspections surveys and other administrative services performed by the city , of restoring the street and removing any earth or other debris from the street the replacement of any utility interrupted or damaged or the completion of any work left unfinished the cost of filing of an indemnity agreement with the department if such an agreement is required with the permit , and any other expense the city may sustain in conjunction with the permitted work The balance of the cash indemnity deposit , if any, after the foregoing deductions shall be returned to the applicant If the indemnity deposit is insufficient, the applicant will be liable for the deficiency. If the director determines that engineering studies must be made prior to the approval of any application for permit the cost of such study 10 shall be paid for by the applicant or deducted from his indemnity deposit. B. The director may reauire, in lieu of or in addition to the cash indemnity deposit , the applicant to file with the department a surety bond which has been approved as to surety and as to form by the city attorney. The surety bond shall meet all the requirements provided in subsection A. above relative to a cash indemnity deposit, shall run for the full period of the permit and shall be in an amount to be fixed by the director and conditioned such that the applicant shall faithfullv comply with all the terms of the permit all the provisions of this chapter, all other ordinances of the citv. C. If the application is for the construction , reconstruction, repair, maintenance or removal of anv sidewalk Pavement , sewers , water mains , aradina street lighting or appurtenances thereto , the applicant shall file with the department a suretv bond approved as to surety and as to form by the city attorney. The suretv bond shall run for the full period of the permit and may be required by the director for a period of one (1) vear after the acceptance of the permitted work by the city, and shall be in an amount fixed by the director. The suretv shall be conditioned such that the apolicant shall faithfullv complete all portions of the work accordina to the standard plans and specifications of the city and the specific plans for the work as approved by the citv engineer. D. The director may require anv permit holder to post a suretv bond in the calendar year following the period of a 11 permit when the extent of possible damage to a public place cannot be completely determined. E. The director may require an applicant to maintain in full force and effect public liabilitv insurance in an amount sufficient to cover potential claims for bodily injury, death or disability and for property damage which may arise from or in connection with the permit The director shall establish the amount of such insurance and a copy of the policv shall be provided to the City for review prior to issuance of the permit. The director has the discretion to require one or anv combination of the above requirements prior to issuance of a permit as the director deems appropriate considerina the use Proposed by the applicant in order to reasonably protect the Cit ' s interests and the health safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 6. 07 . 070 . Indemnity Agreement. The applicant shall be required to execute a written agreement supplied by the city attornev to forever hold and save the city free and harmless from any and all claims , actions or damages of every kind and description which may accrue to or be suffered by any 3person by reason of the use of such public place or of the construction existence maintenance use or occupation of any such structure services fixtures eauipment and/or facilities on or in a public place pursuant to this chapter. Sec. 6. 07 . ( (G66) ) 080 . Permit expiration. Every permit issued by the department of public works under provisions of this chapter shall expire in accordance with 12 the expiration date of the respective building, grading, or fill permit. In no such case shall the life of the street use permit extend beyond ( (six—(6)) ) twelve (12) months from date of issuance. Sec. 6. 07 . ( (0-7-0) ) 090 . Special conditions, suspension or revocation for noncompliance. A. _ The applicant shall continuously keep the streets and storm drain system free from all debris attributed to the work performed under the respective building, grading, or fill permit. If this is violated, the director of public works or designate may without advance notice and by posting the work site suspend or revoke a permit issued. No new permit will be issued or the suspension lifted until the conditions of this section have been met. Where the director of public works or designate determines that no immediate action per compliance with the conditions of this section is about to occur, and the director of public works or designate determines in his judgment that it is in the best interest of the city that immediate action should be taken, he can order the work done by city forces or other forces. The cost thereof shall be deducted from the indemnity fund at the actual cost plus fifteen (15) percent. B. The director of public works or designate may in writing suspend or revoke a permit issued hereunder whenever the permit was issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied or in violation of any other ordinance or regulation of the city. 13 Sec. 6. 07 . ( (080) ) 100 . Permit and inspection fees. A. The basic fee for a street use permit under Section 6 07 030 (A) above shall be fifty dollars ($50. 00) . ( (A--S requiredpermit is F definedpermit independegt-ly—if several building, grading, er ill ene (I) legally F prepert-y�-.-) ) The basic fee for a street use permit under Section 6 07 030 (B) (C) and (D) above shall be twenty-five dollars ($25 . 00) . B. Where total inspection time exceeds two (2) hours an extra charge shall be invoiced to the applicant at a rate of twenty dollars ($20 . 00) per hour. y,ave d-may-bed fer } F ee- The F i � L 1 L the + ` ef the Sec. 6. 07 . ( (100) ) 110 . Double fee for work without permit. Whenever work for which a permit is required by this chapter is commenced or performed prior to obtaining such permit, the basic permit fee shall be doubled. The payment for such double fee shall not relieve any person from full compliance with all of the requirements of this chapter in the execution of the work or from any other penalties which may be provided for in this chapter, including criminal penalties. 14 Sec. 6. 07 . ( (14-9) ) 120 . Permit not obtained. Any work which is commenced or performed prior to obtaining the permit required by this chapter shall be immediately suspended and shall not recommence until the requirements of this chapter have been fully satisfied. Sec. 6.07 . ( (1-24) ) 130 . Enforcement authority. The city engineer or construction engineer are authorized and directed to act as the delegate of the director of public works and to enforce all provisions of this chapter. Sec. 6. 07 . 140 . Stop work Order. The director may issue a stop work order whenever a continuing violation of this chapter will materially impair the director' s ability to secure compliance or when a continuing violation threatens the health or safety of the public. ( (See. 6 . 0:7 - 130 . Vielatient penalties. it shall be unlawful fe ±n asseeiatien with a building, grading, -er fill , the sate to be dene, in vieiatienof any ef the of this ehapter. Any- ersen oTie' acing any e€ the previsiens e f this . rseparate effense r eaeh and every e- �; tier f du g i h I , at eic of any- f the pr v is-lens e€ this ehapter is- ,a i .7 , c e t d Sec 6. 07 . 150 . Violation; penalties. A. Civil Any violation of anv provision of this chapter constitutes a civil violation under Kent City Code 15 Chapter 1. 04 for which a monetary enalt may be assessed and abatement may be required and/or otherwise enforced as provided therein. B. Criminal . In addition or as an alternative to any other penalty provided in this chapter or by law, any person violating the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions of section 1 . 01. 140 relating to criminal penalties for misdemeanors . Section 6 . Severability. If any one or more sections , subsections or sentences of this chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the rem9ining portion of this chapter and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 7 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of , 1993 . APPROVED the day of 1993 . PUBLISHED the day of 1993 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washingtonp and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK signsL ord 17 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar i � 1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN WHEELCHAIR RAMP IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SU STA' FMENTs As recommended by the Public Works—,, Commjtte uthorization to accept as complete the contract with Gary Merlino Construction Company for the Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements project and to release retainage after receipt of State releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President' s approval to place on Consent Calendar (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 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 13, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROMSJ� RE: DOWNTOWN WHEELCHAIR RAMP IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE The project consisted of placing wheelchair ramps at various locations within the downtown area . The project was awarded to Gary Merlino Construction on July 6 , 1993 for the bid amount of $28 , 500 . 00 . The final construction cost is $29 , 500 . 00 . ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. of use on public right of ways with our current street use code, which basically deals with construction related street use permits; deregulating any portable sign on public rights of way requiring no permits or fees . Discussion followed regarding enforcement of the Ordinance and Lubovich stated that the Public Works Director has the authority of enforcement. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the Ordinance repealing Chapter 8 . 02 , Chapter 6 . 08 and Section 9 . 36 . 040 , and amending Chapter 6 . 07 . (J� Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that we had a contract with Gary Merlino Construction for immediate work associated with wheelchair ramps in various locations and the project is now complete. White asked if we are required by ADA to be doing those on James St. In response to White, Wickstrom said we are required to do them all and essentially under ADA, we will have to bring all Avenue sidewalks up to ADA standards . Committee unanimously recommended the Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements be accepted as complete . Central Avenue Improvements - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that this is an acceptance of a contract with West Coast Construction as complete . Committee unanimously recommended the Central Avenue Improvements project be accepted as complete . Recycling Yard Waste Contract Wickstrom stated that our existing contract expires on December 31st, which includes a two month extension. He said that in getting a new extension of the existing contract, Kent Disposal submitted some costs and we didn ' t have any way of making a comparison. Wickstrom said we sought RFP ' s as a means of determining a fair rate and in doing so we received only one other submittal from Waste Management . Wickstrom said that depending on how we implement the contract, if we go with Kent Disposal we will need a utility tax rate increase on garbage service, if we want to continue to subsidize recycling . If not, we would have to have the customer pay it directly to the recycler. Wickstrom said the preferred option would be to continue subsidizing the recycling program and to add as a separate bill , the yard waste program. If we were to subsidize the yard waste program, there would be a substantial increase in the utility tax on garbage service. Wickstrom said that under the yard waste program we are proposing to make it mandatory not to allow yard waste into the garbage as required by King County . Wickstron said the service would be 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . TA EMENTs_ As recommended by the Public Works Committee uthorization to accept as complete the contract wit-fi Wes Coast Construction Company for the Central Avenue Improvements project and to release retainage after receipt of State releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President 's approval to place on Consent Calendar (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. 3K DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 13, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM q I RE: CENTRAL AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE The project consisted of street widening and asphalt overlay of Central Avenue from E. Smith St. to E. Willis Street and Gowe Street Improvements from S . Central Avenue to S . Railroad Avenue. The project was awarded to West Coast Construction Company, Inc. on July 7 , 1992 for the bid amount cf $853 , 994 . 89 . The final construction cost is $828 , 168 . 93 . ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete. D W I Z W > < INDUSTRIAL AREA — 1 NOVAK L w 167 I Z <in 11 A tn i. 234TH W ST �u m I I - < < W < c ♦ I 4A. Q y "i. 5� COII ST `-`:�.: � T J Z ti I 2S cc Z an < ---�� WAY LDRON > 5.z3rn; v� f.'. CLOUDY ST �^ N F / fY < > W LOU Y S W ° < > J r O rr < a a 5 238TH J. ./ E GE ROE W O o _ ( N o z ?'z z r > 3! < _ S.23 PL. t ES ST h < Z S 240 S Z _ �• Igll(l,t \•.�' KENT W > N N JR. I. 24 > < O -c a S > w SCHOOL c E w x O w SAM ST < + > - _- 1A�thl—eb�c Flo CED a s7 < J �` < < ° PIONEER St._�y at < < 2 PROJECT LOCATION TT11 < z z ti < O E EM RA £ ST O M ILLAN Z 2 MILKAI )%)-t. f M C > ST Z O J I'L,\Y>•IF.LU' •� < I Z Z N t S 4aTH ST 2i i W 1 Sid ITH ST � �� lT� iST MKENT EQiCAL KITH ST Z ��, a x Z T c F 4,, sT ., `�� Z O 1Z WARD �cCENTE :'.v�-%')HARRISO W G .r: �(� W HARRISON ST H > _ w Z . Z,Sy Z ST Z '7 i•-REI7 . 'vG�C1 ST.JAMES > `1 Wlo MEEKER 2 ST Z ME KERW T T `�Jg q`?O� O ` 4�.1 y01SCHOOL 4 w Z Po..... i1 W 1 _ H' > 5T n'A ? •L Or 1., 1�" WEILAND x > < SuC < W < GOWE ST < r r '4qj, v •,�( S r- w > m L' O q ` ST 247TH P < STREET ILLIS W „te W ENT a-, .n�� T < } ri- Ehpg�r TA COMA ST w•1y Q O. ST INTCHIS < h K SGM * .ovcc 4 516 a 4Y�r m W CHERRY OPt �C. ', I Oq Z ru ST EANO E OEAN O HILL ST O WTITU H f ST ST< <E MA CLYN ST " •1..t�/, `r�` W N SAAR •� < c^� < J p < L SS R PIN ; Z O E GUIBERSON ST ';,r1 4 - H .t /.: WILLIS 4 ST AY Z < s E SEA TILE �.. i . � . W r J x m > ° 516 c"� W If..- � ST ; J � ., ,o > > < r I u1 OR, z _� < SEATTLE ST w a t�y`.r. •/ m W ROIA ST RU LL < W Z Y > O Z ® I. W W ST y Z < r- < '� E CHICAGO ST Fire v < > w Y = E > > t- Station _ O _ CHI GO < ¢ O MO ON = O Z ST N E LAUREL ST > R m y O W ST x �rJ Y N w O 1. > T sn K - CIS A OP U E HEMLOCK ST rn I J¢ w CARTER m < MARION Z E FILBERT ST ♦ W W a m W fA rn N ST' ¢ w W ¢ 2 z WAL O o W 25� 30 i ° > I x U I O 4 < MAPLE ST N ' 259TH ST s 259TH ST n p� I of use on public right of ways with our current street use code, which basically deals with construction related street use permits; deregulating any portable sign on public rights of way requiring no permits or fees. Discussion followed regarding enforcement of the Ordinance and Lubovich stated that the Public Works Director has the authority of enforcement . Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the Ordinance repealing Chapter 8 . 02 , Chapter 6 . 08 and Section 9 . 36. 040, and amending Chapter 6 . 07 . Downtown Wheelchair Ramp Improvements - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that we had a contract with Gary Merlino Construction for immediate work associated with wheelchair ramps in various locations and the project is now complete. White asked if we are required by ADA to be doing those on James St. In response to White, Wickstrom said we are required to do them all and essentially under ADA, we will have to bring all Avenue sidewalks up to ADA standards . Committee unanimously recommended the Downtown Wheelchair Ramp �— Improvements be accepted as complete. i ) Central Avenue Improvements - Accept as Complete Wickstrom explained that this is an acceptance of a contract with West Coast Construction as complete. Committee unanimously recommended the Central Avenue Improvements project be accepted as complete . Recycling Yard Waste Contract Wickstrom stated that our existing contract expires on December 31st, which includes a two month extension. He said that in getting a new extension of the existing contract, Kent Disposal submitted some costs and we didn 't have any way of making a comparison. Wickstrom said we sought RFP ' s as a means of determining a fair rate and in doing so we received only one other submittal from Waste Management . Wickstrom said that depending on how we implement the contract, if we go with Kent Disposal we will need a utility tax rate increase on garbage service, if we want to continue to subsidize recycling . If not, we would have to have the customer pay it directly to the recycler. Wickstrom said the preferred option would be to continue subsidizing the recycling program and to add as a separate bill , the yard waste program. If we were to subsidize the yard waste program, there would be a substantial increase in the utility tax on garbage service. Wickstrom said that under the yard waste program we are proposing to make it mandatory not to allow yard waste into the garbage as required by King County. Wickstrom said the service would be 3 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: CANYON RIDGE PLAZA - BILL OF SALE _ _.._ - _ - -— — 2 , SUMMARY-sT EMENT As recom_me_nded- by the Public Works) �ommitteer eeepta-ice of the bill of sale and warranty agreement su mitted by Dayton Hudson Corporation dba Target Stores, for continuous 'operation and maintenance of 1810 feet of water main extension; 1835 feet of street improvements and 301 feet of storm sewers and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period.,► The project is located in the vicinity of 104th Avenue SE & SE 260th Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President' s approval to place on Consent Calendar (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 4, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS C(OOMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM,I l� RE: BILL OF SALE -v�CANYON RIDGE PLAZA Dayton Hudson Corporation dba Target Stores, the developer of Canyon Ridge Plaza has completed the water, streets and storm sewer improvements for this project. The Canyon Ridge Plaza improvements are in the vicinity of 26301 104th Avenue SE. ACTION: Recommend the Bill of Sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period. T32o ST K I J t n` w Prd U.,� LAST HILLL24IST ST CLEM ENTA RY SCHOOL3S 242NDSS 243RDSTgE244TH a ST 44THT ; m W P ti < > O J < a W x ST.JAM[E > N SCHOOL < w h SE 2�6 LM SL Imo• WEILAND S W S 246TH ST 247TH + > Pt ` < !n SE 247'14 p 'J ST F W CT c. clgV $ ^ '< , 248TH ST SE 248TH ST ST r!;11..1// 0�' N i x W L a > SEATTL �• % t' ��L x 516 O .wr; IC252ND T / / AGO ST \,J '_: S SE 232ND 5T V; EAST HILL < W ST `` `' :`;��: CENTER x r p ) i,•+w' - p,;...,h SE 252ND �' w W w 2K ST 8 S'�Y. `� �� Fie!C ST W < W SE 254TF m z � i �'KinQ¢ 515 > < If T �a w W Q � `.' C:oUrity it r- W u et m W ;� �t Pdke KENT—MERIDIAN x F w Zw COS /._� '`� �SR. HI. SCHOOL �- /^ > 5< WA UT w rn ST y /-�•y SE 256TH ST _ �t < V j 30 P v' H W 2 MAPLE ST m+!•" ,.i-�" 1 c > $ < 9 _Z57thl nT 3 g O C CEMETFRY- -'' � • 9 r.Nit 4 vs 'tfyr I I I L .l ��.r�lt It`... . r W SE K� SE 260TN 57 2607H p PROD / 040 ;Z LOCATION $� }'z •��'^ S W > SEQUOIA fq / (Pvt) J R. H 1. * '.st.s.. xI S t�2M0 f SCHOOL ' ry W AI^ IG 1 �� SE 264TH ST- C y ul ryl'`l:'+�C:,�_-Y�ai%1::.:Y:�Z .. � '.'.i.._.� �C.//•��/1'1/�.Ja.+ Fire sts •Q d m S r: O . w Water SE 2 TF > -Hesery ST x ;L 2G7TH -T W v�+l SE 268TH .� L 58 TN F� 269 II pP trN SE 270TH CANYON RIDGE PLAZA PL ,. 26301 104th Avenue SE r� f'P 30 29 SE 272MD ST voluntary. White asked why Waste Management is different from Kent Disposal . Wickstrom referenced the comparison table and said essentially Waste Management is providing a three bin separate container and Kent Disposal is continuing with their 90 gallon commingle toter with 20 gallon glass container; Waste Management would collect weekly and Kent Disposal collects every other week; Waste Management cost is $2 . 55/ month and Kent Disposal cost is $4 . 98/month. Further discussion followed with comparisons between Kent Disposal and Waste Management on frequency of collection, type of yard waste collection and cost per participating customer. Committee suggested that this be studied further and brought back to Public Works at the October 20th meeting. Steve Caputo stated that Kent Disposal would like to protest Waste Management ' s response to the Request for Proposal in that it is totally non-responsive to the guidelines that were given. Canyon Ridge Plaza - Bill of Sale Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale on Canyon Ridge Plaza and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. Peterson Short Plat - Bill of Sale Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale on Peterson Short Plat and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period . Traffic Signal at Jason & James The resident of 615 N. Jason St . stated that the neighbors on James and Jason do not want the street light at that intersection. They feel it will make a dangerous situation worse. The resident ' s representative stated that they do not want the barricade system installed in front of their properties . White recommended that staff look at the model for three lanes on James. Executive Session: 6 : 30 P.M. Meeting adjourned: 6 : 45 P.M. 4 Kent City Council Meeting / Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: PETERSON SHORT PLAT - BILL OF SALE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Work Committee pt c e btli-of saleantl- y agreement submitted by Harold Peterson, for continuous operation and maintenance of 519 feet of water main ex nsion, 448 feet of sanitary sewer extension, 502 feet of st et improvements and 1, 101 feet of storm sewers and rel ase of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. he project is located in the vicinity of Kensington Avenue & E. Chicago Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes, memorandum from Public Works Director and vicinity map 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President ' s approval to place on Consent Calendar (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. 3M DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 6, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROKW RE: BILL OF SALE - PETERSEN SHORT PLAT Harold Petersen, the developer of the Petersen Short Plat has completed the water, sewer, streets and storm sewer improvements for this project. The Petersen Short Plat improvements are in the vicinity of Kensington Avenue between Chicago & Carter Streets. ACTION: Recommend the Bill of Sale be accepted and bonds released after the one year maintenance period . r. nN Z S N N N J r r -V NN N Z h- W N 3S3T O S S ld tY \ N 1SpT n W O y,QOt Z 3S 3AV Hivol Zr Z J r 3S 3AV Eol NN < m N N Oa N W ZI N a 3S 3AY C 190 Bpoolilne a Z W NZot . HZ 35 3AV WO ZWC h f Y Ol y6 w nlooi tl Wl ^ <JU �r ^ WWW r _ _ °' O \. 3S 3AV HIOO1 7.7 v 3s anv iuooi N fh P P\ Hr S 3AY H166 p W ^� AUV S 3AV'-Hl%'/ •,� N MV S O S 3AV H196 Q N N a H1L 1=H + I.�OIL 'EH AVE•. i.i , ,; ' L:, N t S 3AV y ir'i��--�^�},i� S\`O •r AV, "19 S 3AV H196 H196 ;-r; o I � �a�.,. .e,1 l\\., 1 •�� fy v 3AV 3AV Hl►6 i v l� 3AY Hlir6 a r WJOT N ��. •.\\� 1.I.,t/ N < N YL= Nn �•�1'.�1 �.v •�AV 000M31JVN S N t �� z \�\ 1�.\T N Oa N3113H O IA W S Id OHZ6 v S n OP 1 >�' -ldr Id < 3AV W •;'-} N N S1113 S 3 a � ... M31A < 3AY dOlII IH 11IY W ns N Or ,.�t ! O m 3AV Z C! Y�t 3 N VI�) '• r UU 3AV U 2 O m 3 -3AY Oa OAIV >.1, ,Q' �� z r W Z u O 1 Wwl a'131J VO S b o N r - 5 W m J.' - N r a3Na 3No s 4y - �b > N < N , r a J ' S 0 W W W � � ��••' 3' W Z W N W i W 3AV - 3AV 1S3aO m S Id 3AV 3ZrH N < W y`�� % a30 VY33r? r 0 <�` arw t n It r_ ,�, Oy < <Z< » O N U W; 3AV rtlON3l N I �H 3� U WU 3AV a31NY aNVAZ r S ZO r r v 3AV dSOtld � .�•)(• ��'/ r 3AV W NOSYf H Y J�lg s�•'.Y `� S O EMy100H 3AV :_ rW 3AV N01ON1 do O �� W. �v N hJ o aatH O 3AV 7 NNYIO N Z W V S /1 W e O r E 3 y Lu �" a W 3AV 153a011IH �M E KENNEBECI - O U O u \ Z r O t• AVM OIN30S O AV ON03000M N N ( I 5 r N < �- N J » /:'•� W r JQQ c I 1 N 3 °° 3AV Z> J V�,ez 1.� W 3AV ZIO< N u3AYJ 31VIS Nm 31 S S WAYtC �; •�L " V1SN VGI�¢ y W W < W ZZ r 3AY IV tl1N3O W W O O 2 C � W <� 3nv o s30018e s 3AV lYtl1N33 N v a W W In AV i avotlllra s 3AV avotlltrtl N � - - - _ }— -- - z 3AY is t N8 3AV 151 ry N W 3AV 1FI T F V NlSi y S � 3AV > < 3AV r ONZ r L S aNZ N 3AV W ONZ 0O v11 Nt 7� - W s 3 U t� Nl� r H 3pp o ] 3AV O oaE ZZ 4- 3AV OtlE Hlt N V 3AV Hit N ZO AV ZW(J Hl► a PETERSEN SHORT PLAT 1 Z ¢ ¢ ; WJm N r Y WY.W 3AY H1S s j 3AV )-1S N N Z ; ; 3 3AV ' - 3AV His S� voluntary. White asked why Waste Management is different from Kent Disposal . Wickstrom referenced the comparison table and said essentially Waste Management is providing a three bin separate container and Kent Disposal is continuing with their 90 gallon commingle toter with 20 gallon glass container; Waste Management would collect weekly and Kent Disposal collects every other week; Waste Management cost is $2 . 55/ month and Kent Disposal cost is $4 . 98/month. Further discussion followed with comparisons between Kent Disposal and Waste Management on frequency of collection, type of yard waste collection and cost per participating customer. Committee suggested that this be studied further and brought back to Public Works at the October 20th meeting. Steve Caputo stated that Kent Disposal would like to protest Waste Management ' s response to the Request for Proposal in that it is totally non-responsive to the guidelines that were given. Canyon Ridge Plaza - Bill of Sale Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale on Canyon Ridge Plaza and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. Peterson Short Plat - Bill of Sale Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the bill of sale on Peterson Short Plat and release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. Traffic Signal at Jason & James The resident of 615 N. Jason St . stated that the neighbors on James and Jason do not want the street light at that intersection. They feel it will make a dangerous situation worse. The resident' s representative stated that they do not want the barricade system installed in front of their properties . White recommended that staff look at the model for three lanes on James. Executive Session: 6 : 30 P. M. Meeting adjourned: 6 : 45 P. M. 4 Kent City Council Meeting i Date October 19 , 1993 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: KINGSPORT INDUSTRIAL/196TH CORRIDOR MIDDLE LEG - ORDINANCE 2 . C_fiTATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works Comm itte ,-do`p`tion of-Ordinance No. -��f ) authorizing the City ceed with condemnation at Kingsport Industrial on the 196th Corridor, Middle Leg. i 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) with Council President' s approval to place on Consent Calendar (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. 3N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OCTOBER 6, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS VITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM RE: KINGSPORT INDUSTRIAL - CONDEMNATION ORDINANCE Tom Brubaker will be in attendance to discuss this item. ACTION: Recommend adoption of Ordinance authorizing the City to proceed with condemnation at Kingsport Industrial on the 196th Corridor, Middle Leg PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 13, 1993 PRESENT: Jim White Tom Brubaker Jim Bennett Robyn Bartelt Don Wickstrom Mr & Mrs Rust Gary Gill Steve Caputo Ed White Roger Lubovich ABSENT: Committee Member Paul Mann Kingsport Industrial/196th Middle Leg Condemnation Ordinance Wickstrom said that we have been negotiating with the property owners for several years . The property is located on the west side of the Burlington Northern tracks , east of Western Processing. Wickstrom said that we may need to condemn in order to obtain it. In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said it is not finalized at this point due to money and the property owner wants zoning changes. He explained that the zoning changes would give the owner more flexibility on the use of his site however, this is not within our control. Brubaker said that we hoped that we could negotiate a reasonable dollar figure to purchase this but at the same time, if we are unable to do so, because of the zoning and dollar issues, we want to start on the condemnation, as the property owner is well aware . Brubaker stated that we are requesting authority to begin the condemnation process which begins with an ordinance, 30 days later the ordinance becomes effective and we file the condemnation action. In response to White, Brubaker stated that it will also provide a tax benefit to the property owner however, the owner would be exempt from a excise- tax payment either way. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City to proceed with condemnation at Kingsport Industrial on 196th Corridor, Middle Leg . Sidewalks at Sequoia Jr . High School Wickstrom stated that we developed an estimate and met with the various property owners and they were basically negative however, the school is not going to protest but they will not firmly support this either . He said that the school ' s intent was originally to put in an asphalt sidewalk. Under the covenant, the school will have to replace this with a full half-street improvement and 1 i it li ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, providing for the acquisition of an easement for street purposes over certain properties in order to extend, improve, alter and widen South 196th Street in the City of Kent; providing for the payment thereof out of the 196th Street--West Valley to East Valley Project Fund; and providing for the condemnation of such property rights as necessary therefor; all of said properties located within the City of Kent, King County, Washington. THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The City of Kent ("City") authorizes the acquisition by condemnation of all or a part of certain real property located in King County, Washington, which is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter, the "Property") . Section 2 . The public convenience, use and necessity demand that the City condemn the Property in order to acquire an easement for street purposes, which purposes shall include all acts necessary to complete the extension, improvement, alteration and widening of South 196th Street, including improvements for drainage, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, landscaping, illumination, 1 �i it i signal improvements, electrical facilities, utility adjustments and relocations and any other street or municipal purposes that may become necessary from time to time on the Property. Section 3 . The City shall condemn the Property only after just compensation has first been made or paid into court for the owner or owners in the manner prescribed by law. Section 4 . The City shall pay for the entire cost of the acquisition by condemnation provided for in this Ordinance through the City' s 11196th Street--West Valley to East Valley Project Fund, " or from any of the City' s general funds, if necessary, as may be provided by law. Section 5. The City authorizes and directs the City Attorney to commence those proceedings provided by law that are necessary to condemn the Property. In commencing these condemnation procedures, the City authorizes the City Attorney to enter into stipulations or agreements in order to minimize damages, which stipulations or agreements may include, but not be limited to, size and dimensions of the Property condemned, construction easements and other property interests. Section 6 . Any acts consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are ratified and confirmed. Section 7 . 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 validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances . 2 I Section 8 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 19_• APPROVED the day of 19_. PUBLISHED the day of 19_. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 EXHIBIT 'A' A strip of land 100 feet in width 50 feet of each side of the following described centerline. Beginning at the northeast corner of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 1 Township 22 North Range 4 E, W.M. ; thence South 100813011 West a distance of 149 . 07 feet; thence North 8802214511 West parallel with the north line of said southeast quarter a distance of 802 . 57 feet; thence South 104812411 West a distance of 4 . 14 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 8600413311 West a distance of 506 . 39 feet; thence North 88°08139" West a distance of 1153 . 94 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 1200 . 00 feet an arc distance of 138 . 27 feet to the westerly boundary of a tract of land recorded under Auditors File No. 6239441 and terminus of said centerline which termini also bears South 1504513411 East a distance of 125 . 31 feet from the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 1 . pr45 ----------- Ile i1 Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: KECK REZONE (RZ-93-1) 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval, with conditions, of an application by Jack Keck, Mel Kleweno (attorney for Jack Keck) , Rob Hamlin (Masonic Hall representative) , and Annette Koarkis, to rezone 1.4 acres from R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. The property is located on the north side of Smith Street. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report; Findings and Recommendations; Findings, Conclusions Decision on Reconsideration 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner 4/21/93 and 6/2/93 (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 J- 'Lt moves, Councilmember seconds to accept/WejecQmodify the findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to adopt eject/modify the Hearing Examiner's recommendation of approval of the Keck Rezone No. RZ-93-1 with conditions, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4A CITY OF L"Lt22 LS CITY OF KENT a KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 STAFF REPORT pnPmIICll� FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1993 FILE NO: BECK REZONE #RZ-93-1 APPLICANT: Jack Keck et al REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 1. 4 acres from R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions I . GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of the Proposal The applicants propose to rezone approximately 1. 4 acres from the current R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, zoning to O, Professional and Office. B. Location The subject site is located on the north side of Smith Street (a.k. a. , Canyon Drive, Kent-Kangley Road) near its intersection with Jason Avenue. C. Size of Property The proposed rezone site consists of three tax lots totaling approximately 1 . 4 acres. D. Zoning Property to the east and north of the proposed rezone site is zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential. Properties to the west are zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise. The DCE-zoned area to the west is part of the Downtown Planning Area and is zoned to permit intensive commercial uses . The area across Smith Street 1 Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 to the south is zoned RA, Residential-Agricultural. Approximately 200-feet to the east on the north side of Smith Street the area is zoned MRD, Multifamily Duplex Residential. E. Land Use As mentioned, the proposed rezone site consists of three tax lots, each with a different land use. The smallest and westernmost lot is occupied by a legal, nonconforming duplex. The middle lot is occupied by the Kent Masonic Hall. The largest and easternmost lot has a large, turn- of-the-century single family residence located on it. The proposed rezone site lies at the edge of the downtown area. Commercial businesses line Smith Street to the west, while to the east and north the neighborhood is primarily single family residential. Across Smith Street to the south is the Mill Creek Earthworks Park and Kent Senior Center. F. Site History The subject property is located within the original townsite of Kent incorporated in 1890. The property has been zoned for single family residential use at least since 1973 . II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) (#ENV-92-77) for the rezone proposal was issued on November 19 , 1992 with two conditions. B. Significant Physical Features Topographically, the site slopes at a gentle grade to the west (i . e. , <5%) . There are several mature and significant deciduous and evergreen trees located on the site, primarily associated with the residence on the easternmost lot. 2 Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The subject property has access to Smith Street/ Canyon Drive which is classified as a principal arterial. The street has a public right-of-way width of 110 feet while the actual width of paving is 60 feet. The street is improved with five (5) lanes of asphalt paving, curb and gutter, stormwater drainage, sidewalks and street lighting. A widening strip will not be required to be deeded to the City. (Extra land has been dedicated in the recent past in conjunction with the widening of Canyon Drive) . New left turn lanes will not be required. The average daily traffic count on the street is 40, 500 vehicle trips per day. As a condition of the MDNS, the applicants are required to prepare a focused traffic impact report for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) . The report is to identify the impacts of the rezone upon the operation of the roadways and intersections of the State Highway System, including upon Smith Street (SR 516) . 2 . Water System The site is served by a six-inch water line. The water main is located on Jason and Hazel Avenues. 3 . Sanitary Sewer System An existing 12-inch sanitary sewer is available to serve the property. 4 . Stormwater System Existing developments on the subject tax lots discharge stormwater to the City ' s system located along Smith Street. This system is adequate to handle existing flows. Should new or expanded development be proposed on the rezone site, a stormwater system constructed in accordance with Kent Surface Water and Drainage Code standards would be necessary. 3 Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 5 . LIDs No Local Improvement Districts exist at this time. III . CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Chief Administrative Officer City Attorney Director of Public Works Chief of Police Parks& Recreation Director Fire Chief Building Official City Clerk In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were notified of the application and of the public hearing. Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable. IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan The following is a review of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Subarea Plan as they relate to the subject property. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject property as Office. The Valley Floor Plan Map also designates the site as Office. It should be noted that a comprehensive plan amendment was recently adopted for the proposed rezone site. This amendment changed the land use designation from Single Family Residential to Office for both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the Valley Floor Plan Map. This action was taken by the Kent City Council on March 16 , 1993 . In conjunction with the plan amendment adopted by the City Council, the rezone site was also eliminated from the Single Family Designated Area overlay, originally imposed on the site by Resolution #1232 in 1990 . 4 Staff Report Keck Rezone JRZ-93-1 CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: HOUSING ELEMENT Goal I , Objective 1: Encourage the retention and rehabilitation of existing residential neighborhoods on and adjacent to the Valley Floor, especially those within and around the CBD core. Goal I , Objective 2 , Policy 2 : Utilize regulatory measures (e.g. , zoning) to protect neighborhoods against uses incompatible with residential development (e. g. , major arterial locations, commercial and industrial development, etc. ) CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ECONOMIC ELEMENT Goal 2 , Objective 1 : Minimize adverse physical impacts of strip commercial development. Plannina Department Comment : Goals and policies of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan seek to protect existing residential neighborhoods from dissimilar and incompatible land uses, as well as from the adverse impacts of heavy traffic. Plan policies recognize that residential uses need to be buffered from these disaffinities in order for them to remain viable. The proposed 0, Professional and Office, zoning will allow some limited service and professional uses of the subject property while establishing a buffer between the heavy traffic and noise of Smith Street and the surrounding low density residential area. Plan policies discourage "strip" type commercial areas, and while the Office zoning would permit professional and office uses, these uses are not considered incompatible with residential uses. The purpose statement in the Professional and Office zone district itself mentions that this zone shall "buffer residential districts" and that office uses "should be compatible with residential districts. " VALLEY FLOOR PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Goal 1 , Objective 1 , Policy 1: Discourage through traffic routes in residential areas. 5 Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Planning Department Comment: Valley Floor Plan policies also recognize the adverse impacts which heavy vehicular traffic can have on residential environments. The policy enumerated above discourages through traffic in residential areas as one way of ensuring neighborhood livability. With regard to the proposed rezone site, traffic has significantly increased over the years until today there are over 40, 000 vehicles passing by each day. In addition, Canyon Drive has been widened twice in recent years, and each time there has been a loss in front yard space on all three subject lots. The small lot at the corner of Smith Street/Jason Avenue has virtually no front yard, only a jersey-type barrier between the duplex and sidewalk to help protect against possible roadway dangers. B. Standards and Criteria for a Rezone Request The following standards and criteria (Kent Zoning Code, Section 15 . 09 . 050) are used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for a rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department Comment The proposed rezone is consistent with the recent amendments to the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and Valley Floor Plan map which re-designated the site from Single Family Residential to Office. In addition, the site has been eliminated from the "Single Family Designated Area" overlay. 2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment The proposed rezone is not expected to have a negative impact on the adjacent single family neighborhood. Office type uses are considered to be relatively 6 Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 compatible with low density residential uses and may fit into the neighborhood with little adverse effect. In addition, the office uses may serve as a long-term buffer between the heavily travelled Canyon Drive/Smith Street corridor and the residential neighborhood. 3 . The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated. Planning Department Comment If the property is developed at a more intensive use, further review of the traffic impacts would be required. Traffic impacts at proposed levels were addressed through the SEPA process. Only four (4) additional PM peak hour trips were anticipated as a result of the impacts of the rezone, according to the final MDNS . 4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. Planning Department Comment This may be the most difficult criteria to properly assess, since the zone change is predicated primarily upon the increased traffic and noise on Smith Street and its negative impact on abutting single-family residential properties . This condition has gradually increased over the years . The incremental widening of Smith Street/ Canyon Drive has also resulted in loss of front yard depth, placing existing dwellings even closer to moving traffic. As mentioned earlier in this report, all that remains of the front yard of the duplex at the corner of Smith Street and Jason Avenue is the jersey barrier between the sidewalk and building facade. 5 . The proposed rezone will not adversely effect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Planning Department Comment The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan, and Staff Report Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 meets the standards of other City Codes and Ordinances. As a result, the rezone proposal will not adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. Any subsequent development will be reviewed during the permitting process to ensure compliance with applicable development standards. V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the code criteria for granting a rezone, the City staff recommends APPROVAL of the Keck Rezone request. KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 6 , 1993 c:rz931.rpt 8 City of Kent : Planning Departmr W COLE w ST > N w > C o w > C > 2 J O N Q > w 237TH PL m Cr ¢> 7= w z z U GEORGE ST o r w J Q = S 240TH ST _ S 241ST r > > a C a � Cr z > M S 242N J � U = ~ S 243RD T SMIiH ST N MEEKER T ONO ti GOWE ST � �a OERN 5T S9 N a S MRCLTN ST O ST GUIBERSON ST 09 Aft SER T TLE ST 09 CROW ST E CHICRGO ST w C LRUREL 5T 0 C m APPLICATION NAME: Keck Rezone NUMBER: #RZ-93-1 DATE: April 21 , 1993 3EQUEST: Rezone .� LEGEND Application site Vicinity Map Railroad tracks Kent City Limits • �� ►�'i .�Rol L'�1 �r �. � �;� L `•� ` ?ice 1 � ' � ,f;� �l. � •� � � .�l.. i• ■ .Iti � � • . i ►� •• .r � �. � s r 1 ` q,�� l�IW Em NOVA k. 1r .► � " gow 00 ITCITY OF LU��V CITY OF KENT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: KECK #RZ-93-1 APPLICANT: JACK KECK, KENT MASONIC HALL ASSOCIATION AND GEORGE AND ANNETTE KOARKIS REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 1 .4 acres from RZ-7.2, Single Family Residential, to 0, Professional and Office. LOCATION: The subject site is located on the north side of Smith Street (aka, Canyon Drive, Kent-Kangley Road). The properties are addressed as: 805, 855, 705-707 E. Smith. APPLICATION FILED: 9/18/93 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: 11/19/92 (#ENV-92-77) MEETING DATES: 4/21/93 and 6/2/93; record closed on 6/14/93 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 6/21/93 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Ed White, Public Works Department Kevin Lindell, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Applicants Jack Keck Mel Kleweno, attorney for Jack Keck Rob Hamlin, Masonic Hall representative Annette Koarkis Others Stuart M. Ainsley and Judy Ramseyer, attorneys for R. & V. Pringle 1 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 Phyllis Alvord Verna M. Atwater Jack Bush, Jr. Patricia Cavender Terry Dreblow Catherine Eagan Greg Gorder Scott Manthey Frances Nelson Theodore Nixon Doug Petrencheck Doris Reed Vern Schultz John Seaquist Judith Taylor Ed Turner WRITTEN TESTIMONY: See Exhibits EXHIBITS: 1 . Hearing Examiner file 2. Andrea Gorder letter 3A. Verna Atwater letter B. Family of Verna Atwater - letter with attachment 4. Stuart M. Ainsley, summary letter with 4 photos 5. Lloyd B. Coen letter 6. Alexis Koester letter 7. Frank D. Nowak letter 8A. Robert & Jana Weber B. Louis Deal C. Elizabeth Van de Mark D. V. Atwater E. Andrea Gorder F. Mike & Buz Fleming G. Kim Portera 9A. Traffic study from Public Works Department B. Traffic study from Steve Nixon 10A. Four photos from Doris Reed B. Four photos from Doris Reed 11 . Judith Ramseyer statement 12. Mel Kleweno statement 2 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 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 . The applicant, Mr. Jack Keck, et al., proposes to rezone property located on the north side of Smith Street (a.k.a. Canyon Drive and Kent-Kangley Road) near the intersection with Jason Avenue from 111-7.2, Single Family Residential, to 0, Professional and Office. 2. The property consists of three tax lots totaling approximately 1 .4 acres. Parcel A is the site of a duplex; Parcel B is the site of the Masonic Lodge; and Parcel C is the site of the Keck residence. The property has been zoned for single family residential use since at least 1973. 3. A. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and Valley Floor Subarea Plan map had designated the property as Single Family Residential until a comprehensive plan amendment was adopted on March 16, 1993. The comprehensive plan amendment changed the designation of the three parcels from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, to 0, Professional and Office. In conjunction with the comprehensive plan amendment, the site was also removed from the Single Family Designated Area overlay originally placed on the site by Resolution #1232 in 1990. B. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Valley Floor Plan contain several goals, objectives and policies applicable to review of this application. These are set forth on page 5 of the Planning Department Staff Report (Exhibit 1 ) and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. Property to the east and north of the subject property is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential. Property to the west is zoned DCE, Downtown Commercial Enterprise. The DCE area to the west is part of the Downtown Planning Area and is zoned to permit intensive commercial uses. The property across Smith Street to the south is zoned RA, Residential-Agricultural. The property located approximately 200 feet to the east on the south side of Smith Street is zoned MRD, Multifamily Duplex Residential. 3 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 5. A. Current use of the property proposed for the rezone includes a duplex on the westernmost lot, the Kent Masonic Hall on the middle lot, and a large turn-of-the-century single family residence on the easternmost lot. Current use of properties surrounding the site include commercial use on the north side of Smith Street to the west, Mill Creek Earthworks Park and Kent Senior Center across the street to the south, and single family residential homes to the north and east. B. One of the applicants, Mr. Jack Keck, has lived in the house on the easternmost lot since 1963. He offered the house for sale for six months in 1992, but was unable to sell at the price he requested. He suggested the house would be suitable for office use and has an historic character that would likely mean the house would not be demolished. Another applicant, Mr. Rob Hamlin, testified as President of the Masonic Hall. He stated there are no plans to do anything different with the Mason Hall at this time. The third applicant, Ms. Annette Korakis, testified that she is the owner of the duplex on the westernmost lot and does not plan to change the use of the duplex at this time. C. Several residents living in homes around the site proposed for a rezone expressed concerns about increased traffic associated with the proposed Professional and Office zoning designation and the loss of a quality environment for families in the area if commercial development is allowed to occur. These residents pointed out there would be no access to the property for those travelling east on Smith Street except through the residential area surrounding the site proposed for a rezone. The most likely route for access to the property for those travelling east on Smith would be to turn left on Jason Street, then right on Temperance, another right to Hazel, then right back onto Smith in order to access the property from Smith while heading west. The only alternative access for those travelling east on Smith would be to turn left to Hazel, then make a U- turn for access off of Smith while heading west. The residents of the area expressed concern about the impacts of this increased traffic on the streets around their homes. See, Exhibits 4,5,6,7 & Exhibit 8, #s A, D, E & F. Specific concerns regarding increased traffic related to interference with children walking to and from schools and school bus stops (Exhibit 10 (photos)) and impacts on street activities such as games and other activities now carried out on the streets near the homes. Presently, as many as 24 children walk along Temperance Street each morning to catch a school bus. Testimony of Nixon. 4 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 6. A. At the request of the Examiner, the City Traffic Engineer prepared an analysis of the traffic impacts that might result from the proposed rezone. Exhibit 9A. Several "Trip Tables" were prepared as part of this analysis. One trip table shows the net new trips by parcel if the rezone proposal is approved. TRIP TABLE Existing Existing REZONE' REZONE' NET NEW Daily PM Peak Daily PM Peak Trips (Daily/PM) Parcel A (Ex. Duplex) 20 2 20 2 0/0 Parcel B (Masonic Lodge) 43 0 83 11 40/11 Parcel C (Keck Residence) 10 2 83 12 73/10 Total Trips 73 4 186 25 113/21 ' Based upon data supplied by the City's Planning Department, the maximum developable yield of both the Masonic Lodge property and the Keck property is no more than 6000 s.f. of General Office space(LU 710). B. Another trip table shows the net daily volumes associated with approval of the request for a rezone. Net Development Existing+Rezone Actual Traffic Daily Volumes' Traffic Daily Daily Volume Capacity' E. Temperance Street (east of Jason 77 268 - 333 15,0003 Avenue) Prospect Avenue (north of Temperance) 36 173 - 203 15,0003 Jason Avenue (north of Smith Street 77 3371 - 4531 15'0003 to E. Temperance St.) ' Expansion of TModel P.M. Peak Hour forecast. ' The Federal Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers have determined that the functional peak hour capacity of single lane roadway (one lane in each direction )far exceeds this figure. Typically, a single roadway lane has a capacity of over 1 500 vehicles per hour. For general planning purposes, however, the City's Standards use the lower figure to accommodate the "perception" problem that most lay-persons have with the vehicular volume and the attending level-of- service, and from a desire to maintain better levels-of-service on residential access streets. 5 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 C. Based on this analysis, the City Traffic Engineer concluded that "the impacts of the project upon the adjacent residential street system are relatively negligible." Exhibit 9A, page 6. D. In response to an inquiry from the Examiner, the City Traffic Engineer testified that no left turn lane off of Smith Street for those heading east on Smith would be feasible between Hazel and Jason Streets. E. In response to an inquiry from the Examiner, the City Traffic Engineer testified that no parking could be made available at the Senior Center parking lot as an alternative parking area for the proposed rezone site. He testified that the lot is often filled to capacity and could not serve as an alternative parking site for vehicles that might otherwise attempt to access the subject property while heading east on Smith Street. 7. Smith Street/Canyon Drive/Kent-Kangley Road has undergone many changes in the past 20 years. Many citizens testified about the high traffic volumes and high speeds of vehicles travelling on Smith Street. In 1971 , approximately 26,000 vehicles travelled on Smith Street each day. Today, approximately 44,000 vehicles travel on Smith Street each day. There has been a 40 percent increase in traffic since 1986 and a 25 percent increase in traffic since 1988 along Smith Street. Testimony of Mr. Ed White. The street has been widened and adjacent yards (including those on the properties proposed for rezone) have been reduced. All that remains of the front yard of the duplex at the corner of Smith Street and Jason Avenue is the jersey barrier between the sidewalk and the building facade. Exhibit 1, Planning Department Staff Report, page 7. 8. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for this proposed rezone on November 19, 1992. The MDNS was based on information disclosed on an environmental checklist as well as review by city agencies. The MDNS conditions relate to traffic impacts. During environmental review, it was determined there would be four additional vehicle trips associated with the rezone if approved. The MDNS thus requires the applicants to conduct specified traffic studies or, in the alternative, to contribute a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South 272nd/277th Street corridor as a mitigation measure. Comments were allowed on this MDNS until December 4, 1992. No comments were received. This MDNS was not appealed. 9. Public notice of the hearing on this application was properly posted, mailed and published in accordance with applicable city codes. Exhibit 1 . 6 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction and Authority 1 . 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 2.32 of the Kent City Code. 2. Section 15.09.050 (C) of the Kent City 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. 3. Pursuant to Section 2.32.090 (B) of the Kent City Code, the Examiner has the authority to recommend "such conditions, modifications, and restrictions as the hearing examiner finds necessary to make the application compatible with its environment and carry out the objectives and goals of the comprehensive plan, the zoning code, the subdivision code, and other codes and ordinances of the city." CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO RELEVANT CRITERIA Based on the Findings of Fact specified above, the Examiner makes the following conclusions: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan CONCLUSION 1 : The proposed rezone is consistent with the both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan Map and the Valley Floor Subarea Plan Map as those plan maps are 7 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 described in Finding 3 (a) of this Recommendation. Conditions of approval of the requested rezone are necessary to assure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the City-wide and Valley Floor comprehensive plans as detailed in Finding 3 (b). 1.1 The applicant correctly points out that both the City-wide Comprehensive Plan map and the Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan map identify the site in question as suitable for professional office development. The "0" designation on these maps was applied within the past three months and is clear evidence of the City Council intent to allow some form of commercial development on these three lots. Council removal of the single-family overlay, originally imposed on the rezone site in 1990, is additional evidence of the Council's intent to allow non-residential developments to occur on the rezone site. The application for the rezone to the "0" designation is consistent with the Council's intent as expressed through recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan maps. 1 .2 When seeking to determine if a rezone proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, one must examine the policies adopted by the City Council that are used as a guide for land use development as well as the comprehensive plan map designations. According to state law, a comprehensive plan means "the policies and proposals approved by the legislative body" in the manner set forth instate 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 . The goals and policies applicable to this application are concisely summarized in the Planning Department Staff Report at page 5: Goals and policies (of the comprehensive plans) seek to protect existing residential neighborhoods from dissimilar and incompatible land uses, as well as from the adverse impacts of heavy traffic. Plan policies recognize that residential uses need to be buffered from these disaffinities in order for them to remain viable. 1.3 It is important to recognize that this rezone proposal does not include any development proposal for the affected properties. In fact, all three applicants stated that there are no plans to change the structures on the properties. The only change in use contemplated by an applicant is that of Mr. Keck who testified he would like to transfer his property to someone who would use it as a professional office. It is highly unlikely that the house on Keck's property would be demolished or that there would be any change in use on the other two properties in the foreseeable future. The only immediate change in land use likely to result from an approval of the requested rezone would be the sale of the Keck residence to someone interested in using the historic home as a professional office. 1 .4 However, the concerns of the residential owners surrounding the proposed rezone site regarding potential development of the rezone site are legitimate. If no restrictions are 8 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 placed on the size of a development or the number of vehicles accessing a use in an "0" zoning designation, some potentially high traffic impact uses could result. These potentially higher impact uses could include the principally permitted uses of a bank or employment service or the conditional uses of multifamily developments or retail sales. It is necessary to apply conditions to an approval of this rezone so that the rezone will be consistent with the comprehensive plan policies applicable to the properties. Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity CONCLUSION 2: The proposed rezone would be compatible with development in the vicinity if approval of the rezone is conditioned to limit the type of development that might occur as a consequence of the rezone. Some commercial developments associated with the rezone proposal would not be compatible with the existing single family development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone. 2.1 The area to the north and east of the subject property is a stable, family oriented, single-family neighborhood. Although the neighborhood probably receives more pass- through vehicular traffic now that it has in the past, residents of the neighborhood still feel comfortable allowing their children to walk to and from the school bus stop along streets with no sidewalks. The retention of the character of the existing neighborhood nearby the central business district core is the first goal and objective of the housing element of the City-wide Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 There is no increased density associated with this non-project rezone proposal as it is presented to the Examiner. No development could occur on the site proposed for a rezone without some further review and approval by the City. Specific development impacts can be considered at that time. However, it is clear from the testimony of Mr. Keck that a transfer of at least one of the properties to a new owner for a commercial use would likely occur if the rezone request is approved. Thus, it is appropriate to consider some of the potential impacts of the conversion of a residential use (the Keck home) to a commercial use authorized under the "0" zoning designation without the necessity of examining all of the potential impacts from commercial use of the rezone properties. Cathcart v. Snohomish County, 96Wn.2d 201 , 210 (1981 ). 2.3 The concerns of residents of the neighborhood nearby the area proposed for a rezone are increased traffic and loss of quality of life in the neighborhood. The two concerns are closely related; an increase in the number of vehicles moving through the neighborhood would impact at least the perception of the area as a desirable single family neighborhood. The rezone proposal, if approved, could result in an increase of vehicular traffic through the single family neighborhood. This is because the only access to the Keck property for travellers heading east on Smith Street is a left turn to Jason or Hazel with subsequent travel through the neighborhood as described in Finding of Fact No. 5. It is appropriate to place 9 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 conditions on the approval of the rezone to make certain that any development that occurs as a consequence of a rezone approval is compatible with the single family neighborhood. State ex rel. Myhre v. Spokane, 70 Wn.2d 207 (1967); City of Redmond v. Kezner, 10 W. App. 332 (1973). 2.4 The traffic impact analysis prepared by the City Transportation Engineer is based on an assumption of a 3,000 square foot office development on each of two sites and no change in use on the third site. If this is the case, the proposed rezone and development likely to be associated with the rezone would be compatible with the existing single family residential neighborhood. The amount of square footage of a development in an "0" zone determines the number of parking spots required on the site under applicable development regulations. The number of available parking spots would help determine the level of traffic that might attempt to access the site. Conditions of approval of the rezone proposal are necessary to ensure that subsequent development of the rezoned properties occurs in a way that is compatible with the surrounding single family neighborhood. Burden on Transportation System CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property if conditions of approval are attached to a rezone to an "0" designation. 3.1 The traffic analysis prepared by the City Transportation Engineer assumed a "maximum developable yield" of both the Masonic Lodge property and the Keck property of no more than 6,000 square feet of General Office space. This is based on lot size and configuration, access limitations and maximum floor-to-area ratios. Exhibit 9A., page 3, footnote 1 . Use of the General Office scenario for the traffic analysis is referred to in the report as a worst case" scenario. Exhibit 9A., page 4. Based on these assumptions, the analysis concludes that the impacts of the project upon the adjacent residential street system are relatively negligible" and that "the currently proposed mitigation measures, participation in the City's South 272nd Street/South 277th Street Corridor Project, should be adequate to offset the impacts of the proposed project." Exhibit 9A, page 6. 3.2 Many residents of the neighborhood surrounding the site proposed for a rezone testified about traffic impacts on the neighborhood should the use of the Keck residence change to a commercial use. Mr. Theodore Nixon, a resident of the neighborhood nearby the property proposed for a rezone, was most specific. He testified about the traffic impacts if the maximum possible development of the properties was allowed. Mr. Nixon's point was clear: the greater the square footage of any commercial use of the properties proposed for a rezone, the greater the amount of traffic that could be expected to access the site by going through the streets of the surrounding neighborhood. This point is supported by the Offstreet Parking and Loading Requirements Chapter of the Zoning Code. That Chapter 10 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 requires one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area for professional and business offices. Section 15.05.040 (B)(2). If parking spaces are provided, a commercial facility is likely to attract more vehicles. 3.3 Traffic impacts greater than those identified in the traffic impact analysis prepared by the City Transportation Engineer (Exhibit 9A.) would unduly burden the transportation system in the neighborhood around the site proposed for a rezone. Some residents of the area testified about the difficulty of turning left off of Smith Street to Hazel. Others testified about the interference of vehicular traffic with pedestrian traffic. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that the traffic impacts associated with commercial development that may occur as a consequence of an approval of the rezone request do not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the rezone. 3.4 The Examiner notes that additional traffic studies were requested by several residents of the neighborhood. The attorney for one neighbor argued that the traffic studies identified in the MDNS should be completed before the public hearing on the rezone. However, this issue was discussed during the public hearing with the attorney present. The Examiner decided to go forward with the hearing based on the representations of the City Transportation Engineer that traffic impacts could be addressed without the need for the studies referred to in the MDNS. The applicant also requested that the public hearings continue. No objection was raised at the time the decision was made to move forward with the public hearing. Even if the objection was well founded, it was not timely made. 3.5 A further request for additional traffic studies was made during the second day of hearings on this proposal. This request came after the City Transportation Engineer completed the traffic analysis requested by the Examiner. The traffic analysis addressed the issues raised at the first public hearing on this proposal. It was completed on time and in a professional manner. The scope of that traffic analysis was not objected to at the first hearing. Further traffic analysis may be appropriate if a specific development proposal is submitted but is not warranted at this time. 3.6 (a) The attorney for one of the neighbors presented a written statement arguing that the Examiner should not make a recommendation on the rezone application because of the "fundamental flaws" in the traffic impact report prepared by the City Traffic Engineer. Exhibit 11, Statement of Judith Ramseyer. In addition, it is argued that the city has not issued a final determination of nonsignificance under SEPA because the applicant has not yet complied with the conditions of the MDNS. The statement requests the Examiner to consider these limitations when evaluating the rezone proposal. (b) In response to the argument of Ms. Ramseyer, the attorney for the applicant argues that a final determination of nonsignificance (DNS)has been made by the city, that there was no timely appeal of that DNS, and that the Examiner has sufficient information to determine the 11 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 environmental impact of the rezone proposal without the need for additional studies. Exhibit 12, Statement of Mr. Kleweno. (c) The weight of legal authority is on the side of Mr. Kleweno. The Examiner does not have the duty or the authority in the context of a public hearing on a rezone application to order additional environmental studies after the city has completed environmental review. Additional information - such as the traffic study - may be helpful in making a factual determination, but the studies cannot be required by the Examiner. Here, the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant and the attorney for the neighbors agreed that the additional information on traffic impacts would be useful to making a decision on the rezone application. The scope of the study was also agreed to. At some point, the studies must stop and a decision must be made. There is reasonably sufficient information on traffic impacts and other environmental impacts before the Examiner to allow him to make a recommendation on this proposal.' Change of Circumstances CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed since the establishment of the single family zone that warrant approval of the rezone request. 4.1 The character of the area around the site proposed for a rezone has changed significantly since the single family zoning designation was applied to the property. The property has been inside the city of Kent since the city was formed in 1890. The site has been zoned for single family use since at least 1973. Since 1973, traffic and noise on Smith Street has significantly increased. Cars often exceed the speed limit while coming down the hill going west on Smith. During peak hours, traffic is so heavy one could not expect to be ' Although a challenge to the DNS is not properly before the Examiner, it should be noted that determinations of nonsignificance have been upheld by the courts for many rezones where the rezone proposal is not connected with a specific development proposal. Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn.2d 870 (1980); Lassila v. City of Wenatchee, 89 Wn.2d 804 (1978); Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. Cit of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416 (1974). See, Settle, Richard L. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act• A Legal and Policy Analysis,(Butte rworth, 1993), wherein the author writes at page 101 : Where a rezone itself indicates no substantial change in the status quo, detailed environmental analysis through an EIS, if required at all, can wait until there is a specific development proposal for a building permit or other regulatory approval. This seems sensible .... 12 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 able to cross the street on foot except at a signal controlled intersection. The Keck residence facing Smith Street, while still a beautiful historic structure, is no longer a desirable single family residence because of the noise and traffic on Smith Street. 4.2 The incremental widening of Smith Street is also a change of circumstance that warrants approval of the rezone request. The loss of front yard depth has placed residences closer to the street and moving traffic. All that remains of the front yard of the duplex at the corner of Smith and Jason is a jersey barrier between the sidewalk and the building facade. Uses permitted in a professional and office zone would be much more appropriate for the area than are a single family home and a duplex. 4.3 (a) One argument presented against the proposed rezone is that it would encourage commercial activity in a residential area that should be focused in the downtown area. This is said to be especially inappropriate when there are vacant offices located in the downtown area because, it is argued, there is no change of circumstances justifying the rezone to allow commercial development outside of the downtown area. Exhibit 4. (b)This argument misconstrues what constitutes a change of circumstances. The need for additional commercial space is not one of the criteria for reviewing a rezone application. A specific finding of need cannot be required. Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 807 (1991 ). When reviewing a request for a rezone, the primary inquiry must be whether the zoning action requested bears a substantial relationship to the general welfare of the affected community. SANE v. Seattle, 101 Wn.2d. 280 (1984). This means all aspects of the affected community must be examined. It is inappropriate to focus only on office space availability in downtown Kent to determine if a change of circumstances has occurred. The Examiner cannot ignore the evidence presented by the City on the increased level of traffic in front of the properties proposed for a rezone and the impact of the Smith Street improvements on the front yard depths of those properties. The properties are located along a busy street toward the bottom of a hill on a rather sharp curve where traffic has increased significantly since the single family zone was applied to the properties. This is a significant change of circumstances that warrants the proposed rezone. Health, Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would have adverse effects on the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone unless the rezone approval is subject to specific conditions. 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. The Examiner may recommend approval of a rezone request only if there are no adverse effects of the rezone on the general welfare of the citizens of Kent. The Examiner must consider 13 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 the effects of the proposed rezone on the applicants for the rezone, those living in the vicinity of the proposed rezone and the community at large. 5.2 The adverse affect of the proposed rezone on the general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent is revealed in the testimony of those citizens who presently live in the immediate vicinity of the proposed rezone. The testimony of most of those citizens was that the proposed rezone would reduce the quality of life they now enjoy because of the increased traffic associated with commercial activity on the rezoned properties. While this adverse impact is only one consideration when reviewing the rezone request, the Examiner recognizes the importance of single family neighborhoods to the City of Kent and the impact that nearby commercial development can have on a neighborhood if not carefully managed. It is appropriate for the Examiner to consider this impact in making a recommendation to the City Council on this proposal. 5.3 It is also appropriate to consider the effects of the proposed rezone on the applicants for the rezone. Owners or their representatives of Parcels A and B testified that the rezone will not immediately impact them one way or the other. The applicant presenting most testimony in support of the rezone proposal was Mr. Keck and his attorney. It is clear that Mr. Keck has had difficulty selling his house as a residence on the general market or to the City as a museum site. The proposed rezone would likely increase the market opportunities for Mr. Keck. This must be considered by the Examiner in making this recommendation to the Council. 5.4 An attorney for some of the neighbors argued against any rezone of the property by stating it would be considered "spot zoning." Exhibit 4, Letter of Stuart Ainsley. The Examiner has carefully considered this argument and respectfully disagrees with the contention that the proposed rezone would be impermissible spot zoning. "Spot zoning is zoning with disregard for the welfare of the whole community, for the benefit of a few or in violation of the comprehensive plan." SAVE v. Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862, 869 (1978) citing Anderson v. Island County, 81 Wn.2d 312 (1972). Here, the proposed rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan map designations, the proposed change is to the least intensive commercial designation available in the zoning code and (if this recommendation is adopted) would be approved with conditions designed to protect the welfare of the community. It does not appear to the Examiner to have any of the objectionable elements of spot zoning. See, Rohan, Patrick J., Zoning and Land Use Controls, Section 5.02(3). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the rezone proposal be APPROVED, WITH CONDITIONS as follows: 14 Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation Keck Rezone #RZ-93-1 1 . The square footage of any development on Parcel B (Masonic Lodge) or Parcel C (Keck Residence) shall not exceed 3,000 square feet; 2. The number of parking spaces for any development on Parcel C (Keck Residence) shall not exceed 12; 3. Commercial activity that invites public access to the properties shall be allowed only between the hours of 8 a.m to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; 4. The alleyway that adjoins Smith and East Temperance and crosses the Pringle property shall not be used to-access Parcel C (Keck Residence). 5. Special permit uses and accessory uses shall not be allowed unless approved as a conditional use. Signed this 21 st day of June, 1993 THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS. Request of Reconsideration Any aggrieved person may request a reconsideration of a decision by the Hearing Examiner if either (a) a specific error of fact, law, or judgment can be identified or (b) new evidence is available which was not available at the time of the hearing. Reconsideration requests should be addressed to: Hearing Examiner, 220 Fourth Avenue S., Kent, WA 98032. Reconsiderations are answered in writing by the Hearing Examiner. Notice of Right to Appeal The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final unless a written appeal to the Council is filed by a party within 14 days of the decision. The appeal must be filed with the City Clerk. Usually, new information cannot be raised on appeal. All relevant information and arguments should be presented at the public hearing before the City Council. A recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council can also be appealed. A recommendation is sent to the City Council for a final decision; however, a public hearing is not held unless an appeal is filed. c:rz931 .fin 15 CITY OF ),�\ILL�1?CSV OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner prT�uc�� FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION FILE NO.: KECK #RZ-93-1 APPLICANT: JACK KECK, KENT MASONIC HALL ASSOCIATION, AND GEORGE AND ANNETTE KOARKIS REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 1.4 acres from R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, to O, Professional and Office. RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: 6/21/93 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions DATE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED: 6/29/193 AGGRIEVED PERSONS REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION: Vern and Joanne Schultz Verna Atwater Wells Family Estate Julie and Gree Brown DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION: Denial of Request for Reconsideration DATE DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION ISSUED: 7/23/93 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS The Hearing Examiner issued a Recommendation to the City Council on this matter on June 21, 1993. The Recommendation is for approval of the rezone subject to five conditions. This Request for Reconsideration was received in response to that recommendation. Six persons signed and filed the request representing three parcels of property in the vicinity of the rezone. Most of these persons testified at the public hearings on the rezone. However Julie and Grec, Brown did not testify or present written evidence at the public hearings. These persons are not considered "parties" for the purposes of an appeal, but are considered "aggrieved persons" for 1 Findings and Decision on Reconsideration Keck #RZ-93-1 the purpose of this request for reconsideration. Kent City Code Sections 2.32.140 & 2.32.150. Upon receipt of a Request for Reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner may "take further action as he deems proper. Kent City Code Section 2.32.140. The Examiner issues the following Findings, Conclusions and Decision in response to the Request for Reconsideration. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 1. The Request for Reconsideration was timely filed as required by Kent City Code (KCC) Section 2.32.140. 2. The Request for-Reconsideration alleges an error of judgement of the Examiner and the availability of new information as the basis for the reconsideration request. These are sufficient grounds for reconsideration. KCC 2.32.140. 3. The aggrieved persons allege an error of judgement was made in the Examiner's recommendation of the five conditions to an approval of the rezone request. The aggrieved persons "question (the) judgement to access two office/business parcels of 6,000 square feet and a combined parking capacity of 59." The aggrieved persons apparently misinterpret the Examiner's recommendation. The conditions recommended by the Examiner would limit any development on Parcel B (Masonic Lodge) or Parcel C (Keck Residence) to 3,000 square feet. This means that total parking spaces allowed under Chapter 15.05 of the Kent City Code, if any development occurs as a consequence of the rezone, would be limited to 12 spaces on each parcel or a total of 24 spaces. This would be a significant reduction in parking spaces that presently exist if both parcels are developed or a maximum increase of ten parking spaces if Parcel C is developed (12 spaces minus the two presently allowed under single-family use). Furthermore, there is no proposal to combine parcels or change lot lines along with the rezone proposal. Thus, there is presently no way that vehicle access to Parcel C could go through Parcel B and the alley that the aggrieved persons are concerned about. Finally, as clearly pointed out in the Examiner's recommendation to the Council, there is currently no proposal to change the use of any of the properties involved in the request for a rezone. If a specific development proposal is made, traffic concerns of the aggrieved persons can be addressed at that time through environmental review, developer agreements or the expanded conditional use process recommended by the Examiner in recommended Condition 5. 4. The alleged "new information" identified by the aggrieved persons as a basis for reconsideration is the restriction of access to the Keck parcel via the easement over the Pringle property recommended by the Examiner. The aggrieved persons misconstrue the requirement of showing "new information" as a basis for reconsideration. The 2 Findings and Decision on Reconsideration Keck #tRZ-93-1 requirement of new information as a basis for reconsideration is intended to allow persons to bring forward information that was not reasonably available during the public hearings. This typically refers to information that was not known at the time of the public hearings but which would likely have an impact on the decision of the Examiner had it been known. The aggrieved persons allege that the recommended condition to disallow access to the Keck property across the easement through the Pringle property is "new information." That is not the case. The Pringle's, through legal counsel, raised the issue of easement access during the public hearings and requested the Examiner to disallow access as a condition of any rezone approval. The information on the easement was presented during the public hearings as well as the request to limit use of the easement. The fact that the Examiner has recommended a restriction on the use of this easement is not "new information" that can serve as a reason for reconsideration. DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Request for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. No new information was presented and the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the allegation of the aggrieved persons that an error in judgement was made. The Examiner has issued a recommendation based on the facts presented to him during the public hearings and the law as he can best interpret it. The recommendation is now a final decision. It should be left to the City Council to determine if the Examiner has erred in judgement. This Decision on Reconsideration in no way alters or amends the Recommendation of the Examiner issued June 21st. That Recommendation of the Examiner is now final as of the date of this Decision on Reconsideration. Any appeal of the Recommendation must be filed with the City Council within 14 days of this Decision on Reconsideration. All appeals must comply with Section 2.32.140 of the Kent City Code. Appeals of a recommendation must specifically identify errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the record, errors in the interpretation of the comprehensive plan or new evidence not available at the time of the public hearing. Dated this 23rd day of July, 1993 THEODORE P. HUNTER Hearing Examiner 3 (U� Kent City Council Meeting i Date October 19 , 1993 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: METRO SEWER RATE INCREASE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Public Works Committee has recom- mended adoption of an ordinance increasing the City's sewer rates, reflecting the new increase from METRO which will take place effective January 1, 1994 . t {f 11f 1 d-u �_c;l Stir vivt 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Minutes and memorandum from Public Works Director 4 . RECOItMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (2-0) ' (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) � 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES �994� FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended__!�t1Lt Not Recommended i 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember � ��A_ moves, Councilmember �t�N seconds adoption of Ordinance No. - increasing the City's sewer rates as reflected in METRO' s increase effective January 1, 1994 . d'- `5e rci �l e c� I�;e � r'rl cS KecJ f re 1301 fi �rpJi�e� h� n.c{ CtSe c� tyC r"a1E I VIC(eaSr . �hr Yti'tefie „ hl .� c�21ic 1 . DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OCTOBER 6, 1993 TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: DON WICKSTROM ,�\`(J�^�\) RE: METRO SEWER RATE .INCREASE In June of this - year, METRO advised the City that their monthly service charge per residential equivalent will be increased from $13 . 62 to $15 . 90 . This $2 . 28 increase will become effective January 1 , 1994 . As the practice has been to pass along this increase to our customers, it is thereby our recommendation to increase the City ' s sewer service charge accordingly. As such, the charge for single family residential would increase from $18 . 64 to $20 . 92 and the charge to all others would increase from $1 . 15 _ 2 . 33 per 100 cubic foot and $ . 52 - 2 . 72 per 100 cubic foot. The City ' s Lifeline rate would increase from $16 . 72 to $19 . 00 . The impact of these changes to our customers is reflected in the attached table . IMPACT OF PROPOSED METRO RATE CHANGES ON SELECTED CUSTOMERS Class & Individual Customer Sewer Existing Proposed Based on Water Consumption Rate ($) Rate ($) % Change Residential Customers 18 . 64 20 . 92 12 Commercial/Industrial Customers With very low sewer use; e.g. , small store with no special sewer uses - goo 13 90o cu ft/month 22 . 12 With low sewer use; e.g. , service station. 2 , 500 cu ft/month 59 . 40 68 . 52 15 With medium sewer use; e.g. , large apartment building. 12 , 000 cu ft/month 200 . 7� 326 . 92 16 With high sewer use; e.g. , very large office building 680 . 52 17 25 , 000 cu ft/month 583 . 6_; With very high sewer use; e. g. , major industry 750, 000 cu ft/month 17 , 476 . 15 20 , 400 . 52 17 1, 500 , 000 cu ft/month 34 , 951 . 15 40 , 800 . 52 17 The difference in the percent change correlates to the flat fee component of the commercial rate structure. This flat fee portion was developed as part of a 1980 rate study, with the intent to recover the fixed costs associated with maintaining a billing and accounting system. However since the minimum billing is predicated on 750 cubic feet, it has no purpose . What it does provide however, is a subsidy (volume discount) for those customers using greater than 750 cubic feet per month. Each subsequent 750 cubic feet costs only $20. 40 or $ . 52 less . Since this subsidy is paid for by the balance of our customers , we have been slowly phasing it out over time to achieve a universal flat rate per lo0 cubic foot charge, independent of the volume consumed. ACTION : Recommend adoption of the Ordinance passing on METRO ' s rate increase as reflected on the above with the affective date of the rate being January 1 , 1994 . essentially will be throwing away money. Wickstrom said that since we have almost 80% in covenants we should do the improvements. Bennett feels that if all they were asking for was to asphalt along one side, and there was so much negative response, Bennett feels the timing is off and there should be a better time to do this. Wickstrom said that we are proposing to pay 30% (approximately $39 , 000) and our out-of-pocket cost for the asphalt would be about $10 -$12 thousand dollars . White said that this was originally started by the school P.T. A. and students . Wickstrom said that in his experience, there is never a good economic time for an LID. Committee unanimously. agreed to authorize staff to proceed with the formation of an LID. METRO Sewer Rate Increase / Wickstrom explained that Metro is increasing their rate by $2 . 28 per 750 cu. ft. of sewage discharge and we are proposing to pass that on. Wickstrom went on to cover the information contained in his memo. White asked if Metro ' s rate increase was something we can negotiate with them. Wickstrom stated no and explained that Metro will bill us at the higher rate independent of what we do with our rate. Wickstrom said, financially the Sewer Utility cannot absorb this rate increase. On $12 , 000 , 000 in revenue, there is only $500 , 000 in unencumbered funds for which some of that goes towards the annual Capital Improvement program. Wickstrom noted that within the last year the Utility absorbed about $600, 000 in cost increases as attributed to the City ' s Utility Tax change (charge the Utility versus the customer) and the State ' s Budget Balancing Excise Tax increase . Wickstrom noted that in 1995 , besides another Metro increase, there may have to be a City increase. In response to White, Wickstrom said that Metro furnishes a flyer and the City explains , on that flyer, that this is Metro ' s increase. Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the ordinance passing on Metro ' s rate increase with the effective date of the rate being January 1 , 1994 . Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8 . 02 of Kent City Code Lubovich explained that this is a deregulation measure. He stated that about 2 years ago we dealt with street occupation ordinance. At that time there was discussion about real estate signs and licensing etc. , and this item became quite controversial for a while and for that reason, this new ordinance has been drafted. Lubovich said that he is recommending deregulating some of the measures in the Street Occupation Code . He explained that this new ordinance repeals Chapter 8 . 02 dealing with political signs; 6 . 08 Street Occupation Code; Resolution 1303 regarding fees relating to occupation permits ; and Chapter 9 . 36 . 040 dealing with street closures . Lubovich stated that we are consolidating any regulation 2 i 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 . 04 . 280 (Ordinance 2374 , as last amended by Ordinances 2446 , 2510, 2596, 2679 , 2827, 2873 , 2951, 2962 and 3077) , establishing new charges for sanitary sewer service. WHEREAS, METRO has established new rates that it will charge to the City of Kent relating to sanitary sewer services; and WHEREAS, the City, without adding any additional charges or surcharges, has previously passed on the rate increase charged by Metro to its utility users ; and WHEREAS, the City Council ' s Public Works Committee at a committee meeting on October 13 , 1993 , reviewed Metro's increased rates and their consequent effects on the City' s sewer rates, which would require certain proposed rate adjustments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regular meeting on October 19 , 1993 , reviewed and approved the proposed rate adjustments in light of the increased rates to be charged by Metro relating to the provision of sanitary sewer service. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Kent City Code Section 7 . 04 . 280 (Section 1 of Ordinance 2374 , as last amended by Ordinances 2446 , 2510, 2596, 2679 , 2827 , 2873 , 2951, 2962 and 3077) is hereby amended to read as follows: 7 .04 .280 . Schedule of charges; for service within city. The following are the sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the city: Type of service Charge per month 1. Single-family residential_ $18.64 $20 . 92 2 . Duplex; residential ; each $18 . 64 20.92 unit separately charged_ 3 . Single-family residential,,-L $16 7 19. 00 -ILifeline: Eligibility criteria for 1-Lifeline -rRate shall be established by city council . 4 . All other than single-family $1:. IF5 $0.52 base residential,, shall be billed fee plus $2 . 33 in accordance with the $2 . 72 per 100 consumption of water and at the cubic feet pei following rate, except that no month monthly bill shall be less than $18 . 64 $20 . 92 . Section 2 . The new rates -as established herein shall take effect on January 1, 1994 . Section 3 . Savings. Ordinance No. 3077, which is amended by this ordinance, and Kent city Code section 7 . 05. 310 (section 1 of Ordinance No. 3077) , which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4 . Severability. 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 2 'I i thereof to any person or circumstances shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law. DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED the day of 19--• APPROVED the day of 19—. PUBLISHED the day of , 19 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City Of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK SEWERATE.puk 3 �� „ ,d �� ✓ �, - � 1 J ��- , u Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: UNIFORM & LINEN SERVICES 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Bid opening was held on September 30, with five bids received. The Operations Committee has recommended that the Mayor be authorized to sign a three-year contract with Cintas Linen in the amount of $40, 230 per year.. 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Charlie Lindsey, Support Services Manager 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (73-0) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commisy6ion, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recomme,,fided Not Recommended 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: vario» operational funds 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: ti J L Councilmember i-3 '� " movQsi, Councilmember seconds that the Uniform & Linen Services contract be awarded to Cintas Linen in the amount of $40, 230 per year and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract. �., �{ 5 r ��, , _I r ( (_ DISCUSSION: ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5A MEMO DATE : October 5 , 1993 TO: City Council FROM: Charlie Lindsey, Support Services Mana a JJ� SUBJECT: Uniform and Linen Services Bid We recently went to bid for Uniform and Linen Services for all departments except Public Safety. We based the request for bids on approximate weekly useage and received five bids as follows : VENDOR APPROXIMATE WEEKLY APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT AMOUNT Cintas Linen $773 " 70 $40 , 230 G & K Services 786 .47 40, 896 Overall Laundry 831 . 59 43 , 243 American Linen 893 . 28 46 , 451 Unifirst 974 . 22 50 , 659 My staff and I have checked references, completed a site tour and are recommending that you authorize the Mayor to sign a three year Uniform and Linen Services Contract with Cintas Linen, (formerly Maryatt Industries) . Kent City Council Meeting Date October 19 , 1993 Category Bids 1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT STATION 74 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The 1993 CIP approved the purchase and installation of an emergency generator for Fire Station 74 . The bid opej nq_ was held on October 11, with three bids -- -- .-- received. � Fire Administration recommend# that the bid be awarded to Veca Electric Co. , Ic. , in the amount of $71, 260, plus tax. y}tii e 3 . EXHIBITS: Bi s Y 2V 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President Fire Administration (Committee, S aff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL ERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES FISCAL PERSONNEL N TE: Recommended Not Recommended �LL 6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIREp: $71 , 260 (not including sales tax) SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION. Councilmember it,'p"4 ., ; moved, Councilmember seconds that the bid for the purchase and installation of the emergency generator at Fire Station 74 be awarded to Veca Electric Company, Inc. in the amount of $71, 260 plus sales tax, and that the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract. uo(l,,t Se DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 5B FORM OF BID PAGE 1 i NEW GENERATOR FOR KENT FIRE STATION #74 24611 116TH AVE. SE ( KENT, WASHINGTON 96031 TO: CITY OF KENT NAME OF BIDDER A� DATE ' Having carefully examined the specifications and related documents entitled "New Generator for Kent Fire Station #74" as well as the premises and conditions affecting the work, the Undersigned proposes to furnish all labor and materials and to perform all work required by and in strict accordance with the above named documents for the General Contract for the following sums: A. BASE BID• Base Bid as described in the Specifications Section 1030- for the um of: ra zr. B. TIME OF COMPLETION: b As stipulated in Section 01000-1. 6 of the Specifications. �. .:' C. OVERHEAD AND PROFIT: ` The above price includes overhead and profit. !rY D. SALES TAX: The above bid price does not include sales tax. E. CONTRACT AND BONDS: + F Provided the undersigned is notified of acceptance of t this bid within forty five (45) calendar days after the time set for the op enin of the bids the bidder will ? ' execute a contractfor the above work in AIA Form of sN.,Agreement A-101, and to furnish payment bonds as required the specifications. 4 -f FORM OF BID R , PAGE 2 F. ADDENDA: 1 Receipt.of addenda numbered " ' is hereby acknowledged. -Bidder t i Street Address V\J A city Telephone �� -7g� -Z`� � END OF FORM OF BID a f ✓ 5 yynn yr- t Y iy i}. YFt' FORM OF BID PAGE 1 NEW GENERATOR FOR KENT FIRE STATION #74 24611 116TH AVE. SE KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 TO: CITY OF KENT VECA ELECTRIC CO. , INC. NAME OF BIDDER OCTOBER 11 , 1993 DATE Having carefully examined the specifications and related documents entitled "New Generator for Kent Fire Station #74" as well as the premises and conditions affecting the work, the Undersigned proposes to furnish all labor and materials and to perform all work required by and in strict accordance with the above named documents for the General Contract for the following sums: A. BASE BID• Base Bid as described in the Specifications Section 01030-2 , for the sum of: SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS---- ($ 71 260.00-------------------- ) B. TIME OF COMPLETION: As stipulated in Section 01000-1 . 6 of the Specifications. C. OVERHEAD AND PROFIT: The above price includes overhead and profit. D. SALES TAX: The above bid price does not include sales tax. E. CONTRACT AND BONDS: Provided the undersigned is notified of acceptance of this bid within forty five (45) calendar days after the time set for the opening of the bids, the bidder will execute a contract for the above work in AIA Form of Agreement A-101, and to furnish payment bonds as required in the specifications. FORM OF BID PAGE 2 F. ADDENDA: Receipt of addenda numbered P10412 is hereby acknowledged. VECA ELECTRIC CO. , INC. Bidder 2023 120TH AVE. N.E. #100 BELLEVUE WA 98005 Street Address BELLEVUE WA (206}6�5-0505 City Telephone END OF FORM OF BID FORM OF BID PAGE 1 NEW GENERATOR FOR KENT FIRE STATION #74 24611 116TH AVE. SE KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 TO: CITY OF KENT LUMIN ELECTRIC, INC. NAME OF BIDDER 11 OCTOBER 1993 DATE Having carefully examined the specifications and related documents entitled "New Generator for Kent Fire Station #74" as well as the premises and conditions affecting the work, the Undersigned proposes to furnish all labor and materials and to perform all work required by and in strict accordance with the above named documents for the General Contract for the following sums: A. BASE BID• Base Bid as described in the Specifications Section 01030-2, for the sum of: EIGHTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO%100---------------DOLLARS ($ 80,550 .00 ) B. TIME OF COMPLETION: As stipulated in Section 01000-1. 6 of the Specifications. C. OVERHEAD AND PROFIT: The above price includes overhead and profit. D. SALES TAX: The above bid price does not include sales tax. E. CONTRACT AND BONDS: Provided the undersigned is notified of acceptance of this bid within forty five (45) calendar days after the time set for the opening of the bids, the bidder will execute a contract for the above work in AIA Form of Agreement A-101, and to furnish payment bonds as required in the specifications. FORM OF BID PAGE 2 F. ADDENDA• Receipt of addenda numbered y is hereby acknowledged. LUMIN ELECTRIC, INC. Bidder BCKA ` Y 1301 NORTH 97TH Street Address SEATTLE, WA (206) 525-I19I City Telephone END OF FORM OF BID CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E P O R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE D. PLANNING COMMITTEE E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. BUDGET COMMITTEE H. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Status Report on Council Tartlet Issues o 0 0 0 o z o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o n o a �77 o S. S. r2 : w lm�. . 5. a D rD t�7 n w E n ( CCx7. —1x1w � C — w rn ti C 5 vn n m ° aay n o p, m y °° 0 0 ro ] cn t o n d 0 co oq w w' rho ro w Q N 0 � N � n N N ° a tos 5 ,g.w va c p t 7y CI rryp rD p, n O N cn p w fD A• n y n W� G' x w a R n N g a: w Lon ° n R' d 0 0 W � N b_ r5 b w 0 (En D 0 0 dOQ p ° c 3 C 90 ° 7 m m In. 0 o 5n' on a o .-rn'p o C Cr O n n CnC O' ° 10 ,a p w 9 o w ro 9 rD o � � o , NF7 E m p a, nc aG� m o a 5 n 5 ap o qq° n -0 C7 rn 0 �o a� N C7 N a � C7 n n n 5' o n a b 0 ro w m 4 mp; �o ro 0 0 oQ 5 o 0 v° 10 K ti m 5' a o 0) G o G. p w p' P. r<o 7 x � vw ° � Roxx � (� mo o ow0 ti w O L7'. N � N w b7 o w 5 a � o A 0 o R w ^ N � vo a 0 Eo�� aa � bFot aw x oq rb b � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C p o r O m (D o m n xrD fb Z cn N O ° O O. O. g o n tj o �D d m x v n y 0 g n o 7y 2. o_ n < a =° P x ° a a 2 o. m o y 0 w C7 ° o v p 7 - rO o' oa o CC O O O mpS. O tip pca p' v�rp7i' (D �D ID cn CD w oq OQ ro ra 00 yo ° WOm JI, 0 a 't7 -5, O rD p• .ni f1 ''� O y 7• C1. ' 0 - .0 x O 'L7 n n. 7 O yp, Q 0 p �+ A ° V a� x L, o W ro 7 n V 2 O Ics X a A O 'd O n. �• O rn• O Md R 0 0 Gt !D '+ \O O 10 '+ y 'cJ F ty^ O O g 5 jap m O �. c w CD w o' N o' � (b C7 A O rD `� A. N n. " y 0 o mg � B' o ac n Ag ° rxn n p R, e G a \ la. " ,b d n �' o K � fD ' o ro n & p C7 UJ \ y o D n b b A Fyn b �o C W o m n W > C o o o o o o o 3 0 0 o n b o c n CD " ` o "D 2 �7 rn M o' i � C. Z n 'M-3 w n k ° p 'g w m En Cn o' 0 °; C ro � c7 > o ❑oowq Pi ❑ 7 �xy y C7 (D C7 m > w tZn w t7 x t7 $ b ty d d o v p 3 0 o L7 b w y F- w x 0 ~ � o � � o 10 ° x w .p10 v ..' rl r° O m a O 4 ? a 0 P C z w > zz o z xEn w Q� (w�p d m d m 7 a m p, W ' N m :° GG' p• D) O to, 'o b (DrL 9 w (D �j oo $ d0 • o my ° w .0 ao am o o � 0. m (D o o N 0 o (D n n g. n A. m w d C n. w o En rD 5 0 ° ° co (`DD b \ ° ° p O < G o D O O ° ° a n ia. a tD vim', vi m 2. p n '^ ° n OG =1.00 o 0 D p p Y < A 0^n �• ^ gy(p' `� R b o fD �(Np > " 2 spy C, �°-n p. �y p, o 0 G P n 00 5' m C w ((DD V^' M O n n ry M O •�' fb n .q rD ^ p ^ �'• o 5 x o 2 . ] xd q o o °� a w � r o � rD m ., 0 0 0 co G W rrDD rb A..r X ^ N 0. w z1 '°0 G .< 4°X e10 ° ° 5' 0 o no 9 a o' d d' n o w o ° d� om m r�D •`� ap y m n wv � w-1 Lo ^ zR. 0 z E. 00 5' (D a ^ y 7yw ,canes n 0 � x �� r<o ° o 0 0 d p < 0 A ;? P. n < °a 'B < `�° 7 �' w a w d t,3 °' o- b x w t7 '' o rm�o n �• w o 0 v tj n a (D w " k< Lo 0 b7 \ .0 tj o pm 0m O , O n �' w n o Q. w Q. N o m R0 p o w N Y D rn o x ° o w n t7 z on, (D R am a a � ° C 10 W m O O O O O O N O O O O n 0 0 = O O O O -3 O nn n � zz ndd � x t7n 0 0 0 .. m U 0 ro R ro ro 0 �y o n m co 47 w n n x 5 v d �.v� m q N �. 0 e' q n d �j z a n nor n, No m n UGC n o n �' w 0 0 n b R O d O mrD R a m o 0O am d ti o C7 O. A. F: p 'G �D z 0 .. x OQ . � OQ g b N Oq y o w 0 D pap 0 m `2 n C. C7 x o , 3 c zz yzz cr w � o m cry n �wrn �v a c o = o � 07' � � cn, Pm � � c Y 0a. .O W �,� N 'a N ^ O a '"' C OQOq OQ (y9 f]. �. n a 7 n n Q a a g a a o � � a o. o CL Cl. o ? . Q' � w � o > o � < ° pops �n� � i: o n � ymm ry p2 °a� a 51� p H a ii%555 O d m y �yp7 nw n G 0 N = �^p �7. �i d W O R 'L7 .•a-r �. GO 'r. a r� o o ° ag � o c n O CL 0 n �(p OQ � (per(p d Co vw+ W 0 0 110 H tD w o y o m d a o a 5' a m ° x 4 y G. y ^ 01 � n 7 0 :ja �. a y ° a te> 0 a o $ 10 G ° i7 w O a � n� d as a � � R ° � CD n c < z y a < td 70 n N `" m y O o 'a =D W NJ i O p. y a n 'a nw nn Y O o w nO n a0W IKI m m wn KIaaa � (D ° � v a � yom °" M da . E e o G. � o r-by O C7 . p w a ° a. , no 1:6a D a w C x 5x0 w O l7. , n W PD. 4 n an m Sn 7r ' ro m 2O > a� .Ry ny � � � 2 ��• D �A bm o *0 R -o- OQ 0 �o no^a \ Er • �' n 'g w O rT a ~O Oq 0 0 ° w 0 0 0 0 � o o � o 0 0 0 '° 0 o 0 0 0 � o t+fC7CJZ C7 � C70G0U % C7 ddX (D � x rn o ti n < 7 C < V r1 Cz9 o G: •b G: a o Z o. o o to n b O a O 0 ccn nd �o tirop ^ l7 to ° nw O.� A Off . p: 0 n o 4� 5' �' o o n m 0 o a. Z vx C7 d ° cn ° a l 5 p ` O cn b Z 0 5 x O oo o. a Oy z o CD C n O wFD nx = PJx • d p w no O �' C G n oa C N w x o p a c a �• n o c w o .0 r00 Elw 2 . � as 8• � <' o 2 ° a s rD ;ry; mry; m Go . 0�• 0. Q °yy o O x N ql a N, 7� n o n (D j O �• C• , : 2 w � of 5 o3 C0 Co yo w w ro o' C , � m -gym y wy 5 �_ (n w g 0 oo �. � gm K � o0 w � o �. d 0 rg � w oo a o°o b Dn o W Off' 10 N p R m- On CL O 0 n .7. 0 w^ 77 oq 2 5 n M w—, w o 0 9 CJ � °xx y. �. n o3 o R 0. 0 0' 0Q ro m n -3 tp rp F fir• n. O 7 O: O y (D., �• 9- O p O y P.^n P. $m$ 00 ry fD Cn W =. > vZ ..�^� w ^ n ry O �'. ,'G,Sj � � p, �j 0 M W � • g m^ R A W � n OCD ro �, 0 OO N y N � x7 ° O O 0 w � ti 2n� � a 0 Cl. 03. � v wN E o o' C� o c: n n 0 v d o. o ro C7 y S. rD rD w �• C ^ roanl7 1 .mow ° 0 m na S 0 0 c o 2. o ogo too� 0 v a• o a o ^° N°pvnr°n � ° � o D ° m � � �C � 0 w 0 0 7 n Oo p 0 ro n K In. a o $ o0 2ow tr 09 n 9 d wm 0 fD �o n w p, ° w 0 n o b oq � ::j � W 1 c) o o o C o o o 0 o 0 0 o z 0 a rb C7 ro C7 K O n 5. rD n m n0 o n 3 c7 S• ° � o' � � rD o O m n 0 don' donC �np ;a o• y a y 5' d ° 0 c a x ` b 4 o M b w (D 0' o Z o z orD 5 z O m n O o E g o o In. n n m x �� . `n � 0 m ° m m � 00oq m d 0 9 ' O Lf .. S, m oq �. Op n rr O � Da m n �' a .y ,� �' n ro m n 0. 7L G. a � < n m m oo T rn < w o ° ' o5v � :r b � �' w 'ty 17i, oa o' `t4. ;U 7 o' vW�i °' O o w n ao c no xo ° C c •�C o v ° 5' < m � Cl. V, 00 ° oymn 5 °0 \w y 0 B < nw o K 2. 5 m zrD o w H ° tj o Z5 o � 2 P n or o m a. m a. � g3 � rri a n�i o G �. zo°° " m d5 w o o o 0 o c 0 m o ° m� a �O o y o c n M 0OQ a naov m 0 5 � m a 'S O O O �. T n � � a o o ° �• 8 � °' °cT. c '� m Wo � m & rD a� a � 0. y� W rn � 5 O g r ' � °^ n 'U d t» W O � A. �• rD m of � O nnn En bo n �. n xb ' ^ o ; �. nn � can" w m °' g 0 ° 0 0 0 � n c S. � 8 °; : R d �. � o C7 m� ° w vti p 3 �o °• o d m, m x 0 a ryry 5• Nn Er < + p5p °+ T m R ; ° 11 n w b o m 7y o m r S _0. ° I r n � R 3 {�E v_ � mB oo °�cx o o W � 10 F. lY' Gl ° 0 �+ T � � N .h b ° ram' rD A 0 o a A > m 0 0 m g < w ° m m 0 m m rt. ° o R o9 ° ° 0 w a � a m ° y 0 m r o w w o p .� ] 0 ( 5 ° a n y 0 � Ya Q m w ro n o m m o T n, o5o m D 0 ° 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 O pp % � C7t7 �prz yy o o � z ' oa p O 5- p M 0 m O z O .J n � M x m 0 O C n oo �. rnrwn � � w f" � K. y n fD g w D B " < a 'd qdq y d �. ° O z d O (D °� .0 O O �n o " o Fn N 'd �t 10 < w p' w L1. V w ( Ul o d P p 0.z "^ w rb w o v " qE E. $ �O LO y ° D) o�o vd .�O CD r- Z. a ? w o. -w"'n IX ° ° 7 " "mow m ro a �_ �i m # < E "o' a Z 2 D O rxo a. d arco o xo o < p o o ro0 c 9 ER °eVococ" mw mmob �OQ ' 'n 2�° I ° y o ° w ° � °) Som "O r rbrn o oo ffi O g 0 y o ° y d ° w ryp pp o c y Fn rx .. P• rD y. O O ff. OQ W � G w . O " " v QQ co EL 0 �n '4 Oo �9 F X r y ci m o �, y g 0 w (q(pp- o' rD w G)b O ° o-d.,OQ O o N n"�+ A o G n w. X G p 1 cn'ox ^c] Cti7 p' N Ep b, ar °a 0 Fnna o m 0wpN, So � wo � �N p. o ? o 10 ooqg w � ^ � � o• w �i (D ro W o n 0 � 0 0 0 > 0 o o N o o 5 r�D h7 n "O .f D-. m Carl M d Cn y � w jR° n •1y En C 3 ° o Z btv a C7 p V) w n o E o n rD o .n, c: rDD C C� ti7 x n' En 20 rD En o n 0 n> M 0 0 9 O r• & 0 cn n p n � a• '� o w' 4 W 00 rb " w W "D Q N Cp rb H Z n' Q° y �• rc n 'C C cn c n ❑ cCD W woq w 0 S o w \ R° oq cn 0 O rD m noy ?.'b > n S. o � � O Ef �rE; R " c nv � v0tixo � aB3 C7 a fk v < �' —-' 0 Oy P. 0 r"D '0 O G. � O P.o U7 \ oQ n' ° m o 00 0 g ° rD n m T y o G' w .. " � g d `DcB g. 0 w w o g Qx a 6' Q m 0,4 2 N rY 0 0 o q o 0 o b p o 0 0 0 0 O d [nrnb C7 Ro' cSmo° RtYDXR7x On rD -3 bbno. O Z2 m o 0m ; p Gto� v p. rn O 5 C z P• n m d o• o• N � [17 n n LO °j � n 05° r) C. n 0 ro n n Z n 'y n 04 500 z $ Z ° w x g v C7 n Et oa C7 o w C"„ C Z�. t7 x [� rD (� d m w ° Q n ^ S <n R 9 y n m m ° M O w b 'G N tD =Ml �. Da oq I�yyD 0px no . w ° o o. �a T� tn' 'O � o m El ti w 5, o ' w W OQ ro v aa0- -n °n n U xo n a o n (Do CL n b o O. �• rD w o rl .0 1 Lo cl. R W Rb 00 0' 0 O o S 5' p y 0' o vtiy n ° m-0 .100 o ro E. o go00 • 70 °r S c bti - 0 n U D nv n m N w C7 a s1 v 0 0 w 0 O .+ w x 12 0 o m ti (D O p O ° f a g b � � ° R .0 "0 RL R w 'o C7 rx a n � R � o � � - w o NI p R � 04 w v o n a5 w . x rrTR p7 � o x 0 o N � N g D w R rD \o "" 4 N n ^1 w o �L c7 ° .0. ' o W OQ 0w �. ln- G O, O a. d m °; ES o a a o a n o �. o o ^ ° n o m'o K � v. ° b- .� o �p OPERATIONS COMMITTEE October 5, 1993 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser, Chair Leona Orr Jim White STAFF PRESENT: Tony McCarthy, Roger Lubovich, Tom Brubaker, Charlie Lindsey, Alana McIalwain, Becky Fowler, Don Olson, May Miller, Tom Vetsch, Tammy McQueeney, Patrice Thorell, Marty Mulholland, Glenn Fellin, Bob Hutchinson, Fred Wilmeth, Raul Ramos MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Jean Parietti, Ray Oneida, Mel Parmenter The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS All claims for the period ending 9/15/93 in the amount of $1,331,264.80 were approved 3-0, and claims for the period ending 9/30/93 in the amount of $1,330,657.17 were approved 2-1. WATER BILL ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS Tom Vetsch, Customer Services Supervisor, noted that Union Pacific Railroad and the U.S. Post Office of Kent are requesting a one time only adjustment to their water bills for unexplained jumps in consumption. He explained that occasionally a request may occur when water consumption is excessively high in one month where the preceding and succeeding periods were normal, but that these two requests do not fit the current leak adjustment policy of the City because no leaks were located in either case. Vetsch explained the steps taken to resolve the two situations, and noted that Council needs to approve the write-off amounts since the adjustments do not fit the leak adjustment policy (Ordinance No. 2732). He noted that the meters were certified twice to make sure the leaks were not the City's responsibility. The Committee requested that the City Attorney's Office and Customer Services Department come back with options and a recommendation. REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Fred Wilmeth, Interim Director of the Office of Development Services (ODS), reviewed a copy of the product/work schedule which was approved for the ODS Department, and noted that the schedule is focused on completing a series of 22 products over five and one-half months. He noted several of the products which are already on-line, and that the schedule is expected to be completed in the time frames shown. He distributed and explained the status of the Monthly Permit Report for September, 1993. Upon White's question, Bob Hutchinson, Building Official, noted that permits are required for re-roofing a residence and are covered under an appendix to the Building Code. Upon Orr's question, Hutchinson noted that a permit is required because then the City is aware of work going on and can inspect to make sure the job is done right and according to the code. White requested staff to take a closer look at the re-roofing permit issue and come back to the Committee. BASIC PLAN CHECK FEE POLICY Fred Wilmeth, Interim Director of ODS, noted that the recommendation is for modification to the Kent City Code to allow flexibility in establishing fees, adoption of a resolution to establish a Basic Plan Review Fee/Waiver, and approval to waive fees charged since the Code was modified in 1992. Lubovich explained that when the Uniform Building Codes (UBC) were adopted, the City chose to follow its own schedule which didn't include any plan review fees, but that the Building Department established and utilized one informally. He noted that when the 1991 UBC was adopted in 1992, it didn't allow a waiver policy so the option was eliminated altogether. He clarified that the recommended ordinance is to amend the Code to eliminate the restrictive language, and a resolution to establish fees for building permits. Upon Orr's question, Wilmeth explained that when a new set of plans are brought to the ODS they go through the regular review process, and at the end of the process a developer can elect to register those plans as the Basic Plan, pay $50.00, bring a mylar of the plans approved, and then subsequent plans would be issued. He clarified that the permit fees would not be waived, but just the plan review fees, if requested. WHITE MOVED approval of the Basic Plan Review Fee/Waiver as presented. Orr seconded. McCarthy noted that the recommenda- tion includes the waiver to be retroactive back to July, 1992. IT WAS SO AGREED and the motion carried 3-0. CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT APPROVAL RESOLUTION Lubovich explained that Councilmember Jim Bennett requested an ordinance be drafted to insure that all contracts are reviewed by the City Attorney's office as to form because any language deviation may cause some exposure, liability or cost to the City. He noted that the term of the contract, ability to terminate it, and the exposure liability are some things which would be carefully examined. He explained that an ordinance was requested, but that, in his opinion, a resolution would be adequate because it's a nice way to do a policy issue on all contracts. WHITE MOVED approval of the resolution. Orr seconded with one addition to the motion which is to make sure that someone cannot do a contract without it going through the right channels. Lubovich clarified that an addition was made to the resolution, with Bennett's approval, that Department Heads execute the contracts so that they can be responsible for them. Orr requested that this resolution be well publicized so that everyone is aware of it. Lubovich suggested that it be mentioned in the Department Head Meetings, and Houser suggested a memo be sent out also. The motion then carried 3-0. LAUNDRY BID Charlie Lindsey, Support Services Manager, explained that the three-year contract for uniforms and linen (all departments except the Public Safety) recently went out to bid, and that Cintas Linen (formerly Marriott Industries) was the low bidder in the amount of $773.70 weekly, or $40,230 annually. He noted that reference checks were made and that staff's recommendation is to award the contract to Cintas Linen, and the Mayor be authorized to sign the contract. WHITE SO MOVED. Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0. RECLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Don Olson, Human Resources Director, explained that 14 reclassification requests were received of which six are being recommended for approval by the Human Resources Department in accordance with City policy 2.2.1. He noted that these requests have been on hold because of downsizing and reorganization, but that the Executive Committee has now authorized the Human Resources Department to move forward with the requests. He explained that a number of positions are covered by collective bargaining agreements which require processing in a timely manner, with the effective date of implementation being November 1, 1993, if approved. Upon White's question, Olson explained how reclasses are generated and handled. He explained for Orr what would happen if these recommended reclassifications were not approved. ORR MOVED to recommend that these changes be made. White seconded and the motion carried 3-0. YANGZHOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Chief Administrative Officer McCarthy explained that last week representatives from the City of Yangzhou visited the City of Kent with the intent to establish a Sister City Relationship, and that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. He noted that their main interest was in traffic, and that they were extremely amazed at the five-lane highways. WHITE MOVED approval of the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Yangzhou, Jangsu, China. Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0. CABLE TV UPDATE - VERBAL REPORT ONLY Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, gave a brief update for live broadcasting from City Hall on Cable TV. He noted that TCI is ready to wire City Hall and create a studio type facility in the Council Chambers with a remote that can be taken out into the field. He explained that some of the lighting improvements originally bargained for were bargained away in order to get quality equip- ment and the flexibility needed, but that the existing lighting would be adequate. He noted that the FCC has re-established a new basic rate of service (basic tier rate) which is lower than what was previously charged by the Cable companies, and even though the franchise agreement brought the City's income up, the new rate regulation will have a downward impact on the rate. Brubaker explained that everything is on track with a live broadcast from City Hall planned for the last Council meeting of the year, but that a request for additional lighting, a cart to move the equipment on, or very minimal things may be requested later. McCarthy noted that this will be a 24-hour station, and the proposal for next year's budget is to fund someone in the Graphics Department at 1/4 time to help with all input, coordinating, arranging, keying in, and developing what is to be put into the system and on this station. Alana McIalwain, Administration Mgr., explained that Cable TV is a rapidly changing field just like computers and in order to do a good job, more time, money and staff may be requested at a later date. Brubaker added that some policies will be developed to help make decisions on what should and should not be allowed on this channel because it will be restricted to government programs only. He also noted that ADA requirements may involve some additional costs. He stated that it can be kept as a small operation or a pretty spectacular one like some of the larger cities, if desired. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. BRENDA JACOBER WI�WIT (please put in CITY Of LL��SSVV Council agenda packet) CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMIT_ __ September 21, 1993 4 : 00 PM dF37II(C�-� Committee Members Present City Attorney' s Office Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Planning Staff Other City Staff Lin Ball Tony McCarthy Jim Harris Charlie Lindsley Matt Jackson Rachel Johnston Other Guests Kevin O'Neill Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom CHARLIE KIEFER CODE AMENDMENT - (L. Orr) Chair Orr reported that Charlie Kiefer would like to change the way the City does notification for addendums to SEPA reports. Since he was not notified about an addendum to the Kent Springs Transmission Main mitigated Determination of Non-significance, he would like the City to consider better notification in cases like this. In a letter to the Mayor and Council dated July 20, 1993 , Mr. Kiefer stated he would like to see these changes: A) posting the property for site specific proposals; B) publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city or general area where the proposal is located; and C) notify all parties of record, any individual or group which has appeared at a public hearing or submitted comments on a certain proposal. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Kiefer had challenged the Planning Department on the original posting of this project. The Planning Department has come up with a posting certificate that is put in the file to prove the property has been posted. This procedure came about when Mr. Kiefer originally questioned the posting procedures. Jim Harris volunteered to explain to the Committee the existing posting procedures on a piece of property when changes are made to a DNS. Chair Orr provided Jim with all of the backup material on this subject that was presented to the Council for Jim' s review. GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PROJECTED GROWTH SCENARIOS (F. Satterstrom) Fred Sattertrom reported that the King County Liaison Group, on behalf of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) , asked each city in the county to identify growth targets for households and jobs over the next 20 years by September 30, 1993 . King county' s projection is 215, 000 households county-wide, 60, 000 households for the City of Seattle and 55, 000 households for unincorporated areas. The difference of 100, 000 households needs to be distributed among 32 suburban cities . CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 PAGE 2 Since the City Council will be approving a new comprehensive plan which is required by the Growth Management Act, it is critical that the City have targeted population and employment figures. Kevin O'Neill, senior Planner, said the Planning Department needs the Council 's concurrence on two important issues: 1) time horizon for the comprehensive plan, and 2) method for calculating forecast growth. He presented a detailed memo covering the Overview of Methodology, Population and Employment Projects for the Kent Area, Current Zoning Capacity, and Alternatives and Recommended Actions. Staff presented three alternative Growth Targets. Two components, development capacity and population/employment forecasts, need to be considered in determining the Council ' s alternatives . The figures from the summary page were reviewed. Kevin explained in detail the three alternatives which the City could work with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) numbers and the land capacity methodology recommended by the GMPC staff. The three alternatives are: A) PSRC Projections with a Cushion which would have the City use the PSRC projections with no revisions; B) PSRC Projections without a Cushion is an alternative similar to the previous one, except that the City would not provide any cushion for land capacity; and C) Capacity-Driven Projections which is different from the previous two in that the determining factor would not be the PSRC projects but rather land capacity. Staff recommends alternative C. Planning staff also recommends that the time horizon for the comprehensive plan for the City of Kent be out to the year 2010 instead of the year 2020. This is simple because the County as a whole is planning out to 2010 and also is much more realistic. Chair Orr is concerned about the high projections from the PSRC compared to other cities. Kevin thinks the growth rate was high on the PSRC criteria due to the amount of growth that has occurred in the past, the fact that there are five or six state routes and two railroad lines that run through the City of Kent, and Kent ' s urban center designation. Leona expressed concern about concurrency issues under Growth Management. Kevin said that this issue will be examined in the capital facilities element and will be discussed at the Council workshop September 21, 1993 . Leona stated she felt it was important that the entire Council have an understanding on what the numbers mean so this will be brought to the full Council on October 5, 1993 . Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion recommending the capacity-driven Alternative C to the year 2010 and to be forwarded to the full Council on October 5th. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 PAGE 3 SHORT PLAT AMENDMENTS - (J. Harris) Jim Harris briefly explained the four amendments recommended to change the Subdivision Code: 1) the Short Subdivision Committee shall be held within 40 days (not 30 days) of the receipt of the application; 2) let citizens know through mailed notices within 200 feet of the boundaries of the property subject of the application that there is a short plat application and if there is a large piece of property that is at least two acres abutting the far side, these citizens would also be notified; 3) posting on or adjacent to the land requested to be short subdivided; and 4) let the public respond in writing within a certain time frame. Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the aforementioned four(4) amendments of the Subdivision Code and forward to the full Council on October 5th. SEATTLE/KING COUNTY HEALTH CONTRACT - (L. Ball/R. Johnston) Manager Ball reported that staff carefully approached how to monitor and analyze this project without a previous established format for doing so. It was determined that a comprehensive approach was best to do an in-depth analysis including on-site visits and interviewing staff. Planner Rachel Johnston presented an Analysis of the Seattle-King County Public 'Health Services provided to Kent residents in 1990 and 1991. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the public Health Services and explain the cost of those services. The information in the analysis was taken from Kent' s 1992 and 1993 Assessment for Health Services Report which is published by the Public Health Department. The Health Department provides to Kent two types of public health services - personal health and environmental health services. Both health and environmental services can be categorized as either basic or optional services. The City is only charged for basic health services. The optional services are paid by the County and other sources. The "other" sources may include fees, grants or contracts. Rachel stated any current year's assessed cost for services is determined by the cost of health services utilized two years prior (i.e. , 1993 assessment is based on the cost of 1991 services) . Kent residents utilized approximately 17 , 000 units of Basic Health Services in 1990 . The total cost of these units was approximately $887 , 000 . In 1992 , the City was assessed approximately $442 , 000 for these services. In 1991, Kent residents utilized approximately 21, 000 units of Basic Health Services. The total cost of these units was approximately $1, 000, 000. In 1993 , the City was assessed approximately $529 , 000 for these health services . Regarding the Basic Personal Health Services, the City contributed 21% more for 1991 services than in 1990, but there were 31% more Kent residents served in 1991 than in 1990. The City contributed 5% more in 1991 than in 1990 for Basic Environmental Health Services but, there were 31% more Kent residents served in 1991 than in 1990. The Environmental Health statistics did not reflect demographic data on the Kent clients/establishments served but did report number of units provided. Rachel said in summary that the Analysis clearly demonstrates that the health needs of Kent residents are increasing. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 PAGE 4 The Analysis also shows that Kent is getting more services for the money because the overall cost per unit of service is decreasing. Councilmember Johnson asked if this analysis includes actually Kent residents and Rachel said it does, not Kent resident ' s who live in King County. Because of King County's excellent computer tracking system, the City is only charged for the services used. SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR CHESTNUT RIDGE REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS - (F. Satterstrom) Manager Satterstrom reported that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 25, 1993 regarding the comprehensive plan and initial zoning for the Chestnut Ridge annexation area. It is a requirement to hold two additional hearings on this that must be 30 days a part. Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion authorizing the Planning Department staff to bring forward the first available dates for public hearings on the Chestnut Ridge comprehensive plan and zoning designations as soon after the Planning Commission has finished their deliberations and then forward these dates to full Council for scheduling. Motion carried. ADDED ITEMS• CEDAR MEADOWS ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT (SU-90-4) Per a request by Robert A. Bennett of a letter dated September 16, 1993 , Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion recommending a one-year extension of the Cedar Meadows Preliminary Plat (SU-90-4) since his preliminary plat expires December 4 , 1993 and forward to the full council. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4 : 55 p.m. PC0921.MIN