HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/16/1993 Cityof Kent
CRYCouncil Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF
p��IIc�S�fl�
Mayor Dan Kelleher
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
Jon Johnson Jim White
November 16, 1993
Office of the City Clerk
CITY Of J rKLO LS
SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- November 16 , 1993
Council Chambers
� A 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. Regional Justice Center Update
B. Chief 's Commendation Award
C. National Night Out Award
D. Block Watch Contest Awards
2 . PUBLIC �HARINGS J�� i 6�t-wa.r
A. 1994 Budget G
B. Applewoude Estates Rezone Appeal (RZ-93-2)
C. Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat Appeal (SU-93-3)
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
C. West Meadow Final Plat #FSU-93-2 - Set Meeting Date
D. Water Billing Adjustments - Ordinance
E. Chestnut Ridge Zoning - Set Hearing Dates
F. 277th Corridor Project Interlocal Agreement - Authorization
G. King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan -
Resolution " =
H. Miscellaneous Water Main Rebuilds - Accept as Complete
I. Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal - Accept as Complete
J. S. 196th Street Bridge Removal - Accept as Complete
K. Washington Avenue Short Plat Utility Extension - Bill of
Sale
L. The Lakes, Division 3 - Bill of Sale
M. Council Absences - .� ,,L�. ,. 4- tl�vl"U-tT�
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Applewoude Estates Rezone (RZ-93-2)
B. Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat (SU-93-3)
C. EIS for Growth Management - Approval of Budget
D. Reappointments to Library Board, Planning Commission, Human
Services commission
E. Municipal Court Judge - Confirmation
F. Emergency Sewer Replacement
G. Union Pacific Realty Land Purchase - Agreement
5. BIDS
A. Interurban Trail Bridge Replacements
6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation !._a ix{ 'U��
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) Regional Justice Center Update
B) Chief ' s Commendation Award
AA(
C) National Night Out Award
D) Block Watch Contest Awards
V (v ( Go�r -
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1994 BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The hearing on the 1994 Budget has been
continued to this date. The Budget Committee is scheduled to
meet on November 15th at 3 : 00 p.m. and on November 29th at
4 : 00 p.m. Any final changes as a result of the public hearing
or the Budget Committee meetings will be included in the final
adoption scheduled for the December 7th Council meeting. The
Chief Administrative Officer will present an overview prior to
taking public input.
3 . EXHIBITS: 1994 Budget Calendar and letter from Mayor and
budget proposals funding details
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCALfPERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
1994 BUDGET PROCESS/CALENDAR
COUNCIL RETREAT SESSION 2/26-2/27
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 5/18
CIP Presentation - Calendar
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 5/24
Financial report - April
Preliminary 1994 Forecast
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 6/28
May Financial Reports and Draft Capital Improvement Plan
DEPARTMENTS WORK WITH FINANCE 6/29-7/30
Review 1994 Finance Forecast
COUNCIL REGULAR 7/20
Proposed Public Use Hearing on the Capital Improvement Plan
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 7/26
Balanced Capital Improvement Plan for final input and changes
Financial Report for June
COUNCIL WORKSHOP (6:00 P.M. ) 8/03
Preliminary 1994 Budget Forecast
COUNCIL REGULAR
Proposed Public Use Hearing for CIP
COUNCIL REGULAR 8/17
Adopt Updated Capital Improvement Plan
Proposed Public Use Hearing on Budget
COUNCIL WORK SESSION (8:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.) CANCELLED
Updated Financial Forecast, Dept Presentations of Issues
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 8/23
Financial Report for July
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 9/27
Financial Report for August
COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10/19
Overview of 1994 Preliminary Budget
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 11/15
Financial Report - 3rd Quarter
1994 Budget Review 11/15-11/29
COUNCIL REGULAR 11/16
Public Hearing on 1994 Budget
COUNCIL BUDGET COMMITTEE 11/29
Financial Report for October
COUNCIL REGULAR 12/7
Adoption of Budget and Tax Levy Ordinance
COUNCIL REGULAR 12/21
Adoption of the Final Adjustments for 1993
• CITY OF � H Dan Kelleher,Mayor
Laurence A (Tony)McCarthy,Jr.,Chief Administrative Officer
October 15, 1993
The Honorable Council President Woods and Council Members
City of Kent
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear President Woods, Council Members and Cirizens,
Transmitted herewith is the 1994 Preliminary Budget. The total budget is $73,493,983 up
from $70,385,930 in 1993. The General Fund portion of the budget is $35,879,757 up from
$33,962,802 in 1993. The General Fund budget is balanced with no new taxes and a conservative
revenue forecast. The other funds are balanced within the existing rate structures except for the
pass through of the annual sewer rate increase from METRO.
In addition to providing no new taxes, the 1994 budget attempts to reduce property taxes
on a one time only basis by transferring $150,000 of unused Senior Housing Bond funds to the
Senior Housing Debt Service Fund. All other things being equal, the reduction should be about $4
per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Exact property tax levies for 1994 are not expected to be
available from King County until early December, 1993.
GENERAL FUND BASELINE BUDGET
The General Fund is balanced with a conservative forecast of growth in City revenue
balanced against a projected level of expenditure with specific and inflationary adjustments. One
of the specific adjustments is the enhancement of the contingency fund by 1% of expenditures as
mandated by Council Resolution 1327. In past years the budgetary condition and this type of
mandate would have required severe budgetary cuts.
But unlike past years, the balancing of the 1994 baseline budget has not required severe
budgetary cuts. Minor cuts were made where historical trends showed that amounts could not be
justified. In a similar vain some budgeted line items were adjusted upward where trend data
justified or mandates required. In addition adjustments for inflationary increases were added where
required for such items as utilities, supplies, the King County Health contract and Valley Comm.
Also, a cost of living adjustment of 2.5% (83.3% of 3.0% - the latest Seattle CPI) is included in the
budget.
One significant item that is not increasing is the King County Library District contract. Per
agreement with the King County Library District, the 1994 contract amount is the same as the 1993
Contract amount as a result of the Kent voters approving annexation to the King County Library
District. That ballot proposal passed on September 14, 1993.
2204th AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (106)859-3300 1 FAX N 859-3334
GENERAL FUND PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS
With the conservative revenue forecast and the baseline expenditure adjustments, $653,185
is left for program enhancements. Top priority for enhancements are Public Safety, Economic
Development and City Productivity. Additional funds are freed up for these enhancements by
deleting 7 full time equivalent vacant positions. For the most part these positions have been vacant
since early 1993. In deleting these positions, consideration should be given to the following:
o Consolidation of accounting functions in the Finance Department by transferring
accounting functions and staff from other departments
o Assumption of the technical computer functions in the Information Services
Department
o Return of a loaned Planner position to the Planning Department with the
establishment of a Zoning Coordinator position in the Office of Development
Services.
With these actions, the workload of the deleted positions should be effectively absorbed and
over $300,000 in additional funds can be provided for top priority program enhancements.
Public Safety Enhancements
Public Safety proposed enhancements total$701,702. Of this amount$328,851 is provided
in Police for .staffing and related equipment, $200,000 is provided in Fire to assist in large
apparatus replacement, $70,254 is provided in Parks for a full year of operation for Project
Lighthouse, $15,380 is provided in Public Works for bridge inspections required in alternative years,
and$41,023 is provided in Development Services to establish a full time Code Enforcement Officer.
The Police funding is a key part of the budget proposal and funds 5 Police Officers and
associated equipment including one School Liaison Officer for which the salary and benefits are
reimbursed by the Kent School District. Also funded is a Police Records Clerk and a Correction
Officer. The Records Clerk is provided with the increase in Police staff. The Correction Officer is
provided based on the increase in caseload at the Kent Correction Facility related to the double
bunking program initiated in 1993.
Economic Development Enhancements
In the Economic Development area, a General Fund appropriation of$100,997 is provided.
$32,000 is provided for the Downtown Partnership whose key role is the revitalization of
Downtown Kent. $63,997 or .2% of the prior years General Fund revenue is provided to establish
an Economic Development Program for the City. Initial years funding will be assisted with a
$25,000 transfer from the City s Economic Development Fund. The expenditures will be used for
three programs: $25,000 to support the Central Puget Sound International Trade Exchange,
$10,000 to expand support for the Kent Sister City Program, and $28,997 to assist in developing
a program for business recruitment, retention and redevelopment. Finally $5,000 is provided to
City Productivity Enhancements
City productivity enhancements include the establishment of two new City organizational
units at a cost savings to the City. A Municipal Court is established in lieu of paying Aukeen Court
filing fees. It is estimated that this will provide an actual cash savings of approximately$40,000.
More importantly though, it will allow the City to manage the court function more efficiently
avoiding duplication of records in the Law Department and saving in Police Department court
related overtime by better scheduling.
The establishment of the Office of Development Services is done at a cost savings of
approximately$20,000 but is also aimed at greater efficiency in permit processing and is really the
first step in an overall plan to provide for a coordinated community development organization with
a true "One Stop" Permit Center. The implementation of that center will be left to the new Mayor.
Other City productivity improvements are related to computer enhancements and employee
training. Over the last three years the City has reduced its staff size by 56 employees and is
proposing to eliminate another 7 vacant full time equivalent positions in this budget. The
automation enhancements begun by the City in 1987 have allowed this to happen, but that
equipment is becoming outdated and newer versions are needed for continued improvements in
productivity. To this end, $213,910 is being provided as a departmental charge to upgrade the
City's computer and telephone systems. In addition $45,025 of $100,000 cut in departmental
training budget over the last 2 years is being restored in the 1994 budget and $50,000 is being
provided for Diversity Training so employees can be more effective in working with other employees
and citizens with diversities.
Finally the operating budget provides for the implementation of a City of Kent cable TV
station for broadcast of government operations. The equipment is being provided at no cost from
the cable company, but$40,000 from additional cable TV revenue of$50,000 is being allocated for
operational costs which include expanding a City job description from 3/4 time to full to allow for
expanded filming and production.
Capital Improvement Enhancements
1994 will begin a new process for approving capital facilities. The Growth Management Act
has mandated the development of a capital facilities plan that provides capital facilities concurrent
with new development. The City has hired a consultant to assist in the development of the capital
facilities plan to be completed and implemented as of July, 1994. In the meantime though, the City
has scheduled some interim capital improvements but has avoided both the transfer of capital funds
to fund operations or the issuance of long term debt that would commit future capital funds.
On a cash basis the 1994 preliminary budget provides for $9,803,000 in capital
improvements. The general Capital Improvement Fund provides approximately 2.1 million dollars
for capital expenditures. In addition as mentioned above, the General Fund has made allocations
for fire and computer equipment replacement totalling about $400,000. The Cites Proprietary
Funds are all also providing new or replacement capital improvements from their own funding
sources. The Street Fund is providing $2,447,000 in street improvements, the Water Fund is
providing$2,344,000 in water improvements,the Sewer and Drainage Fund is providing$2,862,000
in sewer and drainage improvements, and the Equipment Rental Fund is providing $612,970 in
equipment replacement. The Golf Fund is reserving its capital facility decision to an upcoming
meeting of the Golf Advisory Board and hope to have their decision included in the final budget.
With respect to general Capital Improvement Fund allocation, the following summarizes
what is provided:
$667,000 Partial contribution toward replacing 3 large fire apparatus having a total
cost of $1,310,000. Additional funding provided by 1994 General Fund
replacement rates, prior CIP allocations and early 1995 replacement rates.
One piece of equipment can't be replaced until 1995, but the order time is
over one year.
$428,000 - Allocation for major maintenance upgrades of City facilities with the major
item being air conditioning of the Kent Commons at $188,000. Other
expenditures are for the Correction Facility, City Hall and the Fire Stations
$275,000 Second year of a major sidewalk rehabilitation program
$250,000 - For play area modernization and park updates to reduce risks, and ball field
lights plus $100,000 for matching grants
$220,000 - For growth management and transportation related studies: $40,000 for EIS
for growth management, $30,000 for commuter rail, $75,000 to continue a
1993 program for In City Transit, and $75,000 for a downtown parking
garage study
5200,000 - For expansion of existing computer systems for new applications of
document imaging, cashiering/permitting, and local area networks
$40,000 - For a new Senior Activity Center bus to be shared with the Senior Housing
Project
CONCLUSION
The above summarizes the direction of the 1994 budget. As with last year, the budget had
to be balanced within the existing revenue base. Good financial management has allowed this years
budget to reduce taxes, increase the contingency fund, provide for public safety enhancements and
provide for maintenance of the City's infrastructure and capital equipment. My last budget leaves
the City in excellent financial condition and a solid program base to build toward the end of this
century.
Sincerelv,
D Kelleher
Mayor
DK:TM:jb
CITY OF KENT
1994 BUDGET PROPOSALS
SOURCES USES TOTAL COMMENTS
FUNDS FROM BASELINE PROTECTIONS 1,192,645
INCREASE FUND BALANCE BY 1% OF EXPENDITURES - RESOLUTION 1327 (374,629)
ANNEXATION TO KING COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT 344,790
1994 COLA FOR ALL EMPLOYEES a 2.5-. (83.3% OF 3.0% CPI) (509,621)
FUNDS AVAILABLE BEFORE DELETION OF VACANT POSITIONS 653,185
DELETION OF VACANT POSITIONS NOT TIED TO PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 314,966
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 968,151
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS -
PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
POLICE OFFICER FOR SCHOOL SECURITY 48,370 46,194
INCREASE POLICE STAFFING 8 EQUIPMENT 328,851
ESTABLISH FIRE DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 200,000
BRIDGE INSPECTIONS IN ALTERNATE YEARS 15,380
IMPLEMENT FULL YEAR FUNDING FOR PROJECT LIGHTHOUSE 70,254
ESTABLISH A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION 41,023
701,7C2 653,332
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
ESTABLISH PERMANENT FUNDING FOR DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP 32,000
CREATE PERMANENT FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 25,000 63,997
EXPAND FUNDING FOR HISTORICAL SOCIETIES 5,000
100,997 75,997
CITY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL COURT C39,978)
CREATE AN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C20,135)
ESTABLISH DEPARTMENTAL CCMPUTE.R REPLACEMENT CHARGE 213,910
ESTABLISH KENT CABLE STATION 50,000 40,000
RESTORE TRAINING BUDGETS - TO 91 LEVEL +100,000 45,025
ESTABLISH A DIVERSITY TRAINING PROGRAM 50,000
---_..'----
288,822 238,822
123,370 1,091,521 968,151
------------
CITY OF KENT
1994 BUDGET PROPOSALS
FUNDING DETAILS
SOURCES USES COMMENTS
-LETION OF VACANT POSITIONS NOT TIED TO PROGRAMS SHOWN BELOW
AOMIN/LAW OFFICE TECHNICIAN lI (40,050)
FINANCE ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN (40,523) ASSUMES CONSOLIDATION OF ACCOUNTING
FINANCE .5 CUSTOMER SERVICES ASSISTANT (18,593)
PLANNING _ .5 OFFICE TECHNICIAN (22,204)
PLANNING PLANNER ('17,705) ASSUMES RETURN OF PLANNER FROM ODS
PLANNING COMPUTER MAPPING COORDINATOR (49,791) ASSUMES GIS FUNCTION TO INFO SE.RV
FIRE ASSISTANT CHIEF POSITION (62,628)
PARKS OFFICE TECHNICIAN 11 (33,472)
(314,966)
INCREASE POLICE STAFFING
4 PATROL OFFICERS 177,968
1 CORRECTION OFFICERS 33,855
1 POLICE CLERK
EOUIPMENT TO SUPPORT PCLICE PROPOSAL 79,598
----------------------
2',851
IMPLEMENT FULL YEAR FUNDING FOR PROJECT LIGHTHCUSE
YOUTH D RISK COORDINATOR FROM 3/4 TO FULL TIME ',O 960
YOUTH a RISK GYM MONITORS - TEMPORARY PARTTIME HOURS 41,247
OTHER PARK DEPARTMENT PROJECT LIGHT'i CUSE COSTS 13,047
'ATE PERMANENT FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR ECCNCMIC DEVELCPMENT
FUNDING 2 .23: PRIOR YEAR REVENUE BUDGET bj 997
TRANSFER FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CCRPCRATICN 25,000
25,C00 63,997
EXPAND FUNDING FOR HISTORICAL SOCIETIES
KENT HISTORICAL FROM 52,500 TO 55,000 2,500 ,
WHITE RIVER HISTORICAL FROM $O TO 52,500 2,500
----------------------
5,000
ESTABLISH A MUNICIPAL COURT
ELIMINATION OF AUKEEN FILING FEES (35C,O00)
ELIMINATION OF TVB CLERK IN FINANCE (43,090)
JUDGE ON CONTRACT 6.6,000 .
COURT ADMINISTRATOR 52,232
4 COURT CLERKS 149,330
OTHER COURT EXPENSES 85,550
--------------------- _
(39,978)
CREATE AN OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DELETE VACANT SUPPORT SERVICES SPECIALIST (40 3Y3)
DELETE VACANT .5 CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSISTANT 11 (2C 765)
ZONING COORDINATOR POSITION 41,023
' C2�,135)
E- 4LISH KENT CABLE STATION
.JDITIONAL CABLE TV REVENUE 50,000
STAFFING FOR CABLE TV - 3/4 POSITION TO FULL TIME 9,068
OTHER CABLE TV EXPENSE 30 930
------------- --
50,000 4C,000
VACANT POSITIONS
1993 1993
SALARY & SALARY &
BENEFIT BENEFIT
DEPARTMENT POSITION TITLE POSITION BUDGET SAVINGS COMMENTS
GENERAL FUND
ADMIN/LAW OFFICE TECHNICIAN .II (RYAN) 12/01/92 i.0 36,930 36,930
FINANCE FINANCE DIRECTOR (MCCARTHY) 11/01/92 1.0 101,154 93,263 M. Miller Acting
FINANCE CUSTOMER SERVICES ASST 3 (TOOLSON) 3116193 0.5 19,216 15,210
PLANNING OFFICE TECHNICIAN It (HERBST) 1/06/93 (r.5 23,743 22,578
PLANNING PLANNER (WATANABE) 11/06/92
0 54,413 54,413
PLANNING CCMPUTER MAPPING COORDINATOR (RYSER) 6/22/93 i.0 51,704 25,852
POLICE POLICE RECORDS SPEC (CUNNINGHAM) 12/01/92 1.0 32,118 Authorized Ou side
POLICE POLICE RECORDS SPEC (LEROY) 10/18/93 1.0 37,305 Authorized Outside
DEV SE.RV CUSTOMER SERVICES ASST II (PRAAST) 7/01/93 C.5 25,251 12,624
DEV SE.RV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR (BERG) 1,0 71,641 Using Consultant
DEV SERV SUPPORT SERVICES SPECIALIST (FIGGINS) 7/01/93 1.0 45,532 22,791,
PUBLIC WORKS SIGNAL SPECIALIST (OLSON) 5/31/93 '.0 63,382 ,.:ahcrized Inside/Out
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT-STREET (NALL) 7/30/93 1.0 63,776 D. Millett Acting
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER I (LANGHOLZ) 7/01/93 1.0 58,506 „u:hcrized Inside
PARKS PARKS DIRECTOR (WILSCN) ,6/30/93 99,350 A,.:hc.. ized Outsice
PARKS OFFICE TECH If (CAREY) 8/01/93 n33,447 1c,C20
TOTAL GENERAL FUND VACANCIES AS OF 10/05/93 827,518 299,c81
WAiER FUND
PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT (FINGE.RSON) 7/30/93 ' .0 68,795 ... !eice Acting -
PUBLIC WORKS FIELD SUPERVISOR (HAGEE.R) 8/31/92 ? .0 43,895 43,895
GOLF FUND
PARKS GOLF COMPLEX MAINT CPER MANGER (.4NDE.RSON) 7/31/92 1.0 58,542 Au:nCrized Outside
ECUIPME.NT RENTAL FUND '
PUBLIC WORKS MECHANIC 11 (GE"RDELMAN) 6/05/92 1.0 40,363 8 Mechanic Ass: Level
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
FINANCE PRINTING TECHNICIAN (NGUYE.N) C.3 9,224 .9,224 Position filled D 3/4 of FT
FINANCE CUSTODIAN I (PHILLIPS) 0.3 8,451 3,451 Position filled a 3/4 of FT
INFORMATION SVS PERSONAL COMPUTER TECHNICIAN 1.0 46,874 Authorized Cu s ide-Rng 24
UTILITY CLEARING FUND
FINANCE METER READER 2 (THOMAS) 7/13/93 1.0 40,447 Autnorized Inside
TOTAL NON GENERAL FUND VACANCIES AS OF 10/65/93 6.5 316,591 61,570
TOTAL FUND VACANCIES AS OF 10/05/93 2-..0 1,144,109 361,25i
19';.: CIP P,RICRITi_ES
1?"4 CnoITAL 11-ROVE.N'ENT PRCa:M
RECa+^c
------------------
DEFT RANK 1 CIP CTF..ER
F= DEPT RANK - AVE PR^J TITLE RE(1,EST FUD FJNDS 6:,CCET C"17H DISC.551CN
CAPITAL IMPRaelENT FUZ 2 C80 1,067
15 PD Cl 1.1 �ISJ1 ,/Police C^tcvter Lp,rade - - 50 50 Fu>d with ircresed "rcrzaa[ races
15 PC 02 I 1.1 INcJ Correc'ia-s major Maintera e L4xracLe 35 35
15 IS 01 1.4 106 Gi5 E narc its 80 80 Find wi-n irc-easey cL-,mrt-e-:taL rates_
15 PM C5 2.2 1NeJ Ptb[ic Buitdirg Mairtera'ce 1C0 1C0
15 P„CSi 01 2.3 IN=J Sidewa[ks Reiz,ititat:m 2- 2' Secs
15 PK 02 year
Z.8 �Oi Senior Ac:iviy C��ter/,Res Ctr Sus 40 40 To to s•aed wi-n Senior h'asirx
15 IS 02 I 3.1 104 Citywid-- Persmat Ccre,.-,er Ll,aoes 60 60 F,rxd with ircrzased dc.ar;2r:at races
15 ADM 02 I 3.3 INEJ In Ciry Tra-s;t 7 % Secac vezr
15 PK 03 1 3.6 J07 Park A, Recreation C p Pl r,1 r tz 40 F_r in 1 9 ui C itat Far li:ies Fla,
15 Pl. 03 3.6 I03 E1S for Grwth Mct .0 -
75 IS 06 3.5 N=' DcartL-t I-zcirg E sia 7-
15 IS a. 3.7 107 New -11C271a-s: Czsiierim/=-Mi:;i,-c
5 ?ce 07 I 4.3 JNEJ C-mrtzer Rail F&c'.(i;/ 1CC D=•�. a'.t - •cr a zxn _
t S: r
15 P'_ C1 I .� icl Tra'si.ic-a' Hasi.x Sirci Y+
I: PC8 ID . c,ty Ila':t nt2(T .... ,C
15 PK 01 4.6 E., Carass Air Cam''.tis.i.n: 1` iP3
i5 is w
co: -
15 IS 03 c-.l iC; Aut�[:ayLcca!'A,-ea'.9e:'..crKs 51
15 FR 11 =.1 !C' Eaer;e-c/ Pc.er Fc.- i>.c Fire S:alias lT
cK u3 5.9 iC? Play Are; Maxm.i -
01 6.1 !C7 h nic'pE: CoLr; ,
Cn Fu-a.: in I91�3
'S F.R 07 6.1 j2� Seal C.:o:i,-c cn _
15 FR 01 6.6 IC7 • He_ri g Pro;./ -araa ln:erc^/damirc .CT rum
15 :R C; j 6.6 jC Vehicle u_Sr.;. Semite Vnic!e .Re;.ace. 50 cC F- - ui;^ i,rc:e=se o ter_e.;=i rates
De I 6.6 Paint E,:eric.- of S-.a.iss s M;- Fa
1; PK C4 I 6.7 N'E- iee^•/Yx.Cn Certer (Sm- '9»)
15 Semite ce_:rs in 95 ;' iss:ed in C.
P� G' 6.9 �NE.: Cc4r;ta.r: Parkirc Garace 4 550 T-
Recar= St'_.^,/ c� Si„CCC.
15 P06 03 6.9 INF4 oorimran Parking Garace - Ti:-s 7,-• ..,.c allocatim fcr S;i,.n S[ carat_=
15 FR C: 6.9 ICE Fire Tower ELM Prm L C
Use fu' frai Valley Ca-
15
FR 02 I 6.9 IC4 o 1974 Purer Re?iac_rent 371 1 1i� 93 3 ;.: Cir arc 9» reserve
5 •F.R 03 7.7 i', "c• 1985 E.x i.rc rA id ny laC_� .t -
15 PM CPS7.3 JNF,1 Hismr,cal 5uildirg Re-c,aticn 1C0 reserve
15 FN 7.4 I!i_J Fumirure fcr City Hall 1CC
15 PL 02 7.6 JC2 Critical Ares A,^--uisi[im
7�:'0 Save for C"ital Facilitiesrlan
15 F.R 06 I 7.6 123 Acara,..s Ram Ark Se:-_ri^/ Fe;m 50 .
12 F�:rg C7P / rare - Sale C. FDi
IS FK 10 � 7.9 1� Matnirg Gran[ F�
1c0 10C
15 Pm C4 8.0 INcJ Clerk Tc.er and Fan,ain
15 PS CS 8.0 IN'E. rk 0e.. ('9�) JJ
.River..z'.k Pa ��
15 PCS 09 8.0 102 city Hatt Car)zs Ge)er:cr NzeCs 15 77-
15 FR 10 E.3 103 D R_;.l ace 198i Atrial it c.k (Cr r 1 :) 5- 2' r Fu-c wi-n Reylacerent Rate d �ata-ce 95 r=L
15 PK C9 8.4 jN Ltca[e P`--rks To Rei.ce Risks 40 f0C
15 PC 03 I 10.0 IG FireamsTraininc Sirrutatcr 60 Extra 60,000 for Clall f C lints
6C Use Pai ice sate cf FCT
11,140 2,080
LiST018.LP! 14-0c q-
1994 • 1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
REVENUES 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 OTHER COMMENTS
OLD BOND FUNDS 25
CIP ALLOCATION 200 747 300 200 100 -
MDT (1/2) $328,828 63 33 33 33
800 MHZ (1/2) $850,000 425
GENERAL FUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 200 300 400 500 600
TOTAL 288 980 633 1,058 600 60C
EXPENDITURES
1 HEARING PROTECTION 82 MDT FUNDS
2 74 PUMPER REPLACEMENT _ 100 271 1993 & 1994 CIP FUNDS & 1994 RES
3 85 ENGINE / AID REPLACEMENT 100 271 1993 & 1994 CIP FUNDS & 1994 RES
4 LIVE FIRE SIMULATOR (BURN PROPS) 270 44O 800 MHZ AND CIP FUND
5 REPLACE 85 1.5 T MAINT VEHICLE 50 1994 REPLACEMENT RATES
6 SECURITY FENCE/RAMP 12 38 MDT FNDS AND 1995 CiP FUND
7 FIRE COMPUTER EQUIP & SOFTWARE CITY AUTOMATION PLAN
8 PAINT EXTERIOR OF BUILDINGS 50 1994 C[?
9 SEAL COATING 30 1994 Ci?
10 REPLACE 1981 AERIAL 275 293 - 1994 CIP AND 1995 RE?L
11 NEW BUILDING & GROUNDS MAINTENANCE ELDG 4C1 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
12 NEW MULTI CASUALTY INCIDENT TRAILER & EC - 56 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
13 MINITOR PAGERS 25 OLD BOND FUNDS
14 EMERGENCY POWER / 2 STATIONS 200 1996 CIP
15 REPLACE 77 APPARATUS 740 100 1996 REPLACEMENT RATES
16 NEW APPARATUS HOIST / APPARATUS MAINT BLDG 220 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
17 NEW EMERG COORD CTR OPERATIONAL ECUIPMENT 200 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
18 NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL FOR EMERG RES? 208 1996 CIP
19 NEW APPARATUS MAINT BLDG / STEAM CLEANER 320 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
20 REPLACEMENT OF 81 AND 85 PUMPERS 425 425 1997 AND 1998 RE?L RATES
21 ADDITIONAL AERIAL LADDER TRUCK 650 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
22 NEW FIRE PUMP TESTING PIT 200 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
23 PAINT TRAINING GROUND BLDGS 40 1998 CIP
24 TRAINING SYSTEMS 43 1997 CIP
25 NEW CLASSROOM ADDITION / TRAINING CTR 585 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
26 NEW PAINT BOOTH 163 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
27 ADDITIONAL.APPARATUS MAINT SVS VEHICLE 63 DEFER FOR CAPITAL FAC PLAN
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VEHCILE 150 IN YEAR 2003
ON GOING REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE RE?IACEME.NT BEGINS IN 2001
TWO AID VEHICLES WITH EQUIPMENT 320 IN YEAR 2000
COMMAND VEHICLE - 73 IN YEAR 2000
TWO 89 ENGINE/AID & TWO 89 AID CARS 960 IN YEAR 2000
AERIAL LADDER TRUCK 750 IN YEAR 2000
TOTAL 225 1,041 601 948 4-() 465 5,111
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 63 (61) 32 110 127 135
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 63 2 34 144 271
ENDING FUND BALANCE 63 2 34 144 271 406
199.: C!P PRICRITIES
1994 CAPITAL INPRME"E!T PR37";,M
RECCtMEId
------------------
DE T RANK 1994 CIP O-ir.
FM DEEPT RANK AVE PRCJ TITLE REa.ESI FUND FUNDS &-CCET M-PITTEE C!SaSS!CN
STREET FLTD
11 PWCCR 01 7.4 101 Corridcr laproveTenr Fud 1,9E-7 1,982
it PWSIG 03 1 7.5 116 72rd Ave 8 S. 212th Street 1C0 I
11 R.SiG 04 I 7.6 124 Kent-Kamgtey SR516/111th Sig. Interco:. 15 15
11 R,= 10 1 16.0 137 212ih Stree: (WvH - SR167) 350 TIE crs: receive:
-------------------------
2,"7 2,"7
WATER FLI.Z
41 lAT'c.R 01 8.7 108 Taca,a Incer:ie 1,c3 1 c=
41 b: TER c2 8.9 Guicerson Stre4c Reservoir Res:cra:im 2-0 2_^
41 W:i? 03 9.0 110 Miscella-ecxs eater Irnrovel_ncs _-
41 ''.A7E.R 6: -I 9.3 JNEa W U Hear Prccecrim Prxran 142 2
0o4-.:ccn Inrras:s.:cr-2 52<
2 _
FEND
G P.STM 01 8.7 iC- ULic 336/.'aLley De:e. o,
.STM 02 8.7 !C5 Gariscn Creek FLox Arr Erosicn
'- ?STM 03 8.7 106 Mi Ll Creek Floc Arc =r�ion Ca-,:roI 2w -_.-
4: PSTM 06 10.0 JNE: Do nra Ia r,�,-s ,
P.STM 07 10.0 IC7 MisceLLaevs Drairace 2=2
.SC4 12 1C.0 Mill Cr-.k (ALb;m)/h1-Jte Slag Floc 2; _.
C. PS TM 14 I KA Nc„ metro's Cross vane`/ In:er. ;cr 2.0
15 Iu: �!:_.. Lake Fv^.:ick 40 C)
-----------------------
4,437 2,
tTiF FL?J
4.3 G NA NE: Two vault milers o
43 NA I NE..J Fertilizer spreaoer 4
43 OCLIF NA NE,J Chenical sprayer ton 1 1 .
330 �2
EQ11PKENT RENTAL FUND
5l ER Ol 1 8.5 103 City Spas FL)el Faci L i^/ 40
-----------------------
40
EOUIPHENT REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL 1994 14-Oct-93
E^Vuip Date In Sch Replace Salvage Mileage com ants
No Yr Make Model Assignment Service Replc Cost Value 06/94
The following vehicles require replacement in 1994:
1. 3 85 Ford Wagon Eng Traffic 04/85 1992 S16,636 S900 81,000 Vehicle is out of service, needs major engine repair.
2. 17 86 Chev Van Parks Maint 06/86 1993 16,013 1056 94,000 Van has high mileage.
3. 38 86 Chev 1/2 T PU Sewer 05/86 1993 14,452 887 81,500 Has been extended once already; mileage is too
high to extend replacement again-
4. 67 84 Dodg 1/2 T PU Parks Maint 08/84 1993 14,452 750 62,000 Due to.age and mileage, this will need body 8 engine
or transmission work if not replaced.
5 71 82 Dodge 1 T FBD Parks Maint 07/82 1992 21,553 800 23,3C0 Low mileage but many engine hours, will need both bony
and hats: repair if not replaced.
6. 72 82 Dodge 1 T F80 Parks Mainz 10/S2 1992 21,553 830 32,50C Low miles but high engine hours, needs hoist repair
and body wore.
7. 88 86 Chev 3/4 T PU Storm 05/66 1993 25,176 1090 77,5CC High mileage and hours.
B. 129 84 Mott Mower Street 12/84 1994 4,515 ZGO Has many hours of use and is badly worn-
9- 230 87 Chev 3/4 T PU Storm 04/87 1994 26,534 li4C 71,2CC Higi mileage arc hours.
240 87 Chev 1/2 T Van Erg Construct 05/8, 1994 16,885 92C 59,cc0 Van has many ercire hours, condition fair.
11. 245 87 Dcdg 1/2 T PU Cus: Service 06/87 1992 13,316 986 66,5C0 Meter reading truck has many engine hours cue to stop,
icle are sc criving; 66,000 miles is extrarv_iy
for this kinc of driving.
12_ 26'r 87 Docg 1/Z T PU Parks Main( 06/87 1994 15,237 986 69,5C0 Will have hick .miles by ;he end of 1994-
13. 333 87 Chev Caprice Police Traf.fic 06/87 1992 19,097 1232 91,=00 Hicn mileage, will have 90,000 when reviacec.
14. 315 89 Kawasaki Cycle Police Traffic 07/89 1993 ti,050 8CC ,CCO Motorcycles should be reolacec at.,about 40,OGO
15. 377 89 Kawasaki Cycle Police irarfic G7/89 1993 11,050 200 ,50J miles as at hig, er mileage, we can expect hian
ib. 319 90 Kawasaki Cycle Police Traffic 05/90 1993 11,050 789 41,50.1 repair costs.
17. 3Z3 89 Chev Beretta Police Invest G2/89 1994 17,401 12,0 77,000 This is an investigation vehicle aria after several
years of use Lhey become known by bac guys; Police
policy has been to change cars every five years.
18. 324 88 Chev Blazer Police Invest 01/88 1993 17,971 ,330 i„50C Hicn mileage; this has been extended once alreacy, anc
policy is to chance cars every five years.
1^>. 325 88 Chev Celeo Police Invest 07i88 1993 15,105 1385 68,5<;0 ;his has been extepcec once alreacy, high mileage.
20. 325 88 GMC Pic xuo Police Invest 08/88 1993 14,356 1053 76,OCO E.denped once alreacy, will have high mileage.
21. 3Z? 89 Chev Corsica Police Invest 01/89 1994 16,273 12c0 80,0G0 ':ill have high mileage when due for replacement.
22. _344 90 Chev Caprice Police K-9 07/90 1994 21,022 1460 80,000 pill have high mileage when cue for replacement.
23. 358 91 Chev Caprice Police Patrol 07/91. 1993 Z1,499 2032 104,000 Hicn mileage.
24. 35? 91 Chev Caprice Police Pazrot 06/91 1993 21,499 2032 85,000 High mileace, won't has; another year.
25. 362 91 Chev Caprice Police Patrol 11/91 1993 21,499 2032 90,965 High mileage.
26. 363 91 Chev Cacrice Police Patrol 12/91 1993 21,499 2032 92,185 Hicn mileage.
27, 391 86 Ford LTC Police Adoin CZ/87 1993 16,570 850 71,5i0 Poor condition, engine and runaoiIity proot ems.
25. 603 88 Toro Mower Golf Course 09/88 1993 12,602 9-,� Hrs 3,CCC Mower units are worn but could be used as a spare.
29. 635 88 Toro Mower Golf Course 09/88 1993 12,947 999 Hrs 3,103 .Hower has many hours and should be surplused.
3C. 6-2 87 Jacobsen Mower Parks Maint 05/87 1994 40,348 2353 Unit is fair condition cut maintenance has 'teen :-ic^..
31. 706 85 Ford 3/4 T PU Fire Suppress 04/85 1992 19,997 IZn.0 54,000 Have disv�ssec this with the fire Oepc and it would
tare extensive front-enc repair to restore vehicle ro
good reliable condition; this would not be economical.
32. 715 86 Plymouth Fury Fire Apm in 04/86 1993 17,532 1172 76,000 Has many miles on it, should be replaced.
33. 719 86 Ford 3/4 T PU Fire Suppress 05/86 1993 18,011 1290 51,500 This truck has engine and carbureticn problems; it has
been in the shoo regularly for repair and would be
better to replace before additional money is seen;.
34. 800 88 Diahatsu Util Golf Course 06/83 1993 13,635 1003 29,000 3ocy in poor ccncitien, many hours on vehicle.
35. 801 88 Diahatsu Utit Golf Course 06/88 1993 13,635 1003 19,000 cue to poor design, needs replacing, has many hours.
TOTAL REPLACEMENT 1994 S612,970 S40,618
ECUIPMENT REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL 1994 14-0ct-93
•1P Date In Sch Replace Salvage - mileage Comm-❑cos
Yr Make Model Assignment Service Repic Cos; Value -" 06/94
The following vehicles will be extended due to their goad to fair condition:
1. 15 86 Chev Suburban Eng Survey 05/86 -1993 S24,624 S1,347 64,000 Engine rebuilt, good condition
2. 21 86 Chev 3/4 PU Parks Maint 05/86 1993 21,783 1,190 45,000 Low miles, can be extended, goad condition
good condition.
3. 24 86 Chev 1/2 T PU Sewer 04/86 1993 14,452 887 57,500 Normal miles, condition is good.
6. 28 .81 Dodge 1T/Boom Line Vehicle 06/81 1994 2,065 750 85,000 Nigh mileage but doesn't get many mites (manlift)
5. 46 83 Chev Van H 8 Co 06/83 1990 18,690 750 31,000 Old truck, Low miles, good condition
6. 73 84 Chev 1 Ton Sewer 11/84 1994 28,782 950 53,500 - Good condi;ion
7. 76 63 Ford 1 1/2 Tan Line Vehicle 02/63 1994 8,577 1,500 33,000 Old truck but Limited use, good condition,
8. 78 73 Dodge Pu -r Parks Maint 06/73 1993 8,035 200 63,500 Pv r truck, limi;ec use, fair condition
9. 84 82 Dodge 1i Duoo Line Vehicle 10/82 -1992 21,533 85o 83,5JC
10. 89 75 Ford 1T Dugs Line Vehicle 05/75 1990 52,826 1,500 37,000 Old truck but very good condition
11. 92 70 Chev Tank Trk Line Vetricle 01/70 1992 8,51-7 200 24,7CO Tanke- ;ruck, firm;ed use.
12. 100 77 Dodge 3/4 T Sery co Ren CaL r7/T7 1992 25,174 500 5c,500 Has a new lcocy, can be ea Cenee good arc",cn
13. 102 84 Beuthlina Rclte- Street O1/?$ 1994 17,449 1,OG0 is 11
14. 110 74 Inter Trac;aroon Line Venic'.e 04/74 1994 24,469 600 2,5;,
15. 112 87 Chev Wagon Parks Actin 05/57 1994 13,042 1,22c 42,9C7 Low mileage, cage condition
16. 227 87 Dodge 1/2 T. P'J 'rater 06/87 i9C4 .:,23Z 9H� "-,Do, Low mileage, gor_ coreiz:on
17. 231 87 Dodge 1/2 T PU Water 06/87 1994 !�,�3Z 936 48,3CC Low .niLeage, ?oec conci,icn
18. 316 89 Kawasaki Cycle Police T.-ar`ic 0%/89 1994 ;1,050 800 `,;0.:
19. 318 89 Kawasaki Cycte Police Traffic G%/89 1994 ;1,050 800 27,5C; Goo- ccnci[icn, s�,cuid Las-, one acre Year
20. 320 84 Ford LTD Secan Police Correct 36/84 i992 ,2c0 loco Hig7 niia3Qe, ceacline� .`or major erci,
prcolems and vi 11 be reolac- with :125.
21 % 89 Chev Corsica Pot ice Invest i2/83 1994 16,526 1,17; 60,50J Good condition, sneuld last one more Year
22. 323 89 Chev Corsica Police Invest G;/B9 1994 16,213 1,2co 63,CC0 Good conciticn, mould Last one more year
23. 331 87 Chev Caprice Pei ice Again 07/8% 1994 20,CC3 1,240 66,50'. Goo- r_ncitien, Replace
24 361 91 Chev Caprice acl Ice Pat-rot 10/9; 1973 21,4^,v 2932 Ls. mileage, will not need reolacement.
91 Chev Caerice =ol ice Patron 10l9; 1993 _;,499 2,032 Low mileage, will net neec replac ng -
26. 365 87 Chev CaericeilZ! Pct ice wa;rol 06/87 1993 .8,i6a 1,225 71,000 Low mileage, oced ccnditier.
27. 306 87 Chev Ca orice!;22 Police PaC-oL C6/81 i9^3 19,7;i 1,223 6c,5L, Low mileage, gee ccnait;on
25. .20 77 GM.0 Garbage -.rk ?arks Maint 06/88 1994 9,567 653 32,50o lrU-K a . bccv in good r.rci;ion
29. 606 88 Toro Mower Golf Ccurse 09/88 1993 12,947 999 Mrs 350 low hours, good condition
30. 718 86 Ford 3/4 T PU Fire Suroress 05/86 1993 18,Oti 1,157 40,n0C Lcw mileage, gcoc condition
31. %20 86 Chev Suburban -ire Suppress 11/85 1993 `,524 969 6;,5C0
32. 721 87 Dodge Aries :ire CCce E.nf C4/57 1994 .5,799 969 33,00C low mileage, gocc condi ti cn
iv. 722 87 Chev Caprice Fire Again 07/87 1993 ;8,481 i244 55,50C Scnecuted renlacerwnt 93 has been eaCencec crce
TOTAL EXTEND REi LACEMENTS - S598,363 -
CITY OF KENT, INFORMATION SEERVICES - AUTOMATION PLAN (1993-1999) 9/30/93
-----------Estimated Cash Forecast-----------
Existing Non-Allocated -
Funds Reserved Funds
1993 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
REVENUES: -------- ------- -------- --- ---- -------- -------- -------- --------
CIP (8-31-93 Fund Balance) 201,059
Accrued interest, sale of assets, etc. 30,057
CIP (1994-1999 Funding) 200,000
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
CIP Revenues: 201,059 30,057 200,000 0 0 0 0 C
Telecommunications Replacement Funds 25,OCO 53,000 50,000 60,000 30,000 30,000
D.P. General Fund Replacement Funds
Equip. RePLc. Funds (192-93 EFB) 68,626
Equip. Replc. Funds ('93-199) 60,265 245,000 220,000 220,000 220,C00 220,000 220,000
193 Oper. Budget Savings (D.P. & Tele.) 35,761
Central Services Funds 29,315
Police Computer Replacement Funds 45,000
------ ------- -----'- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------
Replacement Funds: 80,761 158,206 270,C00 27O,GOC 270,000 280,CC0 250,000 250,00C
TOTAL REVENUE: 281,820 188,263 470,0LC 27G,LLC -O,OCC 28=,L G 250,000 2;0,G00
EXPENDITURES:
New Projects/Applications
CIS - New CPU 80,000
Document Imaging Workstations 75,000 15,000 15,CCO 80,C00
New Applications/Permitting/Cashiering 75,000 75,OCO 63,000 S0,000 60,000
LAN Project/Add'l. Workstations 40,533 25,OCC 25,000 50,CC0 50,000
New Automatic Call Distribution System 5C:,GCO
------- ------ ------- ...---- ------- ------- ------ -------
New Projects: 40,533 0 255,CC0 16::,CLC 60,000 115,CC0 60,000 130,00C
Telecoms. Expansion/Replacement Funds:
Upgrade Voice Proc./Phone Systems 12,000 5,000 101,000 48,C10 11,000 27,000
Central Services Graphics Upgrade 29,315
Shops Wiring 25,C00
Data Processing Expansion/Replacement Funds:
Funds Currently Allocated t' 103,455
Replace outdated PC's 109,832 91,548 55,070 25,000 25,000 25,000
Replace outdated Laserjets 16,000 8,OCO 8,000 S,OCc 16,000 16,CCO
PC Software Upgrades 13,000 16,8CC 16,800 2C,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Software Training 12,000 15,OCC IS,OCO 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
GIS Replacement Workstations 24,000 24,000
Police Computer System Enhancements 50,00C
Central Computer System Enhancements 30,000 30,OCO 30,000 60,000 30,CCC 40,000 40,000
Datacomn Needs 12,400 10,0CC 10,000 10,000 10,CCG 10,000 1C,000
------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- -------
Replacement Expenditures: 241,237 183,263 209,870 109,8C0 206,000 156,OCO 161,000 143,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 281,820 188,263 464,870 274,80C 266,000 271,000 221,000 223,000
REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 0 0 5,130 (4,800) 4,000 9,000 29,000 (33,OGO)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 0 5,130 330 4,330 13,330 42,330
ENDING FUND BALANCE 0 0 5,130 330 4,330 13,330 42,330 9,330
�I
l
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES REZONE APPEAL (RZ-93-2)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Jeffery J. Wolfson has filed an appeal
of the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of denial of an
application to rezone 6. 5 acres from R1-121 Single Family
Residential, with a minimum lot size of 12 , 000 square feet, to
R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential , with a minimum lot size of
7 , 200 square feet. The property is located at 10922 and 11004
SE 244th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Jeffery Wolfson' s appeal letter dated August 23 ,
1993 , and verbatim minutes of August 4 , 1993 (see the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation and additional information under
Other Business Section 4A, Applewoude Estates Rezone)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to den the appeal by Jeffery J. Wolfson of the
lewoude Es a
Apptes Rezoneo an421 --f- 3—w -o" ty staff
to recommend conditions to go withthe approval -&nd--to direct
the City Attorney to prepares the necess ry=ordinance.
DISCUSSION• 4t
ACTION: �
rl 1
;
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 A. LUBOVICH
I. Staff Report.
II. Appellant Presents 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 . Proceedings were materially affected by
irregularities in- procedure.
3 . Recommendation unsupported by material and
substantial evidence.
4 . Recommendation is in conflict with the City' s
comprehensive plan.
5 . Insufficient evidence presented as to the
impact on the surrounding area.
VI. Council 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 deny the proposal as
originally submitted based upon Council
findings.
4 . Remand for a further hearing before the
hearing examiner.
B. The Council must make findings with its decision by
either adopting or modifying the findings of the
hearing examiner or by making its own findings.
hearexam.doc
Applewoude Estates #RZ-93-2 5u-9 3-3 August 23, 1993
APPEAL OF DECISION
Recommendation issued: August 13, 1993 Received by applicant: August 23,1993
Being the applicant Jeffery Wolfson I hereby appeal to the City Council of the City Of
Kent to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and grant the rezone and subdivision
request or remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner (H.E.) for
reconsideration.
Upon review of the decision reached by the H.E. specifically in the "Conclusions", I
believe the H.E. to have erred both in commission and omission and ask that the City
Council hear our appeal as relates to the following matters.
Conclusion One:
The proposed site is consistent with two comprehensive plans. Had not the proposed
rezone been consistent we would not have applied for the rezone. As a 90's developer we
are aware that comprehensive plans are there to be read and followed. However, in spite
of this consistency we were denied because of stated Housing Policies. I am not sure that
it is possible to both "...conserve existing single family neighborhoods..." and "...provide
for increased single family densities...". We view this proposed rezone area to be a buffer
between the highly dense multi-family construction to the north of our site and the less
intensive use to the south. While it is true that some residents testified that approval of
the rezone would make the neighborhood less desirable to them, I would offer that
existing area residents always say that. There were existing area residents at the hearing
who were ready to testify that the zone change was desirable. In -view of the very
favorable staff report and solid staff support of the rezone request we felt it was not
necessary to spend a lot of time in repetitive testimony, as instructed by the H.E. due to
the length of the meeting.
The H.E. continually cites storm water concerns for denying the application in spite of
the facts presented by city staff as to substantial improvements to this specific area's storm
water management system that are planned, engineered, and funded. At present there are
storm water management problems associated with the site. Approving this application
will put our engineers to work to correct these problems.
Conclusion Two:
Rather than counting noses to see who has what sized lot in the immediately
surrounding area, a development should be judged on its' own merit. At present there is
high density multi-family uses backed up against low density, almost agricultural uses and
there is a serious storm water problem between them That, it can be argued, is a good
reason for placing a transition land use between incompatible uses. Typically, commercial
uses are surrounded by multi-family which then grades to high density single family, low
density single family, and agricultural. All utilities are present and improvements that will
be required of future development of the site will upgrade and improve the entire
neighborhood.
Conclusion Three:
While agreeing on the one hand that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system, the H.E. goes on to suggest that it would in the subtext 1. All
mitigation measures required of this project will be constructed concurrently with the
development.
Conclusion Four:
The H.E., in his discussion of the Growth Management Act referred to by staff, ignores
the major elements offered by staff. These are to encourage development in urban areas,
reduce sprawling low density developments, provide affordable housing, and build where
there are existing services The proposed project is consistent with all these goals. The
bottom line is, let's put developments where development has already occurred and
services are present. Let's not tie up urban land in large wasteful parcels available only to
the relatively well-to-do.
Conclusion Five:
Under 5.2 the H.E. argues that the rezone will reduce the quality of life for the existing
residents. Quality of life is a difficult issue to define. While some would say that their
quality of life requires 100 acres and no neighbors, others will say that an 5,000 foot lot
close in with all utilities and affordable would be dandy. It cannot be argued that approval
of this application will not bring some change to the neighborhood but it can be argued
that a lot of that change will be beneficial, such as correcting the storm water problem,
upgrading the street, extending the sanitary sewer line, and future utility improvements.
We do not believe this is an "urban fringe" area as asserted by the H.E.. This property is
definitely urban by any definition.
SUNLbIATION
We believe the site is well suited to the proposals denied by the H.E.. We believe the
H.E.'s decisions were prompted by and wholly dependent on his sympathies to the
neighbors who oppose the proposals. Sometimes an extended view is required. The
unwanted new neighbors being held at arm's length by existing residents today could
become best friends in the future. It is not necessarily an issue of traffic, reduced quality
of life or incompatibility that frequently worries existing residents. The real issue is
change. This area, initially platted in 1905, has been through a great deal of change in the
intervening years. What we are proposing is simply a continuation of that process.
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.
APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #RZ-93-2 AND #SU-93-3
August 4 , 1993
A public hearing to consider the request by Tacoma Associates,
11501 84th Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98178 , for a rezone and
preliminary plat of 6 . 5 acres. The property is zoned R1-12, Single
Family Residential. The rezone request is to change the zoning to
R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square
feet. The preliminary plat is to plat the property into 21 single
family residential lots. The property is located at 10922 and
11004 SE 244th Street.
Ted Hunter: Turning next to the Applewoude Estates. There are two
applications with reference to this parcel. The first is for a
rezone and the second for preliminary plat approval. And, what we
will do is segregate these hearings and hear first the application
for a rezone to rezone approximately 6 and a half acres of property
from Single Family Residential 12 , 000 square feet minimum lot size
to Single Family Residential 7, 200 square foot minimum lot size and
for those of you that are here that would like to testify on the
Applewoude Estates applications, the way that we will proceed is to
take first the staff report and recommendations on the rezone. We
have specific criteria that the staff will speak to and that I need
to consider on the rezone. If you want to speak to the rezone,
please do so. If your concern is the preliminary plat, we will
have a separate hearing on the preliminary plat once we take
evidence on the rezone and if your concerns are to the impacts of
the development, we will take that testimony in the preliminary
plat application. Typically, rezone concerns relate to change of
circumstances, the need for rezoning property, whether its
1
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
appropriate to grant the rezone; whereas the preliminary plat
typically testimony is related to impacts of a specific
development. So you will have an opportunity to testify, just
trying to shape it, so that you know you have a hearing on the
rezone and then a separate hearing on the preliminary plat request
to construct 21 or divide the property into 21 residential lots.
So first the rezone.
The rezone application has been reviewed by me as well as the staff
report. We have received some letters on the rezone from Mr.
Don Jensen, who indicates that it would not be appropriate to grant
the rezone, additional density; from Mr. and Mrs . Bangart, who
object to the rezoning of the area that, again, this would lead to
increased density and they ask that the decision be delayed until
all the homeowners in the area can be notified; and from Janet and
Michael Houston who ask that the rezone be denied based on traffic
impacts, incompatibility with existing lot sizes in the area and a
concern about the sewer service; and, finally from a Douglas Walker
who sets forth several reasons in. . .that. . .part of his request that
it be denied as well and its similar. . . sewer problems, not
compatible with existing lot sizes, no sidewalks, and contribute to
overcrowded school population. The environmental review has also
been reviewed by me and the conditions that were placed on the
issuance of the MDNS. Staff report, we have Mr. Matthews Jackson
here. Matthews Jackson will give the staff report on the rezone
and the recommendation of staff.
Matthews Jackson: I 'm Matthews Jackson from the Planning
Department here in Kent. We have a request here for a rezone of
approximately 6. 5 acres. The property is located at 10922 and
11004 SE 244th Street. The property is currently zoned R1-12 ,
which allows for 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size and the
proposal is for R1-7 . 2 , which is single family with a 7 , 200 square
foot minimum lot size. Currently, the. . . I ' ll just point out the
site right now. Get the right graphic up. . .the zoning of the site,
like I said before, is R1-12 which is indicated on the graphic,
adjacent zonings. . .MRM, which is medium density multifamily to the
north, and all land uses surrounding the property to the south, the
west and east are also R1-12 . Adjacent land uses are the Highland
Creste and Royal Firs apartment complexes to the north and single
family residences surrounding it to the east, west and south.
Currently there are two single family residences and four
associated accessory buildings on the subject property. This site
was annexed to the City in 1987 as part of the East Hill Well
Annexation No. 2 and at that time public hearings were held to
establish zoning in the area. As part of this review there, as
already mentioned by Mr. Hunter, there is an environmental review
2
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
and a final mitigated DNS was issued for this project on May 7 of
1993 , and the conditions of that report. . .conditions of that
approval will be addressed to the develop. . . .any future development
on the site. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan land use map
designates the area as MF which is Multifamily. The East Hill
Subarea Plan also designates the property MF-12 which allows for a
density of 7 to 12 units per acre. However, the amendment to the
Housing Element of the Comp Plan subsequent to those zonings. . .or
subsequent to those designations established a single-family
designated area overlay and that overlay says that there will be no
more multifamily development allowed in those areas and also it
will protecting, enhancing and promoting single family development
in the single family overlay area and this project is in the single
family overlay area. There are specific standards and criteria for
request. . . for granting a rezone.
Number one, the proposed rezone must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. And, as I stated the Comprehensive Plan and
the East Hill subarea plans both designate the area as multifamily
but the single family overlay does overrule that zoning and this
proposal would be in compliance with that single family overlay
designation.
The second criteria is the proposed rezone and subsequent
development of the site would be compatible with the development in
the vicinity. Currently, there is a diverse mix of development in
the vicinity. In the larger vicinity there are commercial uses,
multifamily developments and a range of single family lots from
small lots under 9, 600 square feet to other multi-acre lots. This
development would promote a lower density. . . .a higher density
of. . .than the 12, 000 square foot lot size but the average size of
the lots proposed is a little bit more. . .this is part of the
subsequent hearing but I thought it might be pertinent to this. . . it
is a little more than 10, 000 square feet per lot.
The third criteria is that the proposed rezone will not unduly
burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. And, as part
of the ENV-93-16, the MDNS of the. . . for this project. . .there are
several conditions which are placed on this property and these
transportation concerns have been addressed in this environmental
review.
The fourth criteria is that circumstances have changed
substantially since the establishment of the current zoning
district to warrant the proposed rezone. And, there have been
several substantial changes in this area. The Growth Management
3
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Act of 1990, its a State Mandate which requires the City to plan
for the future growth in the area and provide a variety of housing
types where urban services can be directly and efficiently
provided. The City has made several capital facility investments
in this area, they have recently built a new elementary
school. . . .the Kent School District has recently built a school in
the area, there is a new park being built right now and the City
has recently put a new police substation and fire station within
the immediate vicinity.
And the last criteria or standard for a rezone is that the proposed
rezone will not adversely affect health, safety and general welfare
of the City of Kent and basically this project does meet the. . . is
consistent with the requirements of the Comp Plan and the East Hill
subarea plan and it also. . . . subsequent action on the site will
require. . .will be required to meet the applicable codes,
regulations and processes of the City.
And, reviewing those merits of this proposal, the staff has
recommended approval.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. A clear and concise report. Is
there a representative of the applicant here that would want to
speak to the rezone application. Yes, sir. Please come forward.
Jeff Wolfson: Mr. Examiner, my name is Jeff Wolfson. I reside at
111501 84th Avenue S. , and I am the applicant for this rezone of
Applewoude Estates. I listened to the staff report. I 've read it
and I concur with the findings. I would hope that when you read
it, you also concur and approve it. And, if you have any
questions, I will be here throughout the evening to answer them.
Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. I have read the staff report and listened
to the testimony as well. Its my job now to listen to any other
testimony and then I ' ll consider it with other testimony presented
here today. I have two individuals that have signed up to testify
on this rezone application. The first is Mr. Ed Heineman and
second is Mr. John Gardner. Both those individuals here.
Mr. Heineman? Sure, come on forward and Mr. Gardner. Are there
others that would expect to testify on this rezone application. We
will have the preliminary plat application as well. O.k. ,
Mr. Heineman and Mr. Gardner, I would like to hear from you. O.k. ,
I 'm being handed by Mr. Heineman a letter prepared by you as well.
Ed Heineman: Yes, I have a written statement there and I would
like to speak a bit on the subject.
4
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. , let me get this marked as an exhibit then.
Heineman: Yes, please and to summarize briefly what my statement
says. My address. . .did I say that. . . my address is noted on the
sign up sheet.
Hunter: Yes, thank you, since you signed in, we have that as a
matter of record.
Heineman: Well, I was aware that the Planning Department had a
wish to increase the occupation density of the core area. Partly
to provide a nucleus for mass transit terminal and partly to
increase downtown business posterity and so on. I was not aware
that the Planning Department favors, as seems here, a local
increase in density wherever a parcel of undeveloped or partly
developed land might exist and that' s my biggest concern about this
thing. Well, first, might I say, I have a supporting map with my
statement, the vicinity map with the staff report is misleading.
It shows, or seems to show a large empty area along the length of
SE 244th Street with no side roads. My maps shows all of the
property parcels of which there are quite a few and the 72 single
family homes from 104th to 116th Avenue SE indicating that there
are a number of private roads as well as public streets. . . l09th
Place SE. This is definitely not an empty area. If this rezone is
approved then any rezone within a R1-12 area has. . .the owner has
the equal right, I 'm sure, to also petition for rezone to 7, 200
square feet and there is, in fact, an area about. . .beginning about
300 feet to the west of the proposed development that would be ripe
for that sort of thing and, I think, they would probably have
everything else available including, I believe, a sewer stub at the
deadend of 108th Avenue SE. But, this is just one of many and this
is not only on this street but as the. . .as Mr. Jackson said
its. . .the area is surrounded on three sides by R1-12 properties and
there is a same kind of a mix pretty well over the entire area.
So, I can see a possibility of perhaps 30, 50 applications for
rezone to 7 , 200 square feet and then this would result in islands
of high density in the middle of islands of. . . or areas of lower
density and one of the. . . .Mr. Jackson said that the proposal is
deemed not to affect health, safety and general welfare. Well, I
believe it would have a very significant affect on the general
welfare of this particular area. I would think it would have a
devastating affect on it and I 'm not speaking in that regard to the
proposed subdivision, I 'm speaking of the precedent for
establishing this island of down zoning. . .well, minimum size
reduction in the midst of an area that. . . rather substantial area
that is now 12 , 000 square foot minimum. And, I think a very
unhealthy and unwise precedent would be set, this kind of spot
5
Verbatim Minutes of August 41 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
rezone is allowed in an established community. We, who live in
these communities, will have to cope with the effects of islands of
high density population. While those who promote them take the
money and run. That, I believe, is all I have to say on the
subject.
Hunter: O.k. , I am looking at your map and. . .and in the letter
your submitted you stated that if the proposed rezone is approved,
there are 30 or more other parcels of land, of various sizes,
adjacent to SE 244th, whose owners may have an equal right to a
rezone. Are these all R1-12 .
Heineman: Oh, yes. They are part of the general area and I
covered. . .I 'm not really familiar with what occurs on the west side
of 104th SE, what the zoning and the mix is there. But, from 104th
to 116th, on 244th, its all R1-12 and then I, believe, we have
R1-12 to the west. I know we have R1-12 to the south. I think
there was said something about to the east, but that' s not possible
because the City ends at 116th.
Hunter: O.k. So you counted them and there were 30. . . at least 30
areas.
Heineman: Well, what I figured on SE 244th, right adjacent to it.
Accessible from SE 244th and on SE 248th, I have no idea how many
might be there. I think there's probably a similar situation, but,
there are differences in the mix.
Hunter: I am wondering, does that number look at areas that would
be capable of being subdivided.
Heineman: Yes, I think, if you have a. . .a. . . 15, 000 foot. . . square
foot lot, and you have a home on it in the right place, you should
be able to subdivide it. I know there are a lot of other criteria,
but I 'm speaking about properties from that size on up to several
acres in size and there ' s also the possibility of combining some of
these smaller ones into one larger one. So, I can see the
possibility of being inundated with requests for down zoning to
7 , 200 square feet.
Hunter: And the concern is the cumulative impact.
Heineman: The cumulative impact, I think, would be very severe.
The. . .the drainage situation on the north side of the proposed
subdivision, I spoke briefly to that in my statement there. But,
as regards the overall effect, I think the increase in
drainage. . . stormwater drainage that would have to be coped with, is
6
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
is almost astronomical and I can see any. . .any facilities that
could adequately handle that to either be on-site which I don't put
much faith in or the general drainage conduits which are already
grossly inadequate.
Hunter: O.k. , great. I understand. Thank you for your testimony.
Heineman: Thank you.
Voice: Here ' s two petitions, identical, with approximately 40
signatures of residents in the area we're talking about, 244th and
the adjacent streets.
Hunter: O.k. , these are submitted by Mr. Gardner and we' ll mark
these. . .we' ll put them together since they are the same petition
and mark them as Exhibit 3 and have them submitted then for the
record.
John Gardner: In acquiring these signatures, I got about half of
them and there wasn't one person that wanted to debate this issue.
They were all eager to sign and I 'm sure the other half were
likewise. The reason we want this denied. . .of the 21 homes they
want to add to approximately 72 houses that access on to 244th or
the adjacent little private roads. That ' s 72 and then you're
adding about 30 percent homes which are adding 30 percent vehicles,
at 2 cars per house nowadays. We're talking about 40 more cars and
this street seems to get an oversupply of cars I would venture to
say 75 percent of the traffic doesn't live there. They are by-
passers to get around stop lights and stop signs and other
obstacles that Kent has developed. So we're talking about an awful
of traffic on a street that maybe has one policeman a day. I 've
yet to see a person get a speeding ticket on that street except one
time the State Patrolman caught a kid of a motorbike. Big deal!
But, there again, the traffic and the 21 houses on a small lot like
that is almost getting down to ghetto size, I would think, in the
way of elbow room where the maps they 've showed up here, every
house was, at least, on 12 , 000 and people had elbow room. This
won't be. Acreage is not that short of supply yet and like the
preceding gentleman, we just don't need that in that area because
of the houses are spread out and everybody' s happy the way they
are, so to bring this in is just out of the question and those 40
people request you deny this.
Hunter: And specifically you 're talking about, as the previous
gentleman did, the impact on the neighborhood, the general welfare,
you're saying would be negative on. . .
7
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Gardner: That ' s. . .that' s what its all about, that ' s why we live
there.
Hunter: And traffic is the primary concern. Are there other
impacts that you're concerned about.
Gardner: I 'm afraid that this might bring in what we have around
us now, where we're surrounded by apartments. We're. . . it just
could bring in the same kind of clientele if you call it that, that
we read about in the paper. Whether' s its. . . .
Hunter: Um hum, so the density. . .
Gardner: . . .the shooting, or the dope or what else it could bring
in.
Hunter: O.k. , so you're happy with the current. . . currently its
working all right and you 're. . .
Gardner: Almost.
Hunter: O.k.
Gardner: It' s never perfect and, like I said, the speeders from
the local tune-up shop seem to use that as their test track. I 'm
not happy with that at all. And, that and the people that by-pass
the stop signs and stop lights and I watched one picture he had up
here and I thought of 248th, which, I think, is why we get so much
traffic, its an arterial and its adjacent to the fire station and
with the apartments, it has an awful lot of school buses and one
day I watched them. . .two school buses unloading and a fire truck
come by and there were more red lights than tinsel town, I guess.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your testimony. I understand what
you're saying. Are there others that want to testify on the
rezone. This is making. . . the lots. . .the sizes of a permissible
single family home lot would be 7 , 200 rather than 12 , 000. Yes,
sir, in the back.
Bob Houck: My name is Bob Houck and I live at 11030 SE 244th.
Hunter: Bob. . .what' s the last name?
Houck: Houck. H-O-U-C-K.
Hunter: O.k.
8
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Houck: And, you know, with you guys sitting here, maybe this
R-12 . . .R-7. 2 doesn't make much difference to us after seeing a five
- six acre pasture there for years, you know, just to R-12 is going
to be a big shock and R-7 . 2 seems to me like they could do quite
well with R-12 there, be compatible with the neighborhood. All the
rest of the homes are R-12 or larger, so. This is going to look
kind of an oddball thing, out of place and I agree about the. . .the
fear of the higher crime. Getting a lot of kids that don't have
anything to do, they can' t play in their yard because there isn't
that much of it. So, they' ll be out and around, and that could be
lead into possibly accidents for them, what have you, with the
traffic going through 244th which, as like you said, getting worse
all the time. So, that ' s about my two bits worth for that. Thank
you.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Houck. Does the applicant or city want to
respond to any of the community testimony that was just presented.
Jackson: I have a couple. . .need to clarify.
Hunter: O.k. , it seems you both do, so Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: I just wanted to point out to everybody that there are
existing lots in this area which are less than the 12 , 000 square
foot minimum right now. The lots located south of the property,
right here, average around 10, 000 square feet and the lots located
approximately here are also less than 12 , 000 square feet. I did an
average density just to get an idea for myself of the lots right
here. We have sixteen lots on approximately 4 and a half acres, so
the density actually would be greater than the density proposed of
7, 200 as the proposal stands with the subdivision. My other thing
I just wanted to clear up is that 7 , 200 square foot lot size is a
rather standard lot size. It does not represent high density
housing.
Hunter: O.k. , what. . .what about. . . if you leave that on for a
minute because I want to look at the zoning. It is currently. . . is
the bold line. . .
Jackson: The bold line is the zoning line.
Hunter: Its the zoning line. So you 've got multi to the north,
but it is all R1-12 .
Jackson: It is R1-12 almost. . .
Hunter: On three sides.
9
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Jackson• Right.
Hunter: O.k. And how far, I guess, south would that continue? Do
you know, roughly?
Jackson: I would assume right around 100 or 248th is where the
zoning would change.
Hunter: O.k. , and west to one hundred. . . .
Jackson: West of there, right along 104th there' s a CC zone which
is community commercial, the other side of that its R1-7 . 2 .
Hunter: O.k. , so that. . . looking at the west side of 104th is. . . is
the type of development activity that might occur in R1-7 . 2 .
Jackson: And there, as stated in the staff report, I can't be
positive which one I put it in, there' s a Canterbury Place
development which is built on 7 , 200 square foot lots. Its a recent
development and that' s just south of 104th.
Hunter: South. . .west. . .
Jackson: Its west of 104th and south of the subject property, I
think, its on 248th.
Hunter: O.k. , oh, I got you, o.k.
Jackson: Sure, and there ' s also, as Fred Satterstrom pointed out,
there's a 7 , 200, an R1-7 , 200 square foot to the north there to.
Hunter: O.k. , so to get a sort of a view of what it might look
like if a zoning change were granted, one could. . . are they pretty
typical developments in the 7 . 2 areas, do you think?
Jackson: Um, I think so. I mean I understand the peoples concerns
in the neighborhood. I think they would see the same impacts if it
were. . . if people decided to subdivide their existing lots to
12 , 000. I mean they would see a type of development, they may
not. . .you know, that' s going to happen. It could happen at any
time. The rezone will not necessarily impact with the current
situation to the extent, I think, its perceived.
Hunter: O.k. , a little bit more on that average density. How do
you do an average density determination?
10
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Jackson: Well, in this situation, I. . . I must put the caveat on
here, that our records. . . our information that we use on our system
are approximations, they are not exact and cannot be taken as
exact. What I do is I take the existing lot sizes on that
development to the south which is, I believe, 108th Place SE, and
I just did an average lot size. . .total lot area over a number of
lots and came out with the average of little over 10, 000 square
feet per lot and when I did the same, subtracting for the streets
for the proposed development. . .now that doesn 't necessarily mean
for a total buildout potential of 71200 square feet. And, that' s
where I came out with the numbers.
Hunter: O.k. , I- heard. . . so you did one to the south. . .and I can
see. . .
Jackson: Right. Did one to the south and compared it to the
proposal.
Hunter: Right around 10, 000 square feet.
Jackson• Right.
Hunter: And where was the other area that you looked at?
Jackson: Little over 10, 000. And that was the subject property at
the proposed 21 lots.
Hunter: I see. Because just looking at the chart, it looks like
other areas around the subject property are, perhaps, less dense,
particularly to the west. Now to the east, there's several
buildings indicated, houses as well.
Jackson: Right. And, there are. . .there are large lots in the
area. But there is always the potential at any time those people
could apply to subdivide the property to 12 , 000.
Hunter: Right. I wonder if you looked at this average density
approximation for the area either east or west, did you happen. . .
Jackson: No, I didn't do that.
Hunter: So, what we do have are. . . are several examples and, I
guess, one is directly to the south. Would you say that. . . is
that. . .how far did you go to do an average density approximation?
Jackson: I just took. . .that piece. . .
11
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: A piece of equivalent size.
Jackson: Right here, four and a half acres.
Hunter: O.k. that. . . .
Jackson: That' s why I just used that piece to get an idea.
Hunter: Got you. It was readily available to do. . .
Jackson: That ' s right.
Hunter: . . .and give some idea of what density around 10, 000
square feet looks like.
Jackson• Right.
Hunter: O.k. , so we have that example. We have that to the north
and east and we have what' s across 104th as examples of what
different densities might look at. o.k. Thank you. Yes sir,
Mr. Wolfson.
Wolfson: O.k. , let me address Mr. Heineman first. The only reason
really why we're here asking for the rezone is because we feel that
this property and the properties around it now, since they are
serviced with sewer do not need to be as large. Its. . .the owner,
if the owner wants to have larger properties that up to him. If
the owner does not, there are things changing and the change
around, we are asking for a change too. I do note that there are
apartments and other items just north of the subject property that
have much more density than what our project would bring to the
area, so there are already signs that change has occurred and
change will occur. As far as drainage problems are concerned,
those will be handled by conditions of approval later. You know,
there will be no buildings, no homes placed in that area until all
those issues have been resolved. And, also that' s as well as the
traffic. Traffic studies do show that there need to be some
improvements and those we will be in on those improvements,
definitely. As far as Mr. Gardner is concerned, he was talking
about 21 new homes. Well, we are working on 19 new lots that we
will be creating if the rezone is approved. There are already two
existing homes there, so that was a little bit in error, but its no
big deal and his major problem was the traffic which is a problem
for everyone and as conditions of approval, we' ll have to work out
something to help alleviate those problems . As far as Bob Houck is
concerned 7 , 200 square foot lots seem small to him because he is
used to living on larger lots and that ' s fine. However, with the
12
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
7, 200 square foot lot, I 've lived on one all my life and I 've
played and I was one of five children and we played on a smaller
than 71200 square foot lot at times and most was done indoors. I
don't know if that 's anything to worry much about. The new parks
that are being built in the area, maybe the kids could play there.
There are access to other areas for children. And, I think that
about concludes the questions.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Wolfson. I think I 've heard on the rezone
the varying opinions, the different sides of the recommendation for
and the concerns about granting the rezone. I 'm going to take
that. . .that testimony into consideration and I ' ll need to make a
recommendation on it to your City Council. I appreciate your
patience and you 're coming forward with the concerns. I think they
do need to be considered and I will try to fashion a recommendation
that. . .based on the testimony today that tries to comply with your
codes as your City Council adopted. So, I think, we ' ll conclude
the rezone hearing at this time and move immediately into the
preliminary plat request that will only become a matter of moving
forward on if there' s a recommendation that the rezone be approved.
But, I do want to hear that today, they are linked but they also
may be treated separately dependant upon the outcome of the
recommendations I make. So, we ' ll move to the preliminary plat and
since some of the information is very similar, I would like to ask
Mr. Jackson just be very brief in the staff remarks. I 'm also
assuming that those here this afternoon have had an opportunity to
look at the staff report, so what I would like to do since the hour
is getting late, is move as quickly as possible to the community
testimony because that ' s the stuff that I have not had an
5 V��r3-3 opportunity to hear. Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: I 'm Matt Jackson and I will just state that the
subdivision no. 93-3 request is for subdividing. . .approximately 6 . 5
acres into 21 residential lots. As we know, its being heard in
conjunction with the rezone request 93-2 . I ' ll just restate one
more time that it is located at 11922 and 11004 SE 244th Street.
It is currently zoned R1-12 , but it is being heard to be rezoned to
R1-7. 2 and it has been reviewed with the prior consideration that
that rezone request had been approved as far as lot configuration,
etc. goes. I want to point out that right now the property will be
served by City sewer and water and those connections to those
systems will be applied during the development and recording
process. There has been some issues about traffic. Traffic was
looked at as part of the mitigation for the project and the
Transportation Section of our City came up with some numbers on
potential impacts and I would like to just state those before I go
to the conditions. If I can find them. Basically. . . can 't find it
13
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
right now. . .the estimate was for 181 daily trips, I think,
generated by the project and I just wanted people to know that the
City has looked at those impacts and I know those are the big. . .the
main interest of the citizens is the traffic impacts. There are
many conditions tried to the approval of this subdivision. They
are on pages 12 through 15 of the staff report. I won't read
those. I will let you take a look at them in your time and I will
take any questions if the Hearing Examiner has any.
Hunter: Thank you. We ' ll wait and see what issues are raised
during community testimony. I want to note that in the review of
the file, I have received letters from Janet and Michael Houston
that reiterated same concerns that they stated about the rezone and
Mr. Doug Walker, again, the same concerns. Also, a letter from
Noel Rogerson on both the rezone and the preliminary plat and we
will place this in the rezone file. I don't have anyone
specifically signed up to testify on this application but I believe
there are some here. Are there some that would like to testify
about this application. The applicant, Mr. Wolfson, we ' ll take you
first.
Jeffery Wolfson: O.k. , just for the record my name is Jeff
Wolfson. Would it be possible to get a copy of the letters that
you've gotten from people in the neighborhood.
Hunter: Certainly, yes.
Wolfson: O.k. , thank you. Also, as far as the staff report is
concerned I had a couple of questions. One was concerning
condition 8 and that I am not sure whether we're ready to discuss .
that. But, its an issue on the wetlands, the wetland delineation
report and my reading of the wetland delineation report was
something a little bit different than what the City of Kent
proposes in the conditions. I 'm willing to accept the conditions
if it was an oversight of the wetland biologist but I 'm not sure if
it was an oversight on his part or if staff missed something. So,
that ' s just one note.
Hunter: Well, let' s go into that a little bit more. I have it in
front of me. The recommended condition states: as both wetlands
are considered category 2 wetlands as referenced by Kent' s
management code that' s, do you agree with that?
Wolfson: I don't know if I should because in my recollection of
reading the delineation report, it stated there were. . .they were on
different levels, one was, I think, level 2 or class 2 and the
other was a class 3 , having different buffering properties. One
14
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
was a 50 foot and the other was of a 25 foot nature. So, in that
respect I don't know.
Hunter: Well, we better get that cleared up. Now is the time. . .
Wolfson: Yeah, that' s. . .
Hunter: . . .to inquire into that. So. . . is there some source of
material that you might have that would show something different
than what' s recommended here?
Wolfson: In your. . . in your paperwork there should be a biologist
delineation report and I don't have the reference of the page but
it. . .
Hunter• O.k.
Wolfson: . . . . should say in the conclusions section. . .conclude that
they are of two different classifications and different buffering.
Hunter: Well, we' ll give you an opportunity to look at that,
either with Planning Department 's file, is that. . .do you know,
Mr. Jackson, is that. . .
Jackson: Its in the environmental review, the ENV file.
Hunter: O.k. , is the environmental review file anywhere in this
room?
Satterstrom: I 'm looking at Bill Wolinski down there. . .Bill, do
you have a copy of the report, is that what you're looking at?
Hunter: O.k. , I guess we do have. . . so we can determine that today,
what the appropriate classification is? Are there any other. . .
Wolfson: Other than that. . .
Hunter: . . .concerns or issues?
Wolfson: . . .really there are no other issues because I pretty much
concur with the other conditions, understanding the nature that we
are adding more density to the area and need to look at the impacts
to traffic and to the wetland problem that exists now and basically
getting that settled. . .getting it so its better than it is today.
Helping to alleviate some of those problems. Thank you.
15
Verbatim Minutes of August 4, 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. , thank you, Mr. Wolfson. O.k. , community comments,
concerns on the preliminary plat. This is the proposal to divide
into 21 lots the 6 . 5 acres. Yes, sir.
Don Jensen: I 'm Don Jensen, 24210 110th Place SE and I was just
looking at this plot. And, the two lots . . .the existing houses on
it take up what will be approximately four to five lots in the
other sizes and that ought to sew this . . .
Hunter: I 'm sorry, I 'm not quite sure I 'm following you. You're
looking at something. . .
Jensen: I 'm looking at the plot of the. . . .the layout for the lots.
Hunter: O.k. , that's part of the staff report.
Jensen: And, if you look at lot 20 and 21, which existing houses
are on and assume would be retained by the owners, there. . .those
two lots take up approximately four to five of the proposed lots.
So when you 're looking at 10, 000 square feet, as your engineer
stated, the lots would. . .held better recalculate.
Hunter: Oh, I see. . . so your point is the entire 6 . 5 acres is
reduced because those larger lots. Yes, in fact, the square
footages are noted, aren' t they, as they typically are on the
preliminary plat and you're correct if you look immediately north
of those lots, they are in the 73 - 74 range - some are larger,
some are smaller. O.k. , point well taken. Any other
considerations or concerns about the preliminary plat application.
Mr. Gardner.
Gardner: I missed out on some of what you're saying here but to
the northeast of this are apartment complexes that Kent has
approved and more than once I have been down there when there ' s
rowboats in the parking lot and all this will. . .water will bleed
down to the upper left of that sketch and end up in the same
rowboat area since that and that storage area and when you start
putting 21 or this guy says 19 roofs in there you got 19 pieces of
water that got somewhere to go and that canal thing along there
they tell me is . . .won't hold it and if you go upstream far enough
we got this big school and a big parking lot and a big fire station
and a big parking lot and the firemen playing with their hoses and
it all goes down that creek eventually. So, they can talk all they
want about waterland. . .wetlands when we have this 100-year washout
we get every six years, that' s where it going to end up. There' s
no getting around it and to add this many houses on this fellow' s
16
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
pasture land that used to absorb that water and now its going to
run off, sewer-wise maybe they're all right, they can go across the
street, across the creek, sewer-wise but I haven't heard anything
about stormwater. And, its all going to go down to this apartment
complex that ' s getting it or going get it.
Hunter: You've seen it. . .the water.
Gardner: I 've seen it. And it goes all the way down to Payless or
behind Payless you couldn't drive a car or a delivery truck behind
it a few years ago and there again, this is all stormwater which
all these roofs are going to produce.
Hunter: O.k. , that. . .that ' s one reason why we 're here. I think
these concerns need to be addressed.
Gardner: And to go back to my original, those 40 names are 40
households or .almost that were thoroughly against this thing. So,
its. . . its 40 to 4 out here.
Hunter: Well, you know how the system works is. . .the reason I 'm
here is we're not going to take a vote on this one but we are going
to make sure that the criteria which includes the drainage problems
are managed, are looked at and, you know, if they can 't be, it has
to be denied and if it can be, we need to hear how. So, you just
raised a concern about that drainage. . . stormwater drainage and, I
think, that needs to be addressed.
Gardner: The way they're working there, upstream from the problem.
They'd better . . .
Hunter• Yeah.
Gardner: . . . stop and satisfy the problem in. . .
Hunter: Yeah. We got your testimony and you raised that as a key
concern and so have others in your petition. So, perhaps, we can
find someone. . .the City that' s examined this in detail to see if
there is a response to the drainage problem. So, we 've a couple of
issues kind of standing out here - one is the wetlands
categorization and another how any drainage might be handled from
this site along with any increase from other sites that have been
recently developed in the area. Mr. Satterstrom.
Satterstrom: I 'm not going to tackle those two issues but I 'm
going to indicate that there are people here who can, from the City
staff, who can address those issues. Wetlands used to be the
17
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
purview of the Planning Department. Normally we would be
responding on the wetland issues; however, within the last two or
three months, wetlands have been transferred to the Water Quality
Section of the Engineering Department and Mr. Bill Wolinski is here
and can address those issues. Also, on the drainage issues, I
believe, Gary. . .would that you and. . .Gary Gill and Bill Wolinski
from the Engineering Department may be able to tackle those issues
too.
Bill Wolinski: My name is Bill Wolinski. I 'm with the Department
of Public Works. I 'm in charge of the Environmental Engineering
Division and we have both surface water management and wetlands
management under- our division. Basically, on the wetland issue, I
personally didn't review the wetlands report and we will adjust the
required buffer widths based on a re-review of the submittals and
my consultation with my staff member who did the review and
recommendations, so. . .
Hunter: Did you find anything in the report at all with your
review just here now. . .
Wolinski: I found in the report, you know, basically a
substantiation of the claim of the applicant that there may be an
error but I would be uncomfortable, you know, making a categorical
change without discussing it with my staff. So, if there is an
error, we will adjust the buffer width accordingly. This can be
handled, you know, by us as part of the development process.
Hunter: Well, I sure would like to get clarity on it in this
context because if we're looking at a staff report with
recommendations as to buffers on wetlands and applicant has raised
a concern about it. I would like to bring it in and allow everyone
to see it. . .
Wolinski: Right. Basically the wetland report indicates one
wetland would require 50 foot buffer and the other wetland would
require a 25 foot buffer. Subsequent to the submittal of the
report, one of my staff member who is very familiar with wetlands
biology and delineation, reviewed the report and made a
determination that both of the wetlands are category 2 and would
require 50 foot buffers. So, until I find out otherwise, I ' ll
stand by that decision.
Hunter: Mr. Wolfson, maybe you want to join us at the mike there
because you've raised this as a concern but is it one that limits
a buildable lots or is it more a matter of how much you're going to
have to do at 25 foot versus 50 foot.
18
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Wolfson: Its both of those actually.
Hunter: Will it have an impact on buildable lot, you think.
Wolfson: It probably would. There would probably be one buildable
lot that would have be used as biofiltration and the preliminary
plat which you can see up here, we have a 25 foot buffer and a 25
foot biofiltration area and should it turn into a 50 foot buffer
well then the biolfiltration area is no longer there anymore.
Hunter: Oh, what a minute. . .you say .now its now indicated on the
submittal of 25 .
Wolfson: Yeah, the preliminary plat right now it. . .
Hunter: Can you point out where that is exactly.
Wolfson: In the far right hand corner, up north. . .the north
section. . .the north.
Hunter: So, we have a conflict with the written proposed
conditions.
Wolfson: Well, the conditions came later.
Hunter: And what shows on the preliminary plat submittal.
Wolfson• Sure.
Hunter: Twenty-five foot buffer. . . 25 foot bioswale.
Wolfson: Exactly.
Hunter• I see.
Wolfson: Yeah, if we need to change it on the final plat we will.
You know, this was just. . . just what. . .
Hunter: This bioswale. . . I 'm sorry, I would like to ask
Mr. Wolinski. Bioswale qualifies as buffer, is that a reason for
the confusion.
Wolinski: It may be a permissible use of the buffer but the final
determination is up to us whether or not we would want to allow
bioswale in the buffer.
19
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: Um hum. I 'm just trying to understand the conflict
between the preliminary plat submittal .
Wolinski: I think there' s enough latitude in the development
review process. . .
Hunter: Yeah. Its. . .
Wolinski: To correct this problem if there' s an error we can
adjust the buffer requirements and I had a conversation with
Mr. Wolfson prior to this hearing that I would review the document
with -my staff and make the appropriate adjustments if necessary.
Hunter: O.k. , I guess I 'm satisfied with at least the clarity that
its a 50 foot bioswale and buffer. You know, we 're not talking
about 50 foot buffer plus an additional 25 foot bioswale. I don't
think that' s what contemplated with condition number 8 or am I
wrong about that. Is condition 8 recommending that there be a 50
foot buffer and then you'd have a 25 foot bioswale?
Wolinski: The bioswale is a separate requirement, part stormwater
treatment. . .
Hunter: I understand that. And, I think that' s the concern that's
being raised whether we're counting the bioswale as part of the
buffer or not. And. . .I. . . I 'd just like to get it cleared up so it
doesn't hold it up at any other level .
Gary Gill: I think its going to be difficult to define the exact
conditions with respect to the bioswale, you know, as part of the
plat conditions because we're going to get into that when we get
detailed engineering drawings on the stormwater system for the plat
and so, we're not in any way saying, you know, in our conditions
here that we 're agreeing that that bioswale can be located down in
that area next to the stream. It may work out, it may not but
we're going to have to look at engineering plans. So, I think, as
far as condition number 8 is concerned maybe the wording of that
could be changed so that it would be something on the order of, you
know, the undisturbed buffer area shall be provided in accordance
with the City of Kent wetland ordinance to protect on-site wetlands
and that the buffer width will be established based on City staff
review of the wetland report and our field, you know, evaluation of
that report.
Hunter: Right. That seems like a solution. O.k. , I ' ll go that
way and the reason why I want to pay attention to this is that you
20
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
got more and more enforcement of wetlands ordinances and criteria
and if we don't do it know, somebody could get real stuck later.
Gill: Right.
Hunter: That seems like a good suggestion.
Gill: And if it turns out to be a Class III, we can reduce the
buffer width and if ends up with our interpretation that its Class
II, then we ' ll require the 50 foot.
Hunter: We' ll do that and the applicant agrees with that and that
gets me over that hurdle. Thank you.
Wolinski: I would like to address the flooding issues next and
then ask Gary if he wants to add anything to my explanation. I 'm
very familiar with the watershed that this proposed development is
located in. I 'm in charge of the Surface Water Management Program
for the City of Kent and I 'm well aware of both existing problems
and also the activities that the City has undertaken to correct the
problem. We do have flooding currently in that area. Right now,
I 'm overseeing the design of very substantive improvements in the
conveyance system and that whole area of the watershed in which we
will increase the capacity of conveyance system to eliminate
flooding of the properties and that design is underway right now
and we're planning on doing some construction this. . .prior to the
rainy season to rectify the problems. We also are constructing a
large regional stormwater system downstream of the site to make
sure that we 're not moving the problems further downstream. So, we
do have a comprehensive approach to the problems. As far as
impacts of new development on flooding problems, we recently
revamped all our construction standards which include our criteria
for control of stormwater from new development and we impose fairly
strict requirements on stormwater detention from new development
and I feel that we have adequately adopted acceptable criteria that
would prevent worsening of conditions, you know, within the area by
the adoption of these standards.
Gill: I ' ll just make a couple of other statements. What Bill said
was correct. Our. . . if we can't get anything under construction
this fall then we would definitely will have a project under
construction next spring and summer that will totally upgrade the
conveyance storm system that goes through the shopping centers that
were mentioned by one of the previous testifiers as well as
downstream open channel sections all the way down to the Upper
Garrison Creek planned regional detention facility which Bill just
mentioned. Along with this channel, that the. . .that abuts the
21
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
north property line of the proposed plat so we' ll be enlarging that
as well in trying to prevent some of the flooding that occurred in
this area back in 1990. We're hopeful, still, that we might be
able to do some of these improvements this Fall but, if not, we
still have some negotiate some easements from private property
owners and if that process takes longer than expected then it will
be a 194 construction schedule. And the, I think Bill mentioned,
that the new design standards that are required now would roughly
require four times the on-site detention requirements that were
previously required under our old standards so it is a significant
change from what was being required under the old standards.
Hunter: And these have just recently been implemented.
Gill: They were approved by the City Council in May of this year.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Gill.
Gardner: I have one more thing to say.
Hunter: Mr. Gardner.
Gardner: So far it sounds like a two-gallon bucket that they're
going to design that will carry three gallons. I haven't seen any
dirt moved, any ditch dug, its all "what we're gonna do"
with. . . let' s hold back on the zoning until they dig their ditch or
get their bucket one or the other. So far, its all speculation and
we got. . .we got. . .well the story I get from the neighborhood it all
goes to that conduit that goes underneath Payless and the
intersection at 240th. If it won't hold the water, they won't hold
the water. All this buffer talk, we 're seeing that in the paper
everyday, the Mississippi 's got 40 miles of buffer but its flooded
but you don't see a flood in Hell ' s Canyon, they don't need it. So
they need a deeper ditch and, therefore, they should not pass this
zoning until they satisfy the water problem and can prove they can
satisfy it.
Hunter: Um hum. The way its recommended on this preliminary plat
is that these improvements be made prior to the issuance of any
development permit, that's what I have in front of me.
Gardner: Maybe better make it prior to the zoning. That's goes
upstream a little bit and that' s our problem, upstream.
Hunter: I understand your testimony. I ' ll take that into
consideration. Mr. Gill .
22
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Gill: Just for clarification, I would like to reiterate that this
project we have designed right now is also funded so its like a two
to three million dollar stormwater improvement project that we have
the plans for our storm utility. So, the financing is there and,
in addition to that, the stormwater system that is being planned
for this is being designed to convey a 100-year design storm. So,
we're not talking about minor storm drain systems, we 're talking
about big pipe and large channels.
Hunter: Thank you. O.k. , anyone else that wants to testify? Yes,
sir.
Doug Walker: Yes, if I may. My name is Doug Walker. I live at
10727 SE 244th.
Hunter: Did you submit a letter as well .
Walker: Yes, I did.
Hunter• O.k.
Walker: In regards to the last gentleman's comment about the
proposed construction to eliminate the water problem. If he could
respond to it, in the case if that corridor goes to 7 . 2 , will
there. . .there improvements handle expected growth in that area.
Hunter: Did you take that type of increase density into account in
designing the system?
Walker: Right.
Hunter: Its a reasonable question. Let ' s see if we get a
reasonable response. Mr. Wolinski .
Wolinski: Maybe not believable. Our development standards were
based on a fairly rigorous analysis of that specific watershed and
what we did is looked at what type of detention would be required
under different changes in landcover and whether the zoning is
R1-12 or R1-7. 5, its based on the amount of actual impervious
surface and the slope and characteristics of the site. So, I feel
that our construction standards would be able to impose detention
requirements on a new development that would prevent this situation
from worsening.
Hunter: o.k. , so. . . its not so much the lot size and it is your
impervious surface and grade requirements of the lot. O.k. Does
that help your response.
23
Verbatim Minutes of August 4, 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Voice: Well, I don't know if it truly answers the question. I was
looking at more potential problems as, you know, if this rezone
goes through to 7 . 2 , then, o.k. , the possibility of increasing down
the 244th corridor comes to play. I mean, we could, potentially
we've got 21 homes in there. We could. . .because of the size of the
lots in there we could be looking at maybe 100 - 150 homes in
there. You know, if we look out over the years. My question is
the proposed construction to take away the water would. . .does that
take into account the potential coverage of the land of future
homes.
Gill: I ' ll try to respond to that.
Hunter: Mr. Gill.
Gill: He ' s right. By putting in more lots, you're going to
increase the amount of stormwater run-off because you're going to
get more impervious surface there. The design of the on-site
detention system for the plat is supposed to take care of that
additional stormwater runoff volume. So, what they're going to do
is they' ll put in a larger pond or surface storage system, they ' ll
restrict the runoff rate to two-year storm. Its a staged orifice
system that allows it to discharge based on the designed storm that
happens to be hitting the site and then the overall conveyance
system that we're planning to pick up all this once it leaves the
site would be designed for 100 year event. So, we're. . .we're
planning on being able to handle that system up to a 100 year storm
event. The additional lots in density that let ' s. . .we've taken
that into consideration in our overall planning of the basin
facilities. We also have a large regional pond on. . .how many acres
is that. . . about 25 acres down at the northend of 98th Avenue, north
of 240th Street which will also provide regional detention before
it discharges down into Garrison Creek. So those factors have been
taken into consideration, that, yes, the increased density would
have to be accommodated in the on-site and off-site storm systems.
I not making a statement of support one way or the other but that
has to be taken into consideration.
Hunter: Right, its part of the planning consideration.
Gill: Right.
Hunter: And would be taken into account the specific preliminary
plat proposal.
Gill• Correct.
24
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. Thank. I think I 've heard a lot on this one. I
think I 'm ready to make a recommendation. We' ll do so in writing.
I understand the concerns of the community, particularly with the
drainage concerns that were raised in most detail as well as
increased density and traffic and other related concerns to
increased density that would occur if the preliminary plat were
approved. So, I ' ll take those into account and then issue a
recommendation within two weeks, ten working days of today' s date.
Thank you all for your patience on a warm afternoon to wait to
testify and we 're now adjourned.
25
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEAL
(SU-93-3)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Jeffery J. Wolfson has filed an appeal
of the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of an
application for a 21-lot single family preliminary subdivision.
This preliminary plat request is in conjunction with rezone
request RZ-93-2 . The property is located at 10922 and 11004 SE
244th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Jeffery Wolfson' s appeal letter dated August 23 ,
1993 , and verbatim minutes of August 4 , 1993 (see the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation and additional information under
other Business Section 4B, Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat)
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT:
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ;'VA/ moves, Councilmember seconds
to a-p}teALe-�deny the appeal by Jeffery J. Wolfson of the
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat ( CfCccj -
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: f i
Council Agenda
Item No. 2C
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Procedure on Appeal of Hearing Examiner' s
Recommendation Pursuant to City Resolution No. 896
FROM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH
I. Staff Report.
II. Appellant presents 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 . Proceedings were materially affected by
irregularities in procedure.
3 . Recommendation unsupported by material and
substantial evidence.
4 . Recommendation is in conflict with the City' s
comprehensive plan.
5 . Insufficient evidence presented as to the
impact on the surrounding area.
VI. Council 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 deny the proposal as
originally submitted based upon Council
findings.
4 . Remand for a further hearing before the
hearing examiner.
B. The Council must make findings with its decision by
either adopting or modifying the findings of the
hearing examiner or by making its own findings.
hearexam.doc
Applewoude Estates #RZ-93-2 s` ,- 9 3- 3 August 23, 1993
APPEAL OF DECISION
Recommendation issued: August 13, 1993 Received by applicant: August 23,1993
Being the applicant Jeffery Wolfson I hereby appeal to the City Council of the City Of
Kent to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and grant the rezone and subdivision
request or remand the application back to the Hearing Examiner (H.E.) for
reconsideration.
Upon review of the decision reached by the H.E. specifically in the "Conclusions", I
believe the H.E. to have erred both in commission and omission and ask that the City
Council hear our appeal as relates to the following matters.
Conclusion One:
The proposed site is consistent with two comprehensive plans. Had not the proposed
rezone been consistent we would not have applied for the rezone. As a 90's developer we
are aware that comprehensive plans are there to be read and followed. However, in spite
of this consistency we were denied because of stated Housing Policies. I am not sure that
it is possible to both "...conserve existing single family neighborhoods..." and "...provide
for increased single family densities...". We view this proposed rezone area to be a buffer
between the highly dense multi-family construction to the north of our site and the less
intensive use to the south. While it is true that some residents testified that approval of
the rezone would make the neighborhood less desirable to them, I would offer that
existing area residents always say that. There were existing area residents at the hearing
who were ready to testify that the zone change was desirable. In -view of the very
favorable staff report and solid staff support of the rezone request we felt it was not
necessary to spend a lot of time in repetitive testimony, as instructed by the H.E. due to
the length of the meeting.
The H.E. continually cites storm water concerns for denying the application in spite of
the facts presented by city staff as to substantial improvements to this specific area's storm
water management system that are planned, engineered, and funded. At present there are
storm water management problems associated with the site. Approving this application
will put our engineers to work to correct these problems.
Conclusion Two:
Rather than counting noses to see who has what sized lot in the immediately
surrounding area, a development should be judged on its' own merit. At present there is
high density multi-family uses backed up against low density, almost agricultural uses and
there is a serious storm water problem between them. That, it can be argued, is a good
reason for placing a transition land use between incompatible uses. Typically, commercial
uses are surrounded by multi-family which then.grades to high density single family, low
density single family, and agricultural. All utilities are present and improvements that will
be required of future development of the site will upgrade and improve the entire
neighborhood.
Conclusion Three:
While agreeing on the one hand that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the
transportation system, the H.E. goes on to suggest that it would in the subtext 1. All
mitigation measures required of this project will be constructed concurrently with the
development.
Conclusion Four:
The H.E., in his discussion of the Growth Management Act referred to by staff, ignores
the major elements offered by staff. These are to encourage development in urban areas,
reduce sprawling low density developments, provide affordable housing, and build where
there are existing services. The proposed project is consistent with all these goals. The
bottom line is, let's put developments where development has already occurred and
services are present. Let's not tie up urban land in large wasteful parcels available only to
the relatively well-to-do.
Conclusion Five:
Under 5.2 the H.E. argues that the rezone will reduce the quality of life for the existing
residents. Quality of life is a difficult issue to define While some would say that their
quality of life requires 100 acres and no neighbors, others will say that an 5,000 foot lot
close in with all utilities and affordable would be dandy. It cannot be argued that approval
of this application will not bring some change to the neighborhood but it can be argued
that a lot of that change will be beneficial, such as correcting the storm water problem,
upgrading the street, extending the sanitary sewer line, and future utility improvements.
We do not believe this is an "urban fringe" area as asserted by the H.E.. This properly is
definitely urban by any definition.
SU EVIATION
We believe the site is well suited to the proposals denied by the H.E.. We believe the
H.E.'s decisions were prompted by and wholly dependent on his sympathies to the
neighbors who oppose the proposals. Sometimes an extended view is required. The
unwanted new neighbors being held at arm's length by existing residents today could
become best friends in the future. It is not necessarily an issue of traffic, reduced quality
of life or incompatibility that frequently worries existing residents. The real issue is
change. This area, initially platted in 1905, has been through a great deal of change in the
intervening years. What we are proposing is simply a continuation of that process.
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.
APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #RZ-93-2 AND #SU 93 3
August 4 , 1993
A public hearing to consider the request by Tacoma Associates,
11501 84th Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98178, for a rezone and
preliminary plat of 6. 5 acres. The property is zoned R1-12, Single
Family Residential. The rezone request is to change the zoning to
R1-7 . 21 Single Family Residential, minimum lot size of 71200 square
feet. The preliminary plat is to plat the property into 21 single
family residential lots. The property is located at 10922 and
11004 SE 244th Street.
Ted Hunter: Turning next to the Applewoude Estates. There are two
applications with reference to this parcel. The first is for a
rezone and the second for preliminary plat approval. And, what we
will do is segregate these hearings and hear first the application
for a rezone to rezone approximately 6 and a half acres of property
from Single Family Residential 12 , 000 square feet minimum lot size
to Single Family Residential 7 , 200 square foot minimum lot size and
for those of you that are -here that would like to testify on the
Applewoude Estates applications, the way that we will proceed is to
take first the staff report and recommendations on the rezone. We
have specific criteria that the staff will speak to and that I need
to consider on the rezone. If you want to speak to the rezone,
please do so. If your concern is the preliminary plat, we will
have a separate hearing on the preliminary plat once we take
evidence on the rezone and if your concerns are to the impacts of
the development, we will take that testimony in the preliminary
plat application. Typically, rezone concerns relate to change of
circumstances, the need for rezoning property, whether its
1
verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
appropriate to grant the rezone; whereas the preliminary plat
typically testimony is related to impacts of a specific
development. So you will have an opportunity to testify, just
trying to shape it, so that you know you have a hearing on the
rezone and then a separate hearing on the preliminary plat request
to construct 21 or divide the property into 21 residential lots.
So first the rezone.
The rezone application has been reviewed by me as well as the staff
report. We have received some letters on the rezone from Mr.
Don Jensen, who indicates that it would not be appropriate to grant
the rezone, additional density; from Mr. and Mrs. Bangart, who
object to the rezoning of the area that, again, this would lead to
increased density and they ask that the decision be delayed until
all the homeowners in the area can be notified; and from Janet and
Michael Houston who ask that the rezone be denied based on traffic
impacts, incompatibility with existing lot sizes in the area and a
concern about the sewer service; and, finally from a Douglas Walker
who sets forth several reasons in. . .that. . .part of his request that
it be denied as well and its similar. . .sewer problems, not
compatible with existing lot sizes, no sidewalks, and contribute to
overcrowded school population. The environmental review has also
been reviewed by me and the conditions that were placed on the
issuance of the MDNS. Staff report, we have Mr. Matthews Jackson
here. Matthews Jackson will give the staff report on the rezone
and the recommendation of staff.
Matthews Jackson: I 'm Matthews Jackson from the Planning
Department here in Kent. We have a request here for a rezone of
approximately 6. 5 acres. The property is located at 10922 and
11004 SE 244th Street. The property is currently zoned R1-121
which allows for 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size and the
proposal is for R1-7 . 2 , which is single family with a 7 , 200 square
foot minimum lot size. Currently, the. . . I ' ll just point out the
site right now. Get the right graphic up. . .the zoning of the site,
like I said before, is R1-12 which is indicated on the graphic,
adjacent zonings. . .MRM, which is medium density multifamily to the
north, and all land uses surrounding the property to the south, the
west and east are also R1-12 . Adjacent land uses are the Highland
Creste and Royal Firs apartment complexes to the north and single
family residences surrounding it to the east, west and south.
Currently there are two single family residences and four
associated accessory buildings on the subject property. This site
was annexed to the City in 1987 as part of the East Hill Well
Annexation No. 2 and at that time public hearings were held to
establish zoning in the area. As part of this review there, as
already mentioned by Mr. Hunter, there is an environmental review
2
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
and a final mitigated DNS was issued for this project on May 7 of
1993 , and the conditions of that report. . .conditions of that
approval will be addressed to the develop. . . .any future development
on the site. The City-wide Comprehensive Plan land use map
designates the area as MF which is Multifamily. The East Hill
Subarea Plan also designates the property MF-12 which allows for a
density of 7 to 12 units per acre. However, the amendment to the
Housing Element of the Comp Plan subsequent to those zonings. . .or
subsequent to those designations established a single-family
designated area overlay and that overlay says that there will be no
more multifamily development allowed in those areas and also it
will protecting, .enhancing and promoting single family development
in the single family overlay area and this project is in the single
family overlay area. There are specific standards and criteria for
request. . .for granting a rezone.
Number one, the proposed rezone must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. And, as I stated the Comprehensive Plan and
the East Hill subarea plans both designate the area as multifamily
but the single family overlay does overrule that zoning and this
proposal would be in compliance with that single family overlay
designation.
The second criteria is the proposed rezone and subsequent
development of the site would be compatible with the development in
the vicinity. Currently, there is a diverse mix of development in
the vicinity. In the larger vicinity there are commercial uses,
multifamily developments and a range of single family lots from
small lots under 9, 600 square feet to other multi-acre lots. This
development would promote a lower density. . . . a higher density
of. . .than the 12 , 000 square foot lot size but the average size of
the lots proposed is a little bit more. . .this is part of the
subsequent hearing but I thought it might be pertinent to this. . . it
is a little more than 10 , 000 square feet per lot.
The third criteria is that the proposed rezone will not unduly
burden the transportation system in the vicinity of the property
with significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. And, as part
of the ENV-93-16, the MDNS of the. . . for this project. . .there are
several conditions which are placed on this property and these
transportation concerns have been addressed in this environmental
review.
The fourth criteria is that circumstances have changed
substantially since the establishment of the current zoning
district to warrant the proposed rezone. And, there have been
several substantial changes in this area. The Growth Management
3
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Act of 1990, its a State Mandate which requires the City to plan
for the future growth in the area and provide a variety of housing
types where urban services can be directly and efficiently
provided. The City has made several capital facility investments
in this area, they have recently built a new elementary
school. . . .the Kent School District has recently built a school in
the area, there is a new park being built right now and the City
has recently put a new police substation and fire station within
the immediate vicinity.
And the last criteria or standard for a rezone is that the proposed
rezone will not adversely affect health, safety and general welfare
of the City of Kent and basically this project does meet the. . . is
consistent with the requirements of the Comp Plan and the East Hill
subarea plan and it also. . . . subsequent action on the site will
require. . .will be required to meet the applicable codes,
regulations and processes of the City.
And, reviewing those merits of this proposal, the staff has
recommended approval.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Jackson. A clear and concise report. Is
there a representative of the applicant here that would want to
speak to the rezone application. Yes, sir. Please come forward.
Jeff Wolfson: Mr. Examiner, my name is Jeff Wolfson. I reside at
111501 84th Avenue S. , and I am the applicant for this rezone of
Applewoude Estates. I listened to the staff report. I 've read it
and I concur with the findings. I would hope that when you read
it, you also concur and approve it. And, if you have any
questions, I will be here throughout the evening to answer them.
Thank you.
Hunter: Thank you, sir. I have read the staff report and listened
to the testimony as well. Its my job now to listen to any other
testimony and then I ' ll consider it with other testimony presented
here today. I have two individuals that have signed up to testify
on this rezone application. The first is Mr. Ed Heineman and
second is Mr. John Gardner. Both those individuals here.
Mr. Heineman? Sure, come on forward and Mr. Gardner. Are there
others that would expect to testify on this rezone application. We
will have the preliminary plat application as well. O.k. ,
Mr. Heineman and Mr. Gardner, I would like to hear from you. O.k. ,
I 'm being handed by Mr. Heineman a letter prepared by you as well.
Ed Heineman: Yes, I have a written statement there and I would
like to speak a bit on the subject.
4
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. , let me get this marked as an exhibit then.
Heineman: Yes, please and to summarize briefly what my statement
says. My address. . .did I say that. . . my address is noted on the
sign up sheet.
Hunter: Yes, thank you, since you signed in, we have that as a
matter of record.
Heineman: Well, I was aware that the Planning Department had a
wish to increase the occupation density of the core area. Partly
to provide a nucleus for mass transit terminal and partly to
increase downtown business posterity and so on. I was not aware
that the Planning Department favors, as seems here, a local
increase in density wherever a parcel of undeveloped or partly
developed land might exist and that 's my biggest concern about this
thing. Well, first, might I say, I have a supporting map with my
statement, the vicinity map with the staff report is misleading.
It shows, or seems to show a large empty area along the length of
SE 244th Street with no side roads. My maps shows all of the
property parcels of which there are quite a few and the 72 single
family homes from 104th to 116th Avenue SE indicating that there
are a number of private roads as well as public streets. . . 109th
Place SE. This is definitely not an empty area. If this rezone is
approved then any rezone within a R1-12 area has. . .the owner has
the equal right, I 'm sure, to also petition for rezone to 7, 200
square feet and there is, in fact, an area about. . .beginning about
300 feet to the west of the proposed development that would be ripe
for that sort of thing and, I think, they would probably have
everything else available including, I believe, a sewer stub at the
deadend of 108th Avenue SE. But, this is just one of many and this
is not only on this street but as the. . .as Mr. Jackson said
its. . .the area is surrounded on three sides by R1-12 properties and
there is a same kind of a mix pretty well over the entire area.
So, I can see a possibility of perhaps 30, 50 applications for
rezone to 7 , 200 square feet and then this would result in islands
of high density in the middle of islands of. . .or areas of lower
density and one of the. . . .Mr. Jackson said that the proposal is
deemed not to affect health, safety and general welfare. Well, I
believe it would have a very significant affect on the general
welfare of this particular area. I would think it would have a
devastating affect on it and I 'm not speaking in that regard to the
proposed subdivision, I 'm speaking of the precedent for
establishing this island of down zoning. . .well, minimum size
reduction in the midst of an area that. . .rather substantial area
that is now 12 , 000 square foot minimum. And, I think a very
unhealthy and unwise precedent would be set, this kind of spot
5
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
rezone is allowed in an established community. We, who live in
these communities, will have to cope with the effects of islands of
high density population. While those who promote them take the
money and run. That, I believe, is all I have to say on the
subject.
Hunter: O.k. , I am looking at your map and. . .and in the letter
your submitted you stated that if the proposed rezone is approved,
there are 30 or more other parcels of land, of various sizes,
adjacent to SE 244th, whose owners may have an equal right to a
rezone. Are these all R1-12 .
Heineman: Oh, yes. They are part of the general area and I
covered. . . I 'm not really familiar with what occurs on the west side
of 104th SE, what the zoning and the mix is there. But, from 104th
to 116th, on 244th, its all R1-12 and then I, believe, we have
R1-12 to the west. I know we have R1-12 to the south. I think
there was said something about to the east, but that' s not possible
because the City ends at 116th.
Hunter: O.k. So you counted them and there were 30. . . at least 30
areas.
Heineman: Well, what I figured on SE 244th, right adjacent to it.
Accessible from SE 244th and on SE 248th, I have no idea how many
might be there. I think there' s probably a similar situation, but,
there are differences in the mix.
Hunter: I am wondering, does that number look at areas that would
be capable of being subdivided.
Heineman: Yes, I think, if you have a. . . a. . . 15, 000 foot. . . square
foot lot, and you have a home on it in the right place, you should
be able to subdivide it. I know there are a lot of other criteria,
but I 'm speaking about properties from that size on up to several
acres in size and there' s also the possibility of combining some of
these smaller ones into one larger one. So, I can see the
possibility of being inundated with requests for down zoning to
7 , 200 square feet.
Hunter: And the concern is the cumulative impact.
Heineman: The cumulative impact, I think, would be very severe.
The. . .the drainage situation on the north side of the proposed
subdivision, I spoke briefly to that in my statement there. But,
as regards the overall effect, I think the increase in
drainage. . . stormwater drainage that would have to be coped with, is
6
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
is almost astronomical and I can see any. . . any facilities that
could adequately handle that to either be on-site which I don't put
much faith in or the general drainage conduits which are already
grossly inadequate.
Hunter: O.k. , great. I understand. Thank you for your testimony.
Heineman: Thank you.
Voice: Here ' s two petitions, identical, with approximately 40
signatures of residents in the area we're talking about, 244th and
the adjacent streets.
Hunter: O.k. , these are submitted by Mr. Gardner and we' ll mark
these. . .we ' ll put them together since they are the same petition
and mark them as Exhibit 3 and have them submitted then for the
record.
John Gardner: In acquiring these signatures, I got about half of
them and there wasn't one person that wanted to debate this issue.
They were all eager to sign and I 'm sure the other half were
likewise. The reason we want this denied. . . of the 21 homes they
want to add to approximately 72 houses that access on to 244th or
the adjacent little private roads. That' s 72 and then you're
adding about 30 percent homes which are adding 30 percent vehicles,
at 2 cars per house nowadays. We're talking about 40 more cars and
this street seems to get an oversupply of cars I would venture to
say 75 percent of the traffic doesn't live there. They are by-
passers to get around stop lights and stop signs and other
obstacles that Kent has developed. So we're talking about an awful
of traffic on a street that maybe has one policeman a day. I 've
yet to see a person get a speeding ticket on that street except one
time the State Patrolman caught a kid of a motorbike. Big deal!
But, there again, the traffic and the 21 houses on a small lot like
that is almost getting down to ghetto size, I would think, in the
way of elbow room where the maps they've showed up here, every
house was, at least, on 12 , 000 and people had elbow room. This
won't be. Acreage is not that short of supply yet and like the
preceding gentleman, we just don't need that in that area because
of the houses are spread out and everybody' s happy the way they
are, so to bring this in is just out of the question and those 40
people request you deny this.
Hunter: And specifically you're talking about, as the previous
gentleman did, the impact on the neighborhood, the general welfare,
you're saying would be negative on. . .
7
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Gardner: That' s. . .that ' s what its all about, that ' s why we live
there.
Hunter: And traffic is the primary concern. Are there other
impacts that you're concerned about.
Gardner: I 'm afraid that this might bring in what we have around
us now, where we're surrounded by apartments. We 're— it just
could bring in the same kind of clientele if you call it that, that
we read about in the paper. Whether' s its. . . .
Hunter: Um hum, so the density. . .
Gardner: . . .the shooting, or the dope or what else it could bring
in.
Hunter: O.k. , so you're happy with the current. . . currently its
working all right and you're. . .
Gardner: Almost.
Hunter• O.k.
Gardner: It' s never perfect and, like I said, the speeders from
the local tune-up shop seem to use that as their test track. I 'm
not happy with that at all. And, that and the people that by-pass
the stop signs and stop lights and I watched one picture he had up
here and I thought of 248th, which, I think, is why we get so much
traffic, its an arterial and its adjacent to the fire station and
with the apartments, it has an awful lot of school buses and one
day I watched them. . .two school buses unloading and a fire truck
come by and there were more red lights than tinsel town, I guess.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you for your testimony. I understand what
you're saying. Are there others that want to testify on the
rezone. This is making. . .the lots. . .the sizes of a permissible
single family home lot would be 7 , 200 rather than 12 , 000 . Yes,
sir, in the back.
Bob Houck: My name is Bob Houck and I live at 11030 SE 244th.
Hunter: Bob. . .what' s the last name?
Houck: Houck. H-O-U-C-K.
Hunter• O.k.
8
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Houck: And, you know, with you guys sitting here, maybe this
R-12 . . .R-7 . 2 doesn't make much difference to us after seeing a five
- six acre pasture there for years, you know, just to R-12 is going
to be a big shock and R-7 . 2 seems to me like they could do quite
well with R-12 there, be compatible with the neighborhood. All the
rest of the homes are R-12 or larger, so. This is going to look
kind of an oddball thing, out of place and I agree about the. . .the
fear of the higher crime. Getting a lot of kids that don't have
anything to do, they can't play in their yard because there isn't
that much of it. So, they' ll be out and around, and that could be
lead into possibly accidents for them, what have you, with the
traffic going through 244th which, as like you said, getting worse
all the time. So, that' s about my two bits worth for that. Thank
you.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Houck. Does the applicant or city want to
respond to any of the community testimony that was just presented.
Jackson: I have a couple. . .need to clarify.
Hunter: O.k. , it seems you both do, so Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: I just wanted to point out to everybody that there are
existing lots in this area which are less than the 12 , 000 square
foot minimum right now. The lots located south of the property,
right here, average around 10, 000 square feet and the lots located
approximately here are also less than 12 , 000 square feet. I did an
average density just to get an idea for myself of the lots right
here. We have sixteen lots on approximately 4 and a half acres, so
the density actually would be greater than the density proposed of
7 , 200 as the proposal stands with the subdivision. My other thing
I just wanted to clear up is that 7 , 200 square foot lot size is a
rather standard lot size. It does not represent high density
housing.
Hunter: O.k. , what. . .what about. . . if you leave that on for a
minute because I want to look at the zoning. It is currently. . . is
the bold line. . .
Jackson: The bold line is the zoning line.
Hunter: Its the zoning line. so you 've got multi to the north,
but it is all R1-12 .
Jackson: It is R1-12 almost. . .
Hunter: On three sides.
9
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Jackson: Right.
Hunter: O.k. And how far, I guess, south would that continue? Do
you know, roughly?
Jackson: I would assume right around 100 or 248th is where the
zoning would change.
Hunter: O.k. , and west to one hundred. . . .
Jackson: West of there, right along 104th there's a CC zone which
is community commercial, the other side of that its R1-7 . 2 .
Hunter: O.k. , so that. . . looking at the west side of 104th is. . . is
the type of development activity that might occur in R1-7 . 2 .
Jackson: And there, as stated in the staff report, I can't be
positive which one I put it in, there 's a Canterbury Place
development which is built on 7, 200 square foot lots. Its a recent
development and that' s just south of 104th.
Hunter: South. . .west. . .
Jackson: Its west of 104th and south of the subject property, I
think, its on 248th.
Hunter: O.k. , oh, I got you, o.k.
Jackson: Sure, and there ' s also, as Fred Satterstrom pointed out,
there' s a 7 , 200, an R1-7 , 200 square foot to the north there to.
Hunter: O.k. , so to get a sort of a view of what it might look
like if a zoning change were granted, one could. . .are they pretty
typical developments in the 7 . 2 areas, do you think?
Jackson: Um, I think so. I mean I understand the peoples concerns
in the neighborhood. I think they would see the same impacts if it
were. . . if people decided to subdivide their existing lots to
12 , 000. I mean they would see a type of development, they may
not. . .you know, that' s going to happen. It could happen at any
time. The rezone will not necessarily impact with the current
situation to the extent, I think, its perceived.
Hunter: O.k. , a little bit more on that average density. How do
you do an average density determination?
10
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Jackson: Well, in this situation, I . . . I must put the caveat on
here, that our records. . . our information that we use on our system
are approximations, they are not exact and cannot be taken as
exact. What I do is I take the existing lot sizes on that
development to the south which is, I believe, 108th Place SE, and
I just did an average lot size. . .total lot area over a number of
lots and came out with the average of little over 10, 000 square
feet per lot and when I did the same, subtracting for the streets
for the proposed development. . .now that doesn't necessarily mean
for a total buildout potential of 7 , 200 square feet. And, that' s
where I came out with the numbers.
Hunter: O.k. , I heard. . . so you did one to the south. . . and I can
see. . .
Jackson: Right. Did one to the south and compared it to the
proposal.
Hunter: Right around 10, 000 square feet.
Jackson: Right.
Hunter: And where was the other area that you looked at?
Jackson: Little over 10, 000 . And that was the subject property at
the proposed 21 lots.
Hunter: I see. Because just looking at the chart, it looks like
other areas around the subject property are, perhaps, less dense,
particularly to the west. Now to the east, there' s several
buildings indicated, houses as well .
Jackson: Right. And, there are. . .there are large lots in the
area. But there is always the potential at any time those people
could apply to subdivide the property to 12 , 000.
Hunter: Right. I wonder if you looked at this average density
approximation for the area either east or west, did you happen. . .
Jackson: No, I didn't do that.
Hunter: So, what we do have are. . .are several examples and, I
guess, one is directly to the south. Would you say that. . . is
that—how far did you go to do an average density approximation?
Jackson: I just took. . .that piece. . .
11
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: A piece of equivalent size.
Jackson: Right here, four and a half acres.
Hunter: O.k. that. . . .
Jackson: That' s why I just used that piece to get an idea.
Hunter: Got you. It was readily available to do. . .
Jackson: That' s right.
Hunter: . . .and give some idea of what density around 10, 000
square feet looks like.
Jackson• Right.
Hunter: O.k. , so we have that example. We have that to the north
and east and we have what ' s across 104th as examples of what
different densities might look at. O.k. Thank you. Yes sir,
Mr. Wolfson.
Wolfson: O.k. , let me address Mr. Heineman first. The only reason
really why we're here asking for the rezone is because we feel that
this property and the properties around it now, since they are
serviced with sewer do not need to be as large. Its . . .the owner,
if the owner wants to have larger properties that up to him. If
the owner does not, there are things changing and the change
around, we are asking for a change too. I do note that there are
apartments and other items just north of the subject property that
have much more density than what our project would bring to the
area, so there are already signs that change has occurred and
change will occur. As far as drainage problems are concerned,
those will be handled by conditions of approval later. You know,
there will be no buildings, no homes placed in that area until all
those issues have been resolved. And, also that' s as well as the
traffic. Traffic studies do show that there need to be some
improvements and those we will be in on those improvements,
definitely. As far as Mr. Gardner is concerned, he was talking
about 21 new homes. Well, we are working on 19 new lots that we
will be creating if the rezone is approved. There are already two
existing homes there, so that was a little bit in error, but its no
big deal and his major problem was the traffic which is a problem
for everyone and as conditions of approval, we' ll have to work out
something to help alleviate those problems. As far as Bob Houck is
concerned 7 , 200 square foot lots seem small to him because he is
used to living on larger lots and that ' s fine. However, with the
12
Verbatim Minutes of August 4, 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
7, 200 square foot lot, I 've lived on one all my life and I 've
played and I was one of five children and we played on a smaller
than 7, 200 square foot lot at times and most was done indoors. I
don't know if that' s anything to worry much about. The new parks
that are being built in the area, maybe the kids could play there.
There are access to other areas for children. And, I think that
about concludes the questions.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Wolfson. I think I 've heard on the rezone
the varying opinions, the different sides of the recommendation for
and the concerns about granting the rezone. I 'm going to take
that. . .that testimony into consideration and I ' ll need to make a
recommendation on it to your City Council. I appreciate your
patience and you're coming forward with the concerns. I think they
do need to be considered and I will try to fashion a recommendation
that. . .based on the testimony today that tries to comply with your
codes as your City Council adopted. So, I think, we ' ll conclude
the rezone hearing at this time and move immediately into the
preliminary plat request that will only become a matter of moving
forward on if there ' s a recommendation that the rezone be approved.
But, I do want to hear that today, they are linked but they also
may be treated separately dependant upon the outcome of the
recommendations I make. So, we ' ll move to the preliminary plat and
since some of the information is very similar, I would like to ask
Mr. Jackson just be very brief in the staff remarks. I 'm also
assuming that those here this afternoon have had an opportunity to
look at the staff report, so what I would like to do since the hour
is getting late, is move as quickly as possible to the community
testimony because that's the stuff that I have not had an
opportunity to hear. Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: I 'm Matt Jackson and I will just state that the
subdivision no. 93-3 request is for subdividing. . . approximately 6 . 5
acres into 21 residential lots. As we know, its being heard in
conjunction with the rezone request 93-2 . I ' ll just restate one
more time that it is located at 11922 and 11004 SE 244th Street.
It is currently zoned R1-12 , but it is being heard to be rezoned to
R1-7 . 2 and it has been reviewed with the prior consideration that
that rezone request had been approved as far as lot configuration,
etc. goes. I want to point out that right now the property will be
served by City sewer and water and those connections to those
systems will be applied during the development and recording
process. There has been some issues about traffic. Traffic was
looked at as part of the mitigation for the project and the
Transportation Section of our City came up with some numbers on
potential impacts and I would like to just state those before I go
to the conditions. If I can find them. Basically. . . can 't find it
13
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
right now. . .the estimate was for 181 daily trips, I think,
generated by the project and I just wanted people to know that the
City has looked at those impacts and I know those are the big. . .the
main interest of the citizens is the traffic impacts. There are
many conditions tried to the approval of this subdivision. They
are on pages 12 through 15 of the staff report. I won't read
those. I will let you take a look at them in your time and I will
take any questions if the Hearing Examiner has any.
Hunter: Thank you. We' ll wait and see what issues are raised
during community testimony. I want to note that in the review of
the file, I have received letters from Janet and Michael Houston
that reiterated same concerns that they stated about the rezone and
Mr. Doug Walker, again, the same concerns. Also, a letter from
Noel Rogerson on both the rezone and the preliminary plat and we
will place this in the rezone file. I don 't have anyone
specifically signed up to testify on this application but I believe
there are some here. Are there some that would like to testify
about this application. The applicant, Mr. Wolfson, we ' ll take you
first.
Jeffery Wolfson: O.k. , just for the record my name is Jeff
Wolfson. Would it be possible to get a copy of the letters that
you've gotten from people in the neighborhood.
Hunter: Certainly, yes.
Wolfson: O.k. , thank you. Also, as far as the staff report is
concerned I had a couple of questions. One was concerning
condition 8 and that I am not sure whether we're ready to discuss
that. But, its an issue on the wetlands, the wetland delineation
report and my reading of the wetland delineation report was
something a little bit different than what the City of Kent
proposes in the conditions. I 'm willing to accept the conditions
if it was an oversight of the wetland biologist but I 'm not sure if
it was an oversight on his part or if staff missed something. So,
that' s just one note.
Hunter: Well, let's go into that a little bit more. I have it in
front of me. The recommended condition states: as both wetlands
are considered category 2 wetlands as referenced by Kent' s
management code that' s, do you agree with that?
Wolfson: I don't know if I should because in my recollection of
reading the delineation report, it stated there were. . .they were on
different levels, one was, I think, level 2 or class 2 and the
other was a class 3 , having different buffering properties. One
14
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
was a 50 foot and the other was of a 25 foot nature. So, in that
respect I don't know.
Hunter: Well, we better get that cleared up. Now is the time. . .
Wolfson: Yeah, that's. . .
Hunter: . . .to inquire into that. So. . . is there some source of
material that you might have that would show something different
than what' s recommended here?
Wolfson: In your. . . in your paperwork there should be a biologist
delineation report and I don 't have the reference of the page but
it. . .
Hunter: O.k.
Wolfson: . . . . should say in the conclusions section. . .conclude that
they are of two different classifications and different buffering.
Hunter: Well, we' ll give you an opportunity to look at that,
either with Planning Department's file, is that. . .do you know,
Mr. Jackson, is that. . .
Jackson: Its in the environmental review, the ENV file.
Hunter: O.k. , is the environmental review file anywhere in this
room?
Satterstrom: I 'm looking at Bill Wolinski down there. . .Bill, do
you have a copy of the report, is that what you 're looking at?
Hunter: O.k. , I guess we do have. . . so we can determine that today,
what the appropriate classification is? Are there any other. . .
Wolfson: Other than that. . .
Hunter: . . .concerns or issues?
Wolfson: . . .really there are no other issues because I pretty much
concur with the other conditions, understanding the nature that we
are adding more density to the area and need to look at the impacts
to traffic and to the wetland problem that exists now and basically
getting that settled. . .getting it so its better than it is today.
Helping to alleviate some of those problems. Thank you.
15
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. , thank you, Mr. Wolfson. O.k. , community comments,
concerns on the preliminary plat. This is the proposal to divide
into 21 lots the 6. 5 acres. Yes, sir.
Don Jensen: I 'm Don Jensen, 24210 110th Place SE and I was just
looking at this plot. And, the two lots. . .the existing houses on
it take up what will be approximately four to five lots in the
other sizes and that ought to sew this . . .
Hunter: I 'm sorry, I 'm not quite sure I 'm following you. You're
looking at something. . .
Jensen: I 'm looking at the plot of the. . . .the layout for the lots.
Hunter: O.k. , that ' s part of the staff report.
Jensen: And, if you look at lot 20 and 21, which existing houses
are on and assume would be retained by the owners, there. . .those
two lots take up approximately four to five of the proposed lots.
So when you're looking at 10, 000 square feet, as your engineer
stated, the lots would. . .held better recalculate.
Hunter: Oh, I see. . . so your point is the entire 6. 5 acres is
reduced because those larger lots. Yes, in fact, the square
footages are noted, aren't they, as they typically are on the
preliminary plat and you 're correct if you look immediately north
of those lots, they are in the 73 - 74 range - some are larger,
some are smaller. O.k. , point well taken. Any other
considerations or concerns about the preliminary plat application.
Mr. Gardner.
Gardner: I missed out on some of what you're saying here but to
the northeast of this are apartment complexes that Kent has
approved and more than once I have been down there when there ' s
rowboats in the parking lot and all this will. . .water will bleed
down to the upper left of that sketch and end up in the same
rowboat area since that and that storage area and when you start
putting 21 or this guy says 19 roofs in there you got 19 pieces of
water that got somewhere to go and that canal thing along there
they tell me is. . .won't hold it and if you go upstream far enough
we got this big school and a big parking lot and a big fire station
and a big parking lot and the firemen playing with their hoses and
it all goes down that creek eventually. So, they can talk all they
want about waterland. . .wetlands when we have this 100-year washout
we get every six years, that' s where it going to end up. There' s
no getting around it and to add this many houses on this fellow' s
16
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
pasture land that used to absorb that water and now its going to
run off, sewer-wise maybe they're all right, they can go across the
street, across the creek, sewer-wise but I haven't heard anything
about stormwater. And, its all going to go down to this apartment
complex that' s getting it or going get it.
Hunter: You've seen it. . .the water.
Gardner: I 've seen it. And it goes all the way down to Payless or
behind Payless you couldn't drive a car or a delivery truck behind
it a few years ago and there again, this is all stormwater which
all these roofs are going to produce.
Hunter: O.k. , that. . .that' s one reason why we're here. I think
these concerns need to be addressed.
Gardner: And to go back to my original, those 40 names are 40
households or almost that were thoroughly against this thing. So,
its. . . its 40 to 4 out here.
Hunter: Well, you know how the system works is. . .the reason I 'm
here is we're not going to take a vote on this one but we are going
to make sure that the criteria which includes the drainage problems
are managed, are looked at and, you know, if they can't be, it has
to be denied and if it can be, we need to hear how. So, you just
raised a concern about that drainage. . . stormwater drainage and, I
think, that needs to be addressed.
Gardner: The way they're working there, upstream from the problem.
They'd better . . .
Hunter• Yeah.
Gardner: . . .stop and satisfy the problem in. . .
Hunter: Yeah. We got your testimony and you raised that as a key
concern and so have others in your petition. So, perhaps, we can
find someone. . .the City that's examined this in detail to see if
there is a response to the drainage problem. So, we 've a couple of
issues kind of standing out here - one is the wetlands
categorization and another how any drainage might be handled from
this site along with any increase from other sites that have been
recently developed in the area. Mr. Satterstrom.
Satterstrom: I 'm not going to tackle those two issues but I 'm
going to indicate that there are people here who can, from the City
staff, who can address those issues. Wetlands used to be the
17
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
purview of the Planning Department. Normally we would be
responding on the wetland issues; however, within the last two or
three months, wetlands have been transferred to the Water Quality
Section of the Engineering Department and Mr. Bill Wolinski is here
and can address those issues. Also, on the drainage issues, I
believe, Gary. . .would that you and. . .Gary Gill and Bill Wolinski
from the Engineering Department may be able to tackle those issues
too.
Bill Wolinski: My name is Bill Wolinski . I 'm with the Department
of Public Works. I 'm in charge of the Environmental Engineering
Division and we have both surface water management and wetlands
management under our division. Basically, on the wetland issue, I
personally didn't review the wetlands report and we will adjust the
required buffer widths based on a re-review of the submittals and
my consultation with my staff member who did the review and
recommendations, so. . .
Hunter: Did you find anything in the report at all with your
review just here now. . .
Wolinski: I found in the report, you know, basically a
substantiation of the claim of the applicant that there may be an
error but I would be uncomfortable, you know, making a categorical
change without discussing it with my staff. So, if there is an
error, we will adjust the buffer width accordingly. This can be
handled, you know, by us as part of the development process.
Hunter: Well, I sure would like to get clarity on it in this
context because if we 're looking at a staff report with
recommendations as to buffers on wetlands and applicant has raised
a concern about it. I would like to bring it in and allow everyone
to see it. . .
Wolinski: Right. Basically the wetland report indicates one
wetland would require 50 foot buffer and the other wetland would
require a 25 foot buffer. Subsequent to the submittal of the
report, one of my staff member who is very familiar with wetlands
biology and delineation, reviewed the report and made a
determination that both of the wetlands are category 2 and would
require 50 foot buffers. So, until I find out otherwise, I ' ll
stand by that decision.
Hunter: Mr. Wolfson, maybe you want to join us at the mike there
because you've raised this as a concern but is it one that limits
a buildable lots or is it more a matter of how much you're going to
have to do at 25 foot versus 50 foot.
18
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Wolfson: Its both of those actually.
Hunter: Will it have an impact on buildable lot, you think.
Wolfson: It probably would. There would probably be one buildable
lot that would have be used as biofiltration and the preliminary
plat which you can see up here, we have a 25 foot buffer and a 25
foot it turn into a
well thenitheation area and biolf filtration should
is no longer there foot anymore.
buffer
anymore
Hunter: Oh, what a minute. . .You say now its now indicated on the
submittal of 25 .
Wolfson: Yeah, the preliminary plat right now it. . .
Hunter: Can you point out where that is exactly.
Wolfson: In the far right hand corner, up north. . .the north
section. . .the north.
Hunter: So, we have a conflict with the written proposed
conditions.
Wolfson: Well, the conditions came later.
Hunter: And what shows on the preliminary plat submittal.
Wolfson: Sure.
Hunter: Twenty-five foot buffer. . . 25 foot bioswale.
Wolfson: Exactly.
Hunter: I see.
Wolfson: Yeah, if we need to change it on the final plat we will.
You know, this was just. . . just what. . .
Hunter: This bioswale. . .I 'm sorry, I would like to ask
Mr. Wolinski. Bioswale qualifies as buffer, is that a reason for
the confusion.
Wolinski: It may be a permissible use of the buffer but the final
determination is up to us whether or not we would want to allow
bioswale in the buffer.
19
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: Um hum. I 'm just trying to understand the conflict
between the preliminary plat submittal.
Wolinski: I think there' s enough latitude in the development
review process. . .
Hunter: Yeah. Its. . .
Wolinski: To correct this problem if there' s an error we can
adjust the buffer requirements and I had a conversation with
Mr. Wolfson prior to this hearing that I would review the document
with my staff and make the appropriate adjustments if necessary.
Hunter: O.k. , I guess I 'm satisfied with at least the clarity that
its a 50 foot bioswale and buffer. You know, we're not talking
about 50 foot buffer plus an additional 25 foot bioswale. I don't
think that' s what contemplated with condition number 8 or am I
wrong about that. Is condition 8 recommending that there be a 50
foot buffer and then you'd have a 25 foot bioswale?
Wolinski: The bioswale is a separate requirement, part stormwater
treatment. . .
Hunter: I understand that. And, I think that' s the concern that' s
being raised whether we're counting the bioswale as part of the
buffer or not. And. . . I . . . I 'd just like to get it cleared up so it
doesn't hold it up at any other level.
Gary Gill: I think its going to be difficult to define the exact
conditions with respect to the bioswale, you know, as part of the
plat conditions because we' re going to get into that when we get
detailed engineering drawings on the stormwater system for the plat
and so, we're not in any way saying, you know, in our conditions
here that we 're agreeing that that bioswale can be located down in
that area next to the stream. It may work out, it may not but
we're going to have to look at engineering plans. So, I think, as
far as condition number 8 is concerned maybe the wording of that
could be changed so that it would be something on the order of, you
know, the undisturbed buffer area shall be provided in accordance
with the City of Kent wetland ordinance to protect on-site wetlands
and that the buffer width will be established based on City staff
review of the wetland report and our field, you know, evaluation of
that report.
Hunter: Right. That seems like a solution. O.k. , I ' ll go that
way and the reason why I want to pay attention to this is that you
20
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
got more and more enforcement of wetlands ordinances and criteria
and if we don't do it know, somebody could get real stuck later.
Gill: Right.
Hunter: That seems like a good suggestion.
Gill: And if it turns out to be a Class III, we can reduce the
buffer width and if ends up with our interpretation that its Class
II, then we ' ll require the 50 foot.
Hunter: We ' ll do that and the applicant agrees with that and that
gets me over that hurdle. Thank you.
Wolinski: I would like to address the flooding issues next and
then ask Gary if he wants to add anything to my explanation. I 'm
very familiar with the watershed that this proposed development is
located in. I 'm in charge of the Surface Water Management Program
for the City of Kent and I 'm well aware of both existing problems
and also the activities that the City has undertaken to correct the
problem. We do have flooding currently in that area. Right now,
I 'm overseeing the design of very substantive improvements in the
conveyance system and that whole area of the watershed in which we
will increase the capacity of conveyance system to eliminate
flooding of the properties and that design is underway right now
and we 're planning on doing some construction this. . .prior to the
rainy season to rectify the problems. We also are constructing a
large regional stormwater system downstream of the site to make
sure that we're not moving the problems further downstream. So, we
do have a comprehensive approach to the problems . As far as
impacts of new development on flooding problems, we recently
revamped all our construction standards which include our criteria
for control of stormwater from new development and we impose fairly
strict requirements on stormwater detention from new development
and I feel that we have adequately adopted acceptable criteria that
would prevent worsening of conditions, you know, within the area by
the adoption of these standards.
Gill: I ' ll just make a couple of other statements. What Bill said
was correct. Our. . . if we can't get anything under construction
this fall then we would definitely will have a project under
construction next spring and summer that will totally upgrade the
conveyance storm system that goes through the shopping centers that
were mentioned by one of the previous testifiers as well as
downstream open channel sections all the way down to the Upper
Garrison Creek planned regional detention facility which Bill just
mentioned. Along with this channel , that the. . .that abuts the
21
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
north property line of the proposed plat so we' ll be enlarging that
as well in trying to prevent some of the flooding that occurred in
this area back in 1990. We're hopeful, still, that we might be
able to do some of these improvements this Fall but, if not, we
still have some negotiate some easements from private property
owners and if that process takes longer than expected then it will
be a 194 construction schedule. And the, I think Bill mentioned,
that the new design standards that are required now would roughly
require four times the on-site detention requirements that were
previously required under our old standards so it is a significant
change from what was being required under the old standards.
Hunter: And these have just recently been implemented.
Gill: They were approved by the City Council in May of this year.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Wolinski and Mr. Gill.
Gardner: I have one more thing to say.
Hunter: Mr. Gardner.
Gardner: So far it sounds like a two-gallon bucket that they're
going to design that will carry three gallons. I haven't seen any
dirt moved, any ditch dug, its all "what we're gonna do"
with. . . let' s hold back on the zoning until they dig their ditch or
get their bucket one or the other. So far, its all speculation and
we got. . .we got. . .well the story I get from the neighborhood it all
goes to that conduit that goes underneath Payless and the
intersection at 240th. If it won't hold the water, they won't hold
the water. All this buffer talk, we're seeing that in the paper
everyday, the Mississippi ' s got 40 miles of buffer but its flooded
but you don't see a flood in Hell ' s Canyon, they don't need it. So
they need a deeper ditch and, therefore, they should not pass this
zoning until they satisfy the water problem and can prove they can
satisfy it.
Hunter: Um hum. The way its recommended on this preliminary plat
is that these improvements be made prior to the issuance of any
development permit, that ' s what I have in front of me.
Gardner: Maybe better make it prior to the zoning. That's goes
upstream a little bit and that ' s our problem, upstream.
Hunter: I understand your testimony. I ' ll take that into
consideration. Mr. Gill .
22
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Gill: Just for clarification, I would like to reiterate that this
project we have designed right now is also funded so its like a two
to three million dollar stormwater improvement project that we have
the plans for our storm utility. So, the financing is there and,
in addition to that, the stormwater system that is being planned
for this is being designed to convey a 100-year design storm. So,
we're not talking about minor storm drain systems, we're talking
about big pipe and large channels.
Hunter: Thank you. O.k. , anyone else that wants to testify? Yes,
sir.
Doug Walker: Yes, if I may. My name is Doug Walker. I live at
10727 SE 244th.
Hunter: Did you submit a letter as well .
Walker: Yes, I did.
Hunter• O.k.
Walker: In regards to the last gentleman' s comment about the
proposed construction to eliminate the water problem. If he could
respond to it, in the case if that corridor goes to 7 .2 , will
there. . .there improvements handle expected growth in that area.
Hunter: Did you take that type of increase density into account in
designing the system?
Walker: Right.
Hunter: Its a reasonable question. Let' s see if we get a
reasonable response. Mr. Wolinski .
Wolinski: Maybe not believable. Our development standards were
based on a fairly rigorous analysis of that specific watershed and
what we did is looked at what type of detention would be required
under different changes in landcover and whether the zoning is
R1-12 or R1-7 . 5, its based on the amount of actual impervious
surface and the slope and characteristics of the site. So, I feel
that our construction standards would be able to impose detention
requirements on a new development that would prevent this situation
from worsening.
Hunter: O.k. , so. . . its not so much the lot size and it is your
impervious surface and grade requirements of the lot. O.k. Does
that help your response.
23
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Voice: Well, I don't know if it truly answers the question. I was
looking at more potential problems as, you know, if this rezone
goes through to 7 . 2 , then, o.k. , the possibility of increasing down
the 244th corridor comes to play. I mean, we could, potentially
we've got 21 homes in there. We could. . .because of the size of the
lots in there we could be looking at maybe 100 - 150 homes in
there. You know, if we look out over the years. My question is
the proposed construction to take away the water would. . .does that
take into account the potential coverage of the land of future
homes.
Gill : I ' ll try to respond to that.
Hunter: Mr. Gill.
Gill: He ' s right. By putting in more lots, you're going to
increase the amount of stormwater run-off because you're going to
get more impervious surface there. The design of the on-site
detention system for the plat is supposed to take care of that
additional stormwater runoff volume. So, what they're going to do
is they' ll put in a larger pond or surface storage system, they' ll
restrict the runoff rate to two-year storm. Its a staged orifice
system that allows it to discharge based on the designed storm that
happens to be hitting the site and then the overall conveyance
system that we're planning to pick up all this once it leaves the
site would be designed for 100 year event. So, we're. . .we're
planning on being able to handle that system up to a 100 year storm
event. The additional lots in density that let' s. . .we've taken
that into consideration in our overall planning of the basin
facilities. We also have a large regional pond on. . .how many acres
is that. . .about 25 acres down at the northend of 98th Avenue, north
of 240th Street which will also provide regional detention before
it discharges down into Garrison Creek. So those factors have been
taken into consideration, that, yes, the increased density would
have to be accommodated in the on-site and off-site storm systems.
I not making a statement of support one way or the other but that
has to be taken into consideration.
Hunter: Right, its part of the planning consideration.
Gill: Right.
Hunter: And would be taken into account the specific preliminary
plat proposal.
Gill: Correct.
24
Verbatim Minutes of August 4 , 1993
Applewoude Rezone and Preliminary Plat
#RZ-93-2 and #SU-93-2
Hunter: O.k. Thank. I think I 've heard a lot on this one. I
think I 'm ready to make a recommendation. We' ll do so in writing.
I understand the concerns of the community, particularly with the
drainage concerns that were raised in most detail as well as
increased density and traffic and other related concerns to
increased density that would occur if the preliminary plat were
approved. So, I ' ll take those into account and then issue a
recommendation within two weeks, ten working days of today's date.
Thank you all for your patience on a warm afternoon to wait to
testify and we're now adjourned.
25
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:
A �
Councilmember I ' moves, Councilmember yy
seconds that Conse taCalendar Items A through M be appnrovedr� ,
Discussion ,
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 21 1993 .
3B. Approval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through November 15,
1993 , after auditing by the Operations Committee at its meeting
on December 7, 1993 .
roval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers �Ant
Approval of cks issued for payroll:
Dat Check Numbers ount
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
November 2 , 1993
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order by
Mayor Pro Tem Woods at 7 : 00 p.m. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and White, Chief Adminis-
trative Officer McCarthy, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning
Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief
Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Acting Finance Director Miller and
Acting Parks Director Thorell. Approximately 15 people were at
the meeting.
PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor Pro Tem Woods
COMMUNICATION announced that Kelli O 'Donnell, Administrative
Assistant in City Administration, has been
selected as Employee of the Month for November.
She noted that Ms. O 'Donnell is extremely versa-
tile and always willing to take on new tasks, and
that she is commended by her co-workers for her
wonderful sense of humor and her ability to deal
with difficult situations. Alana McIalwain,
Administration Manager, noted that Ms. O'Donnell
was instrumental in raising over $22 , 000 for
United Way this year.
Regional Justice Center Update Woods noted that
the Regional Justice Center Update usually pre-
sented at the first Council meeting of each month
has been postponed until November 16, 1993 .
Human Services Month. Woods read a proclamation
noting that the City has established funding for
human service needs of Kent residents and encour-
ages an atmosphere of community caring through
educational programs to promote the awareness of
human services needs, and declaring the month of
November as Human Services Month in the City of
Kent. The proclamation was presented to Susan
Ramos, Chair of the Human Services Commission,
who thanked the Council for their support.
Municipal Court Judge. McCarthy introduced
Carole Grayson, who has been selected by Mayor
Kelleher to fill the Kent Municipal Court Judge
position. He stated that over 100 applications
were received and five nominees were interviewed.
He noted that Grayson has been practicing law for
approximately 15 years, and that confirmation is
scheduled for the Council meeting of November 16.
1
November 2 , 1993
CONSENT Councilmember White asked that Item K be removed
CALENDAR from the Consent Calendar.- JOHNSON MOVED that
Items A through J be approved. Houser seconded
and the motion carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A)
Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of October 19, 1993 .
SEPA CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
AMENDMENTS SEPA Code Amendments. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3141 amending the Public Notice Section of
the Kent City Code (11 . 03 . 320) , as recommended by
the Planning Committee, regarding the State
Environmental Policy Act (KCC 11 . 03 . 410) . The
amendments recommended for approval are: 1) for
the City to give notice whenever the City issues
a determination of nonsignificance, a determina-
tion of significance, and an addendum to any
existing environmental document; 2) in addition,
post the property; 3) publish notice in a news-
paper; and 4) notify all parties of record.
REZONE APPEAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
Applewoude Estates Rezone Appeal (RZ-93-2) .
AUTHORIZATION to set November 16, 1993 , as the
date for a public hearing to consider an appeal
by Jeffery J. Wolfson of the denial by the
Hearing Examiner of the Applewoude Estate Rezone
Application (RZ-93-2) . The property is located
at 10922 and 11004 S . E. 244th Street.
REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Applewoude Estates Rezone (RZ-93-2) .
AUTHORIZATION to set November 16, 1993 , as the
date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing
Examiner ' s recommendation of denial for a rezone
application (RZ-93-2) by Jeffery J. Wolfson. The
property is located at 10922 and 11004 S.E. 244th
Street.
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
PLAT APPEAL Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat Appeal
(SU-93-3) . AUTHORIZATION to set November 16,
1993 , as the date for a public hearing to con-
sider an appeal by Jeffery J. Wolfson of the
denial by the Hearing Examiner of the Applewoude
Estates Preliminary Plat Application (SU-93-3) .
2
November 2, 1993
PRELIMINARY The property is located at 10922 and 11004 S.E.
PLAT APPEAL 244th Street.
PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
PLAT Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat (SU-93-3) .
AUTHORIZATION to set November 16, 1993 , as the
date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation of denial for a pre-
liminary plat application (SU-93-3) by Jeffery J.
Wolfson. The property is located at 10922 and
11004 S. E. 244th Street.
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
AMENDMENT Gasoline/Convenience Store Sign Code Amendment
(ZCA-93-7) . The Planning Commission has recom-
mended adoption of an ordinance which would amend
the City's sign regulations pertaining to con-
venience stores with gasoline sales . This
originated from a regulatory review request filed
on behalf of Atlantic Richfield in June 1993 .
The City Attorney pointed out that Paragraph 3A
on page 4 of the ordinance has been changed as
follows:
From: "If on a corner lot, two (2) monument
signs not exceeding sixty (60) square feet
per sign for the total of all faces are
permitted. "
To: "If on a corner lot, two (2) monument
signs not exceeding one hundred (100)
square feet per sign for a total of all
faces are permitted. "
He noted that 100 square feet was the intent of
the Planning Commission.
ORR MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3142 amending
the City sign regulations pertaining to con-
venience stores with gasoline sales, as amended
by the City Attorney. Johnson seconded and the
motion carried.
POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Corrections Facility Food Service Contract.
AUTHORIZATION to extend the current Food Service
Contract at the Corrections Facility for a period
3
November 2 , 1993
POLICE of one year, as recommended by the Public Safety
Committee.
Consolidated Food Management, Inc. has requested
that their contract with the City of Kent be
continued for an additional year. This was
pursuant to the option of renewal as outlined in
Section 11. 01 of the current contract.
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
SAFETY Rent/Valley Com Lease Agreement. AUTHORIZATION
for City Administration to execute a lease with
Valley Communications Center for the use of land,
as recommended by the Public Safety Committee.
COUNCIL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
Capital Facilities Plan Workshop. AUTHORIZATION
to set November 10 , 1993 , from 5 : 00 p.m. to
9 : 00 p.m. as the date and time for a workshop on
the Capital Facilities Plan.
REAPPOINT- (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
MENTS (REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE)
Library Board Planning commission Human
Services commission Reappointments. The Mayor
has submitted for Council confirmation the
reappointments of Luella White as a member of the
Kent Library Board, Edward Heineman, Jr. and
Robert (Bob) McIsaac as members of the Kent
Planning Commission, and Susan Ramos and Lucyle
Wooden as members of the Kent Human Services
Commission.
Ms. White ' s second term on the Board will be in
effect until 11/98 .
Mr. Heineman and Mr. McIsaac ' s new terms are
effective until 12/31/96 .
Ms. Ramos and Ms. Wooden ' s new appointments will
continue to 1/1/97 .
White stated that he has no problem with the
people selected for these appointments, and noted
that it is the Mayor ' s prerogative to appoint
whom and when he pleases, but voiced concern that
4
November 2 , 1993
REAPPOINT- these are last minute appointments. He said he
MENTS would prefer that the new mayor be allowed to
make the appointments to these various boards.
Johnson agreed with White that the new mayor
should make the appointments, but felt that these
people who have volunteered to serve should be
appointed, and MOVED for approval of this item.
Mann seconded. White pointed out that some of
the terms have not yet expired and said that
these do not need to come before Council for
confirmation. Orr questioned whether the Council
could stop the appointments and Lubovich ex-
plained that some boards and commissions require
confirmation and others do not. He noted that
since some of the appointments begin in January,
they do not necessarily have to be dealt with at
this time. Johnson withdrew his motion and
suggested that research be done as to which
appointments need to be confirmed by Council.
MANN MOVED to confirm these appointments. Houser
seconded. Orr asked whether it is appropriate to
make appointments before the terms are up, and
Lubovich indicated that the Council could with-
hold confirmation until a later date. WHITE
MOVED to table this item for two weeks, and asked
that research be done as to when the terms
expire, when they need to be reappointed, and
whether confirmation is required. Bennett
seconded. The motion carried with Mann opposed.
BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1994 Budget. On August 17 , the public hearing
on the 1994 Budget was continued to this date.
The public hearing will be continued until the
Council meeting on November 16 when additional
public input will be received. The Budget
Committee is scheduled to begin review of the
budget at their meeting of November 8 at
4 : 00 p.m. Other Budget Committee meetings may
be scheduled in November to review the budget
before final adoption, which is scheduled for
December 7 . The 1994 Preliminary Budget is
available in the City Clerk ' s Office.
Woods opened the public hearing. There were no
comments from the audience and WHITE MOVED to
continue the public hearing to the Council
meeting of November 16 , 1993 . Johnson seconded
and the motion carried.
5
November 2 , 1993
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through November 2 after auditing
by the operations Committee at its meeting on
November 21 1993 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/16-10/31 135560-135987 $1, 352 , 399 . 58
Approval of checks issued for payroll:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/5/93 Checks 187741-188104 $ 373 , 852 . 34
Advices 10341-10667 370 , 909 . 66
$ 744 , 762 . 00
REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that Suburban
Cities will meet in Tukwila on November 10.
Budget Committee. Johnson noted that the Budget
Committee will meet at 4 : 00 P.M. on November 8th.
Administrative Reports . McCarthy noted that the
Town Hall Meeting will be held on November 18 ,
and that it is Mayor Kelleher' s intent that the
new mayor set the agenda for the meeting, as well
as conduct it. He pointed out that a draft
agenda has been provided to Councilmembers and
clarified that changes can easily be made.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 20 p.m.
c�cv-P,�ti
Brenda cob r, CMC
City C erk
6
f n
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WEST MEADOW FINAL PLAT #FSU-93-2 cZT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set December 7, 1993 as
the date for a public meeting to consider a final plat appli-
cation made by Betty Lou Buttkus (FSU-93-2) . The Council
approved a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner for the
Preliminary Plat (SU-93-2) on September 21, 1993 . The plat is
.83 acres, consists of three lots and is located at the
southwest corner of S.E. 248th Street and 115th Avenue S.E.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WATER BILLING ADJUSTMENTS QD^n.*NGF'
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3 43 expanding
the language in the water leak ordinance to include other types
of abnormal or extraordinary adjustments and streamlining the
adjustment process with expanded guidelines and Finance
Director adjustment authorization; and under these guidelines,
authorization to grant a one-time only 50% adjustment of
$639 . 05 to Union Pacific Railroad and $191. 27 to United States
Post Office.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memos, ordinance
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
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 29 , 1993
TO: Council Members
FROM: May Miller, Finance Director
SUBJECT: WATER ADJUSTMENT PROPOSAL
After review with other departments in our area and the City of
Kent Law Department, it is our recommendation to expand the
language in our leak ordinance to include other type of abnormal
or extraordinary adjustments.
We are proposing also to streamline and provide further
accountability in the revised ordinance. A draft copy of the
revised ordinance will be provided at the meeting.
Based on these guidelines, it is also our recommendation that the
City of Kent grant the Union Pacific Railroad and the United
States Post Office request for water adjustments. Using the 50%
one time only rule, the adjustments are:
Union Pacific Railroad $639 . 05
United States Post Office 191. 27
TO: Operations Committee
FROM: Thonas vetsch, Customer Ser-✓ices Manager
SUBJECT: Recommendation On High Water Adjustment Reaue_t
1. After review with other Utilities in Our local area and
the City of Kent Law Depar-r�.ent, It is cur reccmmenaat'_cn
to ex_nand the language in our leak ordinance to include
other types Of abncrmai or eXtraor:inary adjustments .
Reauests would still meet r.any of t:^.e sane criteria as
our current ordinance, but would not necessarily be
identified as a leak only. In order to be considered
for an adjustment the water ccnsu-.ot_cn ;ould need to be
two times greater than the hiaheS7. -.cr.thly usage durina
the past twelve months .
2 . In order to stre 1 i ^.� he vr^ c ..c _ -aL'eSt t_.�t t._a _ _non.__
a:'l__:.� t._._ _�.Ca_o
Director be given the authority tc =rant thec_e leak and
extraordinary adjustment realleSts ' d the nc':; eXDar:Ged
Ordinance . The expanded cr--Rance .,�..:_N eSta -SR CL'_^..= l-nec
allowing adjuszments . =_7Jpe3 S Gl:l = - to avai 1a'c' C
come the Operations Committee •
� . AOCOuntabillty w11i be mainta_nc, cV CrO7;1G_na a list
annually tc the Operations -cr auzhcrizat'_cn
Crd Rance
Cf all adjustments, prcceSScJ-
.o cam^ t lra Ste: �_- ... at tnc Sc^= `_-:= __..., ..�
Thes_ adju_t...�nt_ e.cu_.. be b
Receivables are r ecc-:m,endeG LCr
`.11 cdjL'St:'.e.^t= ;iCCi^., Still b` -he on= t__.._
Cr'i t,cri a to safeguard -rC.i L'Se .
- . Based on the a-cve cr=ter' _t -5 CL_ _ eCC...-:enGatiCi:
City of Kent aran-- the Unicn pacific Railroad and US cst
Of=ice r.equeszc for hater adjllSt-. L'nGer the 50c- Cne �.imc
guidelines .
Adjustment Granted:
Union Pacific Railroad: = 6=9 • 0
US 'Kent Post Office:
II
i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of
Kent, Washington, repealing sections
7 . 02 . 300 (D) and 7 . 02 . 310 (D) of the
Kent City Code and enacting new
sections 7 . 02 . 300 (D) and 7 . 02 . 310 (D)
to the Kent City Code.
WHEREAS, substantial and costly leaks to private water
pipes and water appurtenances located on private property occur
without notice to customers of the utility system; and
WHEREAS, in certain instances, unexplainable or abnormal
water meter readings occur that are greatly in excess of a
customer' s normal monthly water usage, even though the customer' s
meter, after inspection, proves to be working properly; and
WHEREAS, customers often have no knowledge that such a
substantial leak exists or that such an abnormal and excessive
water meter reading has occurred until they receive the City' s
monthly utility billing indicating such excess water use; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City' s interest to encourage prompt
repair of broken and leaking water supply systems and appurtenances
on private property in order to conserve the city' s supply of
potable water; and
WHEREAS , in those instances where unexplained, abnormal
meter readings occur even though the subject water meter proves to
1
ail l
it
be functioning properly, the City is unable to specificallv
determine the customer' s responsibility for those added costs; a.
(
III
WHEREAS, because it is in the City' s interest to maintain
Fits water meters in good working order, the City benefits from
' customer notice of potential meter malfunctions; and
WHEREAS, in those situations where the City can verify
either (i) that the private water system leak has been identified
and repaired or (ii) that a thorough inspection of the water meter
and private water system has failed to locate the cause of the
excessive usage, a policy of authorizing an adjustment to the
customer' s account will foster prompt payment of customer utility
accounts, encourage the immediate repair of damaged or broken water
systems and settle factual disputes as to the cause for certain
abnormal meter readings; and
WHEREAS, in order to discourage customer abuse, th.i -
adjustment policy should be made available to the customer on a
one-time basis only, as a credit to the customer' s account, in the
amount of fifty percent (50%) of the total amount exceeding a
customer' s established average billing for the previous twelve
months; and
WHEREAS, such a policy will also enhance conservation of
scarce water resources available to the City of Kent for
development, provide for a greater system efficiency, and reduce
the administrative costs to the City in pursuing enforcement and
collection actions against these system customers; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
2
Section 1 . Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing
recitals are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part
hereof.
Section 2 . Rate Adjustment Subsection Repealed. Section
7 . 02 . 300 (D) of the Kent City Code (enacted as subsection 7 . 06 . 860
(D) under Section 3 of Ordinance 2732) is hereby repealed in its
entirety and replaced with the following:
Sec. 7 .02 . 300 . Water rates within the city.
D. (1) Subject to the right of access and
inspection by a representative of the City, water service
customers of the City may apply for a one-time rate
adjustment for any single billing period under the
following circumstances:
- (a) an accidental water leak has been
discovered on the subject property; or
(b) a water line failure has occurred on the
subject property; or
(c) an unexplained, abnormal water meter
reading has occurred on the subject property even
though subsequent City inspection of the water
meter indicates that the meter is functioning
properly.
This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty percent (500)
of the difference between the total amount of the billing
period sought for adjustment minus the customer' s Average
Water Usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the
"Average Water Usage" shall be computed by determining
the total volume of water consumed, under normal use
conditions, during the preceding twelve (12) months and
3
I,
I
I
it dividing that total volume by the number of times the
City would typically read the customer' s water meter
J I a twelve (12) month period. i
I
I
(2) This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time
basis only and can only be applied to one (1) billing I
period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the
affected water system must be owned by or subject to the
exclusive control of the customer and be located between
the City' s water meter and owner' s residence or
structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed
two (2) times the customer ' s highest usage in any single
billing period during the twelve months prior to the
billing period sought for adjustment.
(3) Following a request for rate adjustment provided
under this subsection, the City' s Finance Director, or
his/her designee, shall review the request and determine
whether or not to adjust the customer' s monthly billin_
In order to make a proper determination, City staff shall
be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer' s
water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment.
(4) If approved, the City shall make this rate
adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer' s account
after verification of leakage or water system failure,
inspection of water meter and water system, where
applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All
repairs shall occur within thirty (30) days of
application to the City.
(5) The owner may request reconsideration of the
decision of the Finance Director, or his/her designee, by
the city council through the city council ' s operation
committee.
4
I
Section 3 . Rate Adjustment Subsection Repealed. Section
1: 7 . 02 . 310 (D) of the Kent City code (enacted as subsection 7 . 06. 880
� (D) under Section 3 of Ordinance 2732) is hereby repealed in its
entirety and replaced with the following:
Sec. 7 . 02 . 310 . Water rates outside city.
D. (1) Subject to the right of access and
inspection by a representative of the City, water service
customers of the City may apply for a one-time rate
adjustment for any single billing period under the
following circumstances:
(a) an accidental water leak has been
discovered on the subject property; or
(b) a water line failure has occurred on the
subject property; or
(c) an unexplained, abnormal water meter
reading has occurred on the subject property even
though subsequent City inspection of the water
meter indicates that the meter is functioning
properly.
This rate adjustment shall not exceed fifty percent (50%)
of the difference between the total amount of the billing
period sought for adjustment minus the customer' s Average
Water Usage. For the purposes of this subsection, the
"Average Water Usage" shall be computed by determining
the total volume of water consumed, under normal use
conditions, during the preceding twelve (12) months and
dividing that total volume by the number of times the
City would typically read the customer' s water meter in
a twelve (12) month period.
5
iI
i
(2) This rate adjustment is permitted on a one-time
basis only and can only be applied to one (1) billi.
period. To be eligible for this rate adjustment, the
affected water system must be owned by or subject to the
exclusive control of the customer and be located between
the city' s water meter and owner' s residence or
structure. The bill sought for adjustment must exceed
two (2) times the customer ' s highest usage in any single
billing period during the twelve months prior to the
billing period sought for adjustment.
(3) Following a request for rate adjustment provided
under this subsection, the City' s Finance Director, or
his/her designee, shall review the request and determine
whether or not to adjust the customer' s monthly billing.
In order to make a proper determination, City staff shall
be entitled to access, inspect and approve the customer' s
water system repair prior to granting a rate adjustment.
(4) If approved, the City shall make this rate
adjustment by issuing a credit to the customer' s account
after verification of leakage or water system failure,
inspection of water meter and water system, where
applicable, and verification of corrective repairs. All
repairs shall occur within thirty (30) days of
application to the City.
(5) The owner may request reconsideration of the
decision of the Finance Director, or his/her designee, by
the city council through the city council ' s operation
committee.
Section 3 . Savings. Kent city Code sections 7 . 02 . 300 (D)
and 7 . 02 . 310 (D) , which are amended by this ordinance, shall remain
in full force and effect until the effective date of this
6
i�
I
II 1
I
'I
it ordinance.
1I 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
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
7
II
I
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
1iOrdinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of
jKent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent
jlhereon indicated.
i
Brenda Jacober, City Clerk
NATERUSE.fin
8
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16, 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CHESTNUT RIDGE ZONING
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set December 7, 1993
and January 18, 1994 as public hearing dates to consider the
initial zoning and comprehensive plan for the Chestnut Ridge
Annexation area.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(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
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 277TH CORRIDOR PROJECT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -
2 . p� : At the October 27th King County \
Transportation Committee meeting, the 277th Corridor Road
Establishment Ordinance was passed out of Committee with a 2-to-
1 favorable DO Pass recommendation to the full Council . *s An
attachment to the Ordinance.. will be an Interlocal Agreement
f4w which Kent must execute in order to make the Ordinance
effective. --
-- - --
As recommended by the Public Works Committee ,authorization for
t e Mayor o sign e n er oca Agreement ith King County as
identified in the proposed King County Roa Establishment
COrdinance for the 277th Corridor project" The agreement would
be in substantially the same form, terms, and conditions as the
Draft agreement (,ro ' ded r e Par V-el'•
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes, memorandum from
Public Works Director, draft conditions of proposed ordinance
and agreement
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
PRESENT: JIM WHITE GARY GILL
JIM BENNETT ED WHITE
PAUL MANN ROBYN BARTELT
TONY McCARTHY RAUL RAMOS
DON WICKSTROM STEVE CAPUTO
TOM BRUBAKER MARK BUSCHER
277th Corridor
Wickstrom stated that at the October 27th King County
Transportation Committee meeting, they passed out of Committee to
full Council, an ordinance favorable 2 to 1, which establishes the
road right of way for both 277th and a portion of 114th. Wickstrom
said that they added on conditions to this Ordinance, which we must
meet. Wickstrom said that essentially we are amenable with all the
conditions and as part of the ordinance, there will be an
interlocal agreement which we must execute. The agreement would be
a reiteration of the terms and conditions of the ordinance.
Wickstrom requested authorization be given to the Mayor to sign
that interlocal agreement so we can present a package which would
become a part of the County ' s ordinance. Wickstrom said he feels
it would appear better at the King County Council level. Wickstrom
stated that within the conditions, we need to show the County that
we have a financial plan for paying for the road, a contingency
plan if we can't pay for the road and, we need to acquire adequate
right of way to construct a five lane facility. Wickstrom said
that at design level, we are to submit to the Public Works
Department, for review by the County Council, a report on the
option of designating one eastbound and one westbound lane of the
proposed five lane facility for HOV.
Wickstrom explained that there was some concern about the west
termini of the road and the County wants assurance that it will
correlate with their project. They have incorporated additional
studies in terms of the valley portion between West Valley Highway
and Auburn Way North and have directed their Public Works
Department to incorporate that into their EIS process on their
southeast corridor project. Wickstrom also stated that the County
is concerned about the commuter rail .
1
�J
Mann asked if, in the interlocal agreement with King County, does
this identify who will be responsible for the link up with their
connection with SR 18 . Wickstrom responded that this is the
county's responsibility. Brubaker stated that we would, however,
work with the County to assure that the end of our project is
compatible with this.
Further discussion followed regarding the three lane strip of road
at Schillder' s Dairy Farm. Wickstrom said that particular part is
in King County. Brubaker said that the agreement states that we
will cooperate with the County as it goes thru its EIS process and
develops an interlocal with Auburn.
Brubaker further stated that when we litigated the termini, whether
or not it was an appropriate spot to end the road at Auburn Way
North & Kent Kangley was one of the central focuses of the trial
and the judge did say that it was a logical terminus for the road.
Brubaker said that one of the things reviewed was the fact that not
everybody is headed straight west when they come down the hill. He
explained that it' s easy to see this as a big highway that suddenly
comes down into a two lane road but actually there are thirteen
lanes there (5 to the north, 5 to the south and 3 to the west) .
Brubaker said that from the traffic studies that we did, he feels
that the intersection will be able to handle that level of traffic.
White asked if there might be a rail station at 277th. Wickstrom
stated that more than likely the rail station will be in the CBD.
He said that if we include a rail station, we would get into a
change of land use plan which would not to fit in with the Growth
Management plan. Wickstrom said that we will be working with Metro
and King County in establishing where the potential rail stations
will be. Based on Council interest in developing the CBD, the CBD
is a highly likely location. White stated that he would want a
rail stop in the CBD but not major parking structures in the CBD.
Wickstrom said that there are two lines involved, Union Pacific or
Burlington Northern and Council will be deciding what is the
highest priority for rail station locations in Kent. Brubaker said
that the County Transportation Committee staff raised that issue
and was concerned about the creation of a parking facility at the
intersection near the rail stations and they did discuss it.
Brubaker said that they had come to the conclusion that it was
premature because nobody really knows what focus this will take.
Wickstrom said that is why it was put back in the County' s EIS
because their ' s is a much longer approach enabling those issues to
be resolved and thereby they will know whether an over-crossing is
appropriate and where the rail stations are. Brubaker said it was
the opinion of County staff and Kent that under the Growth
Management Act we have a tendency to diffuse the downtown urban
growth centers and wouldn't fit appropriately in the rural and
agricultural areas. White said he does not want us to rule out any
possibility. Wickstrom said we are just putting that decision into
2
the longer range County ' s plan.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County Road Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS CfO�M'M`ITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: 277TH CORRIDOR
At the October 27th King County Transportation Committee meeting,
the 277th Corridor Road Establishment Ordinance was passed out of
Committee with a 2 to 1 favorable Do Pass recommendation to the
full Council. It is scheduled to go before full Council for action
at their November 29th Council meeting. As an attachment to the
Ordinance, will be an Interlocal Agreement for which Kent must
execute in order to make the ordinance effective. The Interlocal
Agreement will essentially be a reiteration of the conditions
contained in the proposed Ordinance.
Attached is a copy of Section 6 as prepared from our notes and
recollection of the Committee meeting. The exact language thereof
may be different, however the flavor of the conditions are given.
We would like the Interlocal Agreement, as attached to the
Ordinance, to be an executed agreement or at least signed off by
the City. As such, we are requesting authorization for the Mayor
to sign same upon its development.
Hopefully an actual agreement will be available for the November
16th Council Meeting.
ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with King
County as identified in the proposed King County Road
Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor project.
October 27 , 1993
PA
Proposed Substitute ordinance 93-499
Section 6 Conditions
SECTION 6. The King County Council finds that the
establishment of South 277th Street, Southeast 274th Way, 116th
Avenue Southeast, and 114th Avenue Southeast, along the course and
description set forth, is a public necessity. The establishment
will be effective after the following conditions are met through a
joint memorandum of understanding that is approved between the City
of Kent and King County on the planning and implementation of the
proposed Kent North 277th Corridor and the King County' s Southeast
277th Corridor.
This agreement is required:
A. Due to the unique proposal of the City of Kent to plan,
design, finance and build the North 277th Corridor in
unincorporated King County, and a related connecting King County
proposed Southeast 277th Corridor extension to SR 18 .
B. To assure that the two proposed corridor projects are
coordinated and consistent with each other and with adopted
regional and King County policies and plans related to land use and
transportation.
A. CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY THE CITY OF KENT:
1. The City of Kent shall provide King County with a
financial plan for completion of the proposed corridor
improvements.
2 . A contingency plan shall be prepared in case the
Kent corridor or financial plans are revised, and the City is not
able to proceed with the North 277th Corridor project.
3 . Adequate right of way shall be acquired for the Kent
North 277th Corridor to provide for the construction of a 5 lane
facility. At the intermediate design level (35% completion of
design) Kent shall submit to the County Public Works for review by
the County Council, a report on the option of designating one
eastbound and one westbound lane of the proposed 5 lane facility
for HOV purposes.
1
4 . The Kent North 277th Corridor west terminus shall be
reviewed and approved by the King County Department of Public
Works. The west terminus of the project shall be designed
consistent with options set forth in the County-proposed Southeast
277th Corridor.
5. Plans for constructing a widened and grade separated
roadway west of the proposed north corridor terminus shall be
coordinated by King County, the City of Auburn and the valley
commuter rail sponsor during the preparation of an environmental
impact statement for the County' s proposed Southeast , 277th
Corridor.
6 . The city of Kent shall design the north corridor
project to -the extent practicable, to meet all of King County' s
applicable environmental, land use and road standards. Kent shall
follow established County procedures for obtaining approval of any
necessary variances or exceptions to those standards. The design
of the Kent north corridor project shall place an appropriate
emphasis on protection of adjacent residential neighborhoods and
the provision of landscaping, noise buffers, reduction of glare
from lights, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, safe access to
protect the future integrity of the road to the extent such
emphasis is consistent with the mitigation commitments in the City
of Kent' s environmental impact statements for the 277th North
Corridor project.
7 . The City of Kent shall initiate value engineering
and prepare additional analysis as necessary to be submitted to the
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
(DDES) in conjunction with permit application for construction of
the North 277th Corridor.
B. CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY KING COUNTY:
1. King County will include analysis of the proposed
transportation network during preparation of the EIS for the
Southeast 277th Corridor. Access requirements from adjacent
properties to the corridor from existing roadways will be analyzed.
Establishment of routes to provide reasonable access to the
corridor will also be addressed in the EIS.
2 . The King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services shall cooperate with the City of Kent to
facilitate timely review and action on permits for the North 277th
Corridor project and shall consult with the Department of Public
Works as to the suitability of the proposed design for assurance
that best management practices to protect the water quality and
fish in the Green River, meet King County' s sensitive areas
ordinance policies for erosion control and slope stability, and
2
assure surface water drainage control and grading measures are
implemented during and after construction to mitigate any
environmental impacts.
C. CONDITIONS TO BE MET BY THE CITY OF KENT AND KING
COUNTY:
1. The King County Council ' s Transportation Committee
will be updated on the status of the Kent North 277th Corridor and
the proposed King County Southeast 277th Corridor projects on a
semi-annual basis, or more frequently upon request.
2 . The City of Kent agrees to continue to involve the
King County Citizen Action Committee for County' s Southeast
Corridor proposal in the development of the City' s project. The
City also agrees to hold two public meetings on its project at the
35% and 95% completion phases of its project design. Last, the
City agrees to inform the community of corridor activities and
schedules for construction by publishing a quarterly newsletter.
3 . The City of Kent will continue its efforts in
Transportation Demand Management and will continue to work with
adjacent jurisdictions and the state to assure mobility so that
latent demand does not replace the existing CBD traffic that uses
the proposed North 277th Corridor.
4 . The City of Kent and King County will continue to
participate in multimodal planning effort with Metro, the Regional
Transit Authority and the state DOT for HOV, park and rides and
transit service to serve the area of the proposed corridor and the
proposed new valley commuter rail stations.
5 . Amendments to the Memorandum of Agreement
substantially in the form of "Exhibit" should be returned to the
King County Executive for review and to recommend County Council
action.
6. The City of Kent and King County will develop a
strategy to provide County review of plan and specification
development for construction of the North corridor. This oversight
will be provided in conjunction with the continued involvement of
the Technical Advisory Committee during the City' s design of the
North corridor project. The City shall also be required to use a
King County staff inspector during the construction of the roadway.
7 . At the completion of the 35% design review stage,
the City shall provide a report to the County Council addressing
economically feasible alternatives to enhance safety, and create
additional visual and noise barriers.
Ord93-499
3
272ND/277TH AVENUE S.E. NORTH CORRIDOR
ROAD ESTABLISHMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
AND KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the
City of Kent, Washington, a Washington municipal corporation
("City") and King County, Washington ("County") .
RECITALS
Whereas, the City desires to construct a roadway, the
11272nd/277th Avenue Corridor - North Leg" ("North 277th
Corridor") , in a portion of unincorporated King County; and
Whereas, the City ' s North 277th Corridor proposal lies
within the City' s projected urban growth area, as proposed under
the State Growth Management Act; and
Whereas , the City has commenced the process to design and
construct the North 277th Corridor roadway and has completed its
environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act;
and
Whereas, no right-of-way currently exists over a portion of
the area proposed for the City' s North 277th Corridor proposal
project; and
Whereas, the City, has petitioned the County to establish
the road right-of-way along the preferred alignments selected by
the City; and
Whereas, the City has submitted the appropriate plans and
descriptions for the North 277th Corridor proposal to the
County ' s Department of Public Works, Roads and Engineering
Division; and
Whereas, the County' s Department of Public Works, Roads and
Engineering Division, has approved the City's plans and
descriptions; and
Whereas, the City' s proposed North 277th Corridor road
establishment has been considered by the King County Council
Transportation Committee, which recommended establishment of the
North 277th Corridor alignment at a special meeting held on
Wednesday, October 27 , 1993 ; and
Whereas, the County Council at its regular meeting held on
19 considered the City' s proposed North
277th Corridor proposal and recommended establishing the City' s
preferred road alignment on the condition that the City and
County enter into this Agreement, which establishes certain
rights, liabilities, and obligations on the part of the City and
on the part of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the King County
Council ' s approval of the establishment of the North 277th
Corridor roadway in unincorporated King County, the City of Kent
agrees to comply with the following conditions throughout the
duration of this Agreement as follows :
AGREEMENT
A. Conditions to Be Met by the City of Kent.
1. Within 180 days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the City of Kent shall provide the County financial
information on how it will finance the proposed North 277th
Corridor improvements to completion.
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 2 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
2 . Within 18o days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the City shall assist the County with the preparation
of a contingency plan, in the event that the City' s North 277th
Corridor funding is revised, leaving the City unable to proceed
with the North 277th Corridor project.
3 . The City shall acquire adequate right-of-way for
the North 277th Corridor to provide for the construction of a
five lane facility; provided, that during the intermediate design
35% completion phase of the project, a feasibility study is
performed which analyzes utilization of two lanes for high
occupancy vehicles .
4 . The City shall design the west terminus of its
North 277th Corridor project so as to be consistent with options
set forth in the County ' s proposed Southeast 272nd/277th Corridor
proposal .
5 . The City will cooperate with other jurisdictions
to develop plans for constructing a widened and grade separated
roadway west of the North 277th Corridor west terminus . The
County shall coordinate the development of these plans with the
City of Auburn and the valley commuter rail sponsors during the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the
County' s proposed Southeast 272nd/277th Corridor.
6 . The City shall design the North Corridor project,
to the extent practicable, to meet all of King County ' s
applicable environmental , land use and road standards . Kent
shall follow established County procedures to obtain approval of
any necessary variances or exceptions to those standards. The
design of the City' s North 277th Corridor project shall place an
appropriate emphasis on protection of adjacent neighborhoods and
the provision of landscaping, noise buffers, glare reduction from
North 277th corridor Interlocal K
Page 3 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
lights, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, and safe access to
the extent such emphasis is consistent with the mitigation
commitments in the City' s Environmental Impact Statement for its
North 277th Corridor project.
7 . Prior to be submitting to the King County
Department of Development and Environmental Services ("DDES") for
applicable permits associated with the construction of the City ' s
North 277th Corridor project, the City shall initiate value
engineering and prepare additional analysis, as necessary
thereto.
B. Conditions to Be Met by King County.
1 . King County shall include analysis of the proposed
transportation network during preparation of the EIS for the
Southeast 272nd/277th Corridor. Access requirements from
adjacent properties to the County ' s corridor project from
existing roadways will be analyzed. Establishment of routes to
provide reasonable access to the corridor will also be addressed
in the EIS .
2 . The King County Department of Development and
Environmental Services shall cooperate with the City of Kent to
facilitate timely review and action on applicable permits for the
City ' s North 277th Corridor project and shall consult with the
Department of Public Works, Roads and Engineering Division, as to
the suitability of the City' s proposed design to assure best
management practices to protect the water quality and fish in the
Green River, to meet applicable King County ' s sensitive areas
ordinance policies for erosion control and slope stability, and
to assure that surface water drainage control and grading
measures will be implemented during and after construction in
order to mitigate any environmental impacts.
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 4 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
C. Conditions to Be Met by the City of Kent and Kina
County.
1. The King County Council ' s Transportation Committee
will be updated on the status of the City 's North 277th Corridor
project and the County ' s proposed Southeast 272nd/277th Corridor
project on a semi-annual basis, or more frequently upon request
of the County ' s Transportation Committee.
2 . The City agrees to continue to involve the King
County Citizen Advisory Committee ("CAC") for the County ' s
Southeast 272nd/277th Corridor proposal in the development of the
City' s project. The City also agrees to hold two public meetings
on its North 277th Corridor project at the thirty-five (35%)
percent and ninety-five (95%) percent completion phases of its
project design. In addition, the City agrees to inform the local
community of its North 277th Corridor activities and construction
schedules by publishing a quarterly newsletter.
3 . The City will continue its efforts in
Transportation Demand Management and will continue to work with
adjacent jurisdictions and the State of Washington to assure
mobility so that latent demand does not replace the existing
Central Business District ("CBD") traffic that is projected to
use the City ' s proposed North 277th Corridor roadway.
4 . The City and the County will continue to
participate in multi-modal planning efforts with METRO, the
Regional Transit Authority, and the State Department of
Transportation ("DOT") for HOV, Park and Rides, and transit
service to be established to serve the area of the proposed
corridor and the proposed new valley commuter rail stations.
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 5 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
5 . The City and the County will develop a strategy to
provide applicable County review of plan and specification
development for construction of the North Corridor. This
oversight will be provided in conjunction with the continued
involvement of the Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC") during
the City' s design of its North 277th Corridor project. The City
shall also be required to use a King County staff inspector
during construction of the roadway.
6 . At the completion of the thirty-five (35%) percent
design review phase, the City shall provide a report to the
County Council addressing economically feasible alternatives to
enhance safety and create additional visual and noise barriers,
including cost estimates therefor.
D. General.
1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective
after approval by the Kent City Council and the King County
Council and, when signed, by the County Executive and the Mayor
of the City of Kent.
2 . Duration. This Agreement shall commence on the
effective date as provided for herein and shall terminate upon
the occurrence of any one of the following: (a) when the County
accepts the North 277th Corridor roadway as complete; (b) until
the City annexes territory including the North 277th Corridor; or
(c) until ten (10) years from the effective date of this
Agreement. The City, at its option, may extend the term of this
Agreement after receiving the prior consent of the County, for
successive periods not to exceed five (5) years each. In the
event that the City wishes to extend the term of this Agreement
for any succeeding period as contemplated herein, the City shall,
within one hundred eighty (180) days of the expiration date of
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 6 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: ri
this Agreement, notify the County that it wishes to exercise its
Option to extend the term of this Agreement, whereupon the
County, not later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration
of this Agreement, shall notify the City in writing of its
willingness to accept the term extension for the additional
period requested by the City, or such other time period as it
deems advisable.
3 . Applicable Jurisdiction In the event that a
portion of the North Corridor roadway becomes annexed to the City
of Kent prior to project permitting, all permitting authority and
procedural matters described above related to that portion (s) of
the roadway in the annexed area shall be under the jurisdiction
of the City of Kent in accordance with state and local law.
4 . Administration. The City shall continue to be the
lead agency on the North 277th Corridor project and shall
administer the project with full authority subject to the
authority of all agencies from whom permits must be obtained in
order to effect the construction of the City ' s project.
5 . Property Acquisition ._ In the event that the City
must acquire any real property by eminent domain in order to
construct its North 277th Corridor project, the County will
cooperate with the City, if necessary, to jointly exercise their
powers of eminent domain.
6 . Default. In the event the City breaches any of
the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the County shall have
the right, but not the obligation, to assume administrative
authority over the City ' s North 277th Corridor project.
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 7 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: ri
7 . City' s Indemnity. The City shall defend,
indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all claims,
damages or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the
performance of this Agreement, but only to the extent of the
City' s negligence.
8 . County ' s Indemnity• The County shall defend,
indemnify and hold the County harmless from any and all claims,
damages or liabilities arising out of or in connection with the
performance of this Agreement, but only to the extent of the
County' s negligence.
9 . Waiver of Breach. A waiver by either the City or
the County of a breach of the other party of any condition of
this Agreement shall not impair the right of the party not in
default to avail itself of any subsequent breach of this
Agreement. Leniency, delay, or failure of either party to insist
upon strict performance of any condition of this Agreement, or to
exercise any right herein given in any one or more instances,
shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any such
condition or right.
10 . Attorney Fees . In the event either party finds it
necessary to bring an action or other proceeding against the
other party to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this
Agreement, each party shall be responsible for payment of its own
legal costs and attorney fees .
11. Modification. No waiver, alteration, or
modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be
binding unless in writing and signed by duly authorized
representatives of the City and the County.
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 8 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
12 . Entire Agreement. The written provisions and
terms of this Agreement, together with any exhibits attached
hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any
representative of the City or the County and such statements
shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or
forming a part of or altering in any manner whatsoever this
Agreement. The entire Agreement between the parties with respect
to the subject matter hereunder is contained in this Agreement
and any exhibits attached hereto.
DATED this day of 199_
Approved by the Kent City Council by its
Ordinance/Resolution No. passed on 19
Approved by the King County Council by its
Ordinance/Resolution No. passed on 19_
KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT
By: By:
Its Chief Executive Its Mayor
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
is the person who appeared before me, and
said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath
North 277th corridor Intertoca[ K
Page 9 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the Chief Executive of King County, Washington
to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Date•
Notary Public in and for the State of
of Washington, residing at
My commission expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss .
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
is the person who appeared before me, and
said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on
oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument
and acknowledged it as the Mayor of the City of Kent, Washington
to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Date:
Notary Public in and for the State of
of Washington, residing at
My commission expires
corridor.agr
North 277th Corridor Interlocal K
Page 10 of 10
Rev: 11/10/93: rj
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16, 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
2 . U fi RY ST As recommended by the Public Work
Comm' doption of Resolution No. (J ,S endorsing the
1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. '
The suburban cities and the county have 120 days as of
September 22, 1993 to formally adopt the Plan.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes, memorandum from
Public Works Director, Executive Summary of Final 1992 Comp
Solid Waste Management Plan and resolution
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ _
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
the longer range county ' s plan.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County Road Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
Sidewalk Repair Work
Wickstrom indicated on CBD sidewalk map locations where sidewalks
had been replaced either through our City crews or thru our Public
Works contracts. Wickstrom also explained that some of the
sidewalks were paid for under the various road projects or utility
projects. There was no further discussion on this.
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan
Mark Buscher with King County solid Waste Division presented an
overview of the Final 1992 County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan which basically effects solid waste management in
the unincorporated areas of King County and also suburban cities
for the next several years . At this time, Buscher handed out a
briefing paper which outlined the major recommendations contained
in the 1992 Plan and explained the differences between it and the
adopted 1989 Plan.
Buscher explained that the cities and counties have 120 days from
the time the document is issued to adopt the plan. Buscher said
that this plan was endorsed as a final plan by resolution by the
Suburban Cities Association in June.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of the King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan.
240th/108th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom said that Committee had previously authorized the
transfer of funds from a signal now being built by Target at 260th
and 104th and we had indicated that we would form an LID with the
balance. Wickstrom explained that we had the public meeting and
the neighbors know what their assessments are and we have a
concurrence for at least 40o which would be the minimum necessary
to legally form an LID. In response to White, Wickstrom said that
we are in design stage now for the signal and it should be
installed in 1994 .
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend proceeding with the
formation of the LID.
Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds
Wickstrom stated that this was a project awarded to Briggs
Construction for the reconstruction of watermains and is completed.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 3, 1993
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don WickstromJ 1
RE: Final 1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Attached you will find the Executive Summary of the Final 1992 King County
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.
The Plan was endorsed by the Suburban Cities Association in June 1993. The
suburban cities and the county have 120 days as of September 22, 1993 to formally
adopt the Plan.
Mark Buscher, Comprehensive Planning Unit Supervisor with King County Solid Waste
Division will give a brief overview of the Plan and answer any questions you may
have.
ACTION: Recommend adoption of the Final 1992 King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, adopting the Final
1992 King County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Solid Waste Management -
Reduction and Recycling Act, Chapter 70 . 95 RCW, requires all
cities and counties to prepare a coordinated comprehensive solid
waste management plan; and
WHEREAS, the public health and safety of the residents
of King County and the City of Kent require safe and efficient
handling and disposal of solid waste ; and
WHEREAS, the Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan ("Plan") is the result of joint accomplishments
of the cities and the County which have depended on the citizens,
businesses and recycling and solid waste management industries.
Representatives of all these groups and the King County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) contributed to this plan through
workshops, meetings, working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings ;
and
WHEREAS, the Plan will lead King County towards its
goal to further reduce the waste stream by 50% in 1995 and by 65%
in 2000, and to ensure adequate services and environmental
controls at King County transfer and disposal facilities. This
plan is based on a 20 year forecast of the waste stream and is
reviewed and updated every three years to identify changed
conditions and new needs; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is deemed adopted if cities
representing 75% of the incorporated population approve it within
a 120 day adoption period which begins when the Plan is issued,
in this case September 22 , 1993 , and is further subject to final
approval by the Department of Ecology; and
WHEREAS , the Plan was endorsed by the Suburban Cities
Association in June of 1993 ; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Final 1992
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as set forth in the
briefing paper and the executive summary attached hereto as
exhibits and agrees with the same; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1. The final 1992 King County Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan as endorsed by the Suburban Cities
Association and as outlined in the briefing paper attached hereto
as Exhibit A, and as set forth in the executive summary attached
hereto as Exhibit B to this Resolution, is hereby adopted.
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
soluaste.res
3
KING COUNTY
1992 COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
BRIEFING PAPER
The purpose of this briefing paper is to outline the major recommendations
contained in the 1992 Plan and highlight the differences between it and the
adopted 1989 Plan.
In 1988, King County set a waste reduction and recycling goal of 65% by 2000.
The 1989 Plan established a set of waste reduction and recycling programs that
helped the County meet its first interim recycling goal of 35% in 1992. It
also included a schedule for upgrading the County's transfer and disposal
system in order to improve levels of service. The major recommendations of the
1989 Plan were:
■ Implementation of curbside recyclables collection for residents in urban
cities and urban unincorporated areas of the county and dropbox collection
of recyclables in the rural cities and rural -unincorporated areas of the
county;
■ Establishment of variable can rates for residential customers ;
■ Implementation of recycling education programs :
■ Implementation of residential and non-residential yard waste collection
programs :
■ Development of a six-year schedule for transfer station planning and
construction;
■ Closure of three of four rural landfills and continued operation of Cedar
Hills Regional Landfill ;
■ Establishment of a private CDL collection and processing system.
The 1992 Plan expands on the waste reduction and recycling programs already
implemented so that the County can meet its next interim recycling goal of 50%
in 1995. The facility schedule was also modified in response to changing
conditions and the elimination of the Waste Management N.W. Transfer Station as
a transfer option for northeast King County. Major new recommendations in the
1992 Plan include:
■ Expanding waste reduction programs , espec,ally for businesses ;
■ Implementation of a phased yard waste disposal ban. Phase 1 is a ban on
the disposal of yard waste in refuse cans Phase 2 is a ban on disposal at
all County disposal facilities :
■ Provision of secondary recyclables collection service for secondary
recyclables . Services can be provided by the cities or county through on-
call services , disseminating information about private sector collection
services or special collection events ;
■ Establishing voluntary nonresidential recyclables collection guidelines for
suburban cities and haulers to increase commercial recycling rates ;
■ Working to change state law to give cities and counties authority to set
mandatory nonresidential recyclables collection standards :
■ Accelerating start of the Northeast Lake Washington Transfer Station from
1994 to 1993 and delays the start of the South County Transfer Station
until late 1994:
■ Recommends analysis of the role of the transfer station to assist in the
review and development of capital improvement plans for the transfer
system.
HRM gproap1dn\he1en\brief rod '
EXHIBIT.
AHNIXSUM P. c'1t
Department of Public Works
City of Kent
King County Solid Waste Division 220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
FINAL 1992
COMPREHENSIVE
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXECUTNE SUMMARY
August 1993
Sorting
It Out
Together EXHIBITa
Prepared by:
King County Solid Waste Division
400 Yesler Way, Room 600
Seattle, Washington 98104-2637
Contact: Cynthia Stewart, (206) 296-4388
TDD 296-0100
This document will be provided in braille, large print, or audio cassette
upon advanced request.
A,
Executive Summary
Solid waste management is a tremendous challenge. addresses what is needed to meet the adopted King County 65
From 1980 to 1990 the population of King 28 grew g County
1 percent waste reduction and recycling goal by tle year 2000
percent The rate at which each individual generated waste and to ensure adequate services and environmental controls at
grew 65 percent from 4.3 pounds per day in 1980 to 7.1 in King County transfer and disposal facilities. This Plan is based
1990. If this trend were to continue, per capita generation on a 20-year forecast of the waste stream. It is reviewed and
would increase to approximately 10 pounds per day in the year updated ever,Y three years to identily, changed conditions and
2000. In addition, 218,000.new residents will five and work new needs,
within the King County solid waste region, bringing the total This update of the 1989 Plan builds on the joint
population to 1,209,000. accomplishments of the cities and the County which have
King County and its cities are reducing this waste streamdepended on the citizens, businesses, and re,,7',chg and solid
by 35 percent in 1992 through their nationally recognized waste management industries. Representatives of all of these
leadership in waste reduction and recycling. 'This outstanding groups and the King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee
accomplishment is supported by residents and businesses with (SWAG) contributed to ads Plan through workshops, meetings,
commitment and enthusiasm. working groups, and monthly SWAC meetings. This Plan
This 1992 Comprel;mive Solid Waste Management examines the successes in implementing the 1989 Plan,
Plan will lead King County toward its goal to further reduce identifies new needs and alternative ways to achieve them, and
the waste stream by 50 percent in 1995 and by 65 percent in recommends specific anions with implementation schedules and
20M. Through this Plan, King County will also continue its responsibilities.
nationally recognized leadership in solid waste management
with state-of-the-art facilities and operations.
The waste reduction and recycling success attained since ITIE PLAN
1987 has already extended the useful life of Cedar Hills
Regional Landfill by several years. Under current planning The Waste Stream Fomcast
assumptions, achieving and sustaining the 35 percent WR/R Table I shows projected waste generation and reduction
goal could mean the remaining capacity at Cedar Hills through the year 2010. Mixed municipal solid waste disposal
Regional Landfill could last for 21 years, until 2013. Achieving increased annually until 1992. In 1992 tonnage began to
the 50 percent waste reduction and recycling goal Could yield decline, because of waste reduction and recycling, and the
24 years—until 2016—and 65 percent WR/R Could achieve 27 decline is projected to continue until approximately 2000 when
Nears—until 2019. King County is very proud of these solid it Will begin to increase again. The County is projected to
waste management achievements. reach its 65 percent waste reduction and recycling (WR/R) rate
in 2000. It is assumed the WR/R rate would remain at 65
PLAN BACKGROUND percent diereafter, while tonnage disposed would once again
91OW dU to POPU12kn growth.
This is the 1992 Comprehensive Solid Wrule About half the unrecycled waste stream is paper, wood, -
Mfin(igement M,,in (Plan) for the suburban cities and and yard waste. Waste I'MUCti011 and reocling programs and
unincorporated areas of King COL111ty. The city of Seattle services wcommended in Chapter III of die Plan target ale
prepared a plan for its solid waste in lqsq. I'llis Plan limiol, %�as!o component, listed in T:1hle
. ,t
Projectionsa
Table 2 1990-91 Waste Stream Characterization
Table 1 King County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
Tons Paper 29.4%
Percent
Year Tons Tons Reduced/ Plastics Waste 199.66
Generated Disposed Recycled WR/R Food Waste 7.0
1987 989,500 808,000 181,500 18.3 6.4
225500 217 Demolition
1989 1,1 500 38,500 813,000 300000 26.4 Metals 5.3
1990 1,258.500 8901500
19 1, 8 �,`� 368,000 29.3 Textiles 4.6
Glass 2.7
1991 1,346,500, 914,000 432,500 32.1 1 .4
1992 1,339,600 870,700 468,900
35.0 Other
Source: Chapter II, Figure 11.10, and Volume II,Appendix B.
1993 1,391,500 834,900 556,600 40.0
1994 1,458,600 602,200 656,400 45.0
1995 1,538,600 769,300 769,300 50•0 Expanded Programs
1996 1,622,900 762,e00 860,100 53.0 Recommended new waste reduction strategies would
1997 1,711,900 753,200 958,700 56.0
1998 1,805,800 740,400 1,065,400 59.0 consist of both general programs focused on expanding public
1999 1904900 723900 1,181,000 62.0 awareness and understanding of waste reduction and programs
2000 2,009,400 703,300 1,306,100 65.0 specific enerator groups. The strategies are briefly
2001 2,064,500 722,600 1,341,900 65.0 targeted at p g
2002 2,121,100 742.400 1,378,700 65.0 described below.
2003 2,179,300 762.800 1.416,500 65.0 • 'Business programs would emphasize waste reduction.
2004 2,239,000 783,700 1,455.300 65.0
zoos 2,300.400 805,100 1.495.300 65.0 red echo of would
be encouraged to set goals for waste
2006 2,363,500 827,200 1,536.300 65.0
2007 2,428,300 849,900 1,578,400 65.0 A countywide mass media campaign, coordinated across
2008 2,494s00 673,200 1,621,700 65.o jurisdictional lines, would be implemented by the County.
2009 2,563,300 897,200 1,666,100 65.0
2010 2,633,600 921,800 1,711,800 65.0 • The County and the Cities would develop waste reduction
a The 1991 Planning goals forecast has been revised from programs to meet the needs of residents, businesses, and
previous estimates to exclude special wastes (contaminated soils, institutions
asbestos, biomedical, and industrial waste).
Source: 1991 Planning Forecast goals Policv and Program Research
A comprehensive analysis of nationwide waste reduction
policies and programs is needed to identify elements that would
Waste Reduction augment existing County and city programs.
Research would focus on waste generation, packaging
State and local legislation identify waste reduction as the issues, and regulatory options. options for implementing
highest solid waste management priority. Despite important g rY p p
waste reduction successes through education, rate incentives, restrictions or imposing taxes on the sale of specific packaging
mid other initiatives, waste generation continues to increase. or products could be explored with the lifting of the "ban on
This increase is due, in part, to King County's growing . bans" in July 1993.
economy and population, but also because of manufacturing Measurement
trends and consumption habits. Therefore, King County and pvo methods of measurement are to he developed for
the cities must continue to improve on their existing waste waste reduction:
reduction efforts. V7id1 this plan, rile County has developed a . A method to monitor progress made toward dc�relsing per
I ore detailed and comprehensive waste reduction strategy. This clpita generation rates through waste reduction.
strategy identifies a plan of action for creative and innovative • ;\ nietlicA of evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste
w;ns to meet economic needs while producing little or no solid reduction progruus implemented by the County and die cities.
waste.
Farulit�,1'unu7utnn•
Recychg Table 3 Designated Primary and Secondary Recyclables
. The Plan identifies needs for the recycling collection Primary Secondary
system, recyclable materials markets, regional services, and newspaper polycoated paperboard
other supports for recycling. cardboard
high-grade office paper
computer paper
Collection mixed paper
King County and the cities have established a county-wide yard waste (< 3'diameter) bulky yard waste
wood
household recyclables collection system. Other collection service food waste
needs addressed in the Plan include: PET& HDPE bottles all other plastics
Household yard waste Collection in all urban areas, glass containers
• Secondary recyclables such as white goods, plastics (SPI tin cans other ferrous metals
codes 3-7), bulky yard waste,and scrap metal. ' aluminum cans other nonferrous metals
• A more comprehensive rural residential collection system. appliances (white goods)
• Where feasible, more recy-clables and yard waste collection textiles
at King County transfer stations.
• More yard waste collection services for mull family and
commercial generators. The rural minimum service levels established in the Plan
• Nonresidential rec'vclables collection ser-ace standards and require the following drop-site collection services:
financial incentives. • Primary recyclables.
• Single-family yard waste collection.
Recyclable Materials Designation
This Plan designates recyclable materials for collection. Optional Recyclables Collodion '
Primary recyclables are those commonly collected and are In addition to collection required by the minimum service
included in minimum service levels. Secondary recyclables are levels, the County and cities are encouraged to implement the
less commonly collected (see Table 3). following services:
• Urban and rural household polycoated paperboard
Required Recyclables Collection collection.
Urban and rural household collection for #3-7 plastics
The Plan designates urban and rural service areas that (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and polystyrene)..
correspond to the Khrg Counh Canprebensive Plan. The • Rural household collection for primary rm'clables.
urban minimum residential service level requires the following • Rural yard waste collection (household or drop-site).
collection services: • Rural household appliance collection opportunities.
Primary recyclables collected from both single- and • Rural household textiles collection opportunities.
multifamily residences. • Cities nonresidential recycling collection services.
• Yard waste collection from single-family residences
• Yard waste collection/drop-off service for multifamily residences. Nonresidential Recyclables Collection
• Appliance collection opportunities. Thu Plan recommends that nonresidential collection
• Bulky yard waste collection opportunities. service guidelines be implemented voluntarily by eibes that
• 'Textiles collection opportunities. contract directly with hdUlerS. In all other cities and in
unincorporated areas, these guidelines should be implemented
�Ll'dCY(h!Y',1 flAJ!!1(A'i'
1V
by haulers with support from those cities and the County. State coordination with school districts and continue to provide
law does not provide clear authority for cities and the County to extensive education and anticipated public information.
require nonresidential recyclables collection. King County
should clarify this authority to ensure better nonresidential Reidential Spud Waste and
recyclables collection service county-wide. 'Reeyelables Collection'.System
Clean wood collection Except for the recycling needs and recommendations
After a study to determine volume and generator described above, the basic recyclables and solid waste collection
information for clean wood, programs may be developed for system appears to be adequate.
waste reduction and the collection of recyclable clean wood
materials
Nonresidential Collection Authority
Recyclable Materials Market Needs Local governments need authority to set non-residential
Recyclable materials that need high-priority market recyclables collection minimum service standards. Also, King
development to support successful recycling are plastics, glass, County may need to work with the Washington Utilities and
compost, and mixed waste paper. The King County Transportation Commission to promote cross-subsidization
Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials will work to (allowing income from one type of operation to subsidize
stimulate procurement through education, outreach, increased another, for instance, solid waste collection could subsidize
recyclable product procurement, product testing and recyclables collection), other forms of combined rates, and other
demonstration. coalition building, coordination with the Clean means of stimulating commercial recyclables collection.
Washington Center, policy analysis, legislative initiatives, and
technical assistance to businesses and govemment Institutional and Incentive Policies
Support Services Incentive Rates
This Plan recommends the cities and the County continue Aggressive recycling goals need to be supported by a rate
1989 Plan support programs, including collection rate design process that allows haulers to provide waste reduction
incentives, procurement policies that favor use of recycled or and recycling incentives and recover costs associated with
recyclable products. and new construction standards requiring improving service. The cities, King Counry, and the collectors
onsite space for rec clables storage. In addition, progress will should continue to implement and maintain rate incept yes that
be measured by routine recyclables collection data reporting and encourage waste reduction and recycling,
annual reports of progress toward Plan implementation.
Mandatory Collection
Regional Services Mandatory solid waste and recyclable collection is not
King County should continue to provide more waste recommended at this time. However, the County should study
reduction and recycling information to the public. The County the relationship between mandatory solid waste collection,
should also continue to work with cities and other agencies to participation in recycling programs, self-haul activity, and
achieve stronger intergovernmental coordination and to illegal dumping in order to evaluate the possibility of making
maximize available grant assistance through the Washington collection mandatory in the future.
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Coordinated Prevention
Grant and other programs. King County should increase
Fr2trtlilr:J'tamnturr
.............. V
The Transfer System King County should continue to upgrade existing disposal
facilities to meet the requirements of the King County Solid
Transfer system planning provides
s for adequate capacity Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Title 10). Continuation of
for the tonnage and number of vehicles projected to use each adequate capacity should be the primary goal for the disposal
facitty. It also plans for required recycling services, and for system. Recommendations for specific landfills are listed below.
environmental controls in the transfer system- Future Cedar Hills. Re-evaluate and revise the Draft Cedar HE
expansion and configuration of the system will continue to be Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS in response to
examined. Four planning needs have been identified: revised tonnage forecasts, operating experience, public comment
. To provide adequate tonnage capacity to serve all areas of and potential out-of-county disposal. The Plan proposes
the county. accelerating the development of Refuse Area 5.
To increase customer service capacity. Hobart Continue limited operations at the landfill until
• To accommodate recycling at County transfer facilities. the facility closes.
• To plan for future decisions, such as to set level of service . Vnshon. Determine the impact of a sole source aquifer
standards in urban and rural areas and to accommodate such designation on this landfill. Evaluate the replacement of the
changes as technological advances, new regulations, or other landfill with either a transfer station or a drop-box.
needs. Waste export, or shipment of solid waste out-of-counr✓
';,
This Plan modifies the 1989 transfer system development would continue to be studied throughout the planning period.
plan based on current circumstances. This updated 1992 Closure and post-closure funding for all facilities should
transfer system development plan (Figure 1) recommends that be assured by adjustments in contributions in the next rate
the site selection process for a new Northeast Lake Washington Period
Area facility would begin in 199') , and site selection for a new
South Count,'; station would begin in late 199Zi Inactive Landfills
The Plan also recommends:
• Analysis of the role of the transfer system. (including King Count'; has custodial responsibility
v for seven inactive
possible privatization of some services). landfills. These are Enumclaw, Cedar Falls, Duvall, Coiliss,
0 Development of master facility plans for those transfer Bow Lake. Houghton, and PuyaEup/Fitt Comer landfills. The
stations with expansion potential. city of Camnon is responsible for the Carnation Landfill. The
• Update of system use data major needs identified for the landfills are monitoring,
maintenance, and a set aside of sufficient funds to support the
costs of monitoring and maintenance for a minimum of 20
Disposal eats.
Disposal
Disposal facilities are needed to serve all areas of King
t. The POSt-CIOSLIre Costs for the King County landfills are
County. Their capacity must be adequate to meet this need presently funded from the Solid Waste Division operating
over the next 20 years. Cedar Hills Regional Landfill has a budget, the landfill post-closure maintenance fund and the
disposal capacity of 45 million cubic yards, but King County environmental reserve fund. The appropriateness and adequacy
should anticipate the need for additional disposal capacity
beyond the 20-year planning requirement of this funding method should be evaluated upon completion of
further environmental studies.
In addition to facilities availability and capacity,
COInpliallCe With King County Solid Waste Regulations (KCBOHC Energy/Resource Recovery
Title 10), necessary
v capital improvements, and closure and post-
closure activities and funding arc also identified needs in this The 1()93 11111 does not recommend an energy/resource
Plati. Iccovel), facilill'. Waste reduction and recycling goals are being
Successfully achieved and landfill resources are adequate.
r:
r/
V1
-0•,Proposed Waste Management N.W.Transfer Station _--.—.—.—._-- •------•--�
(-•-- •—T ............. —
irst Ave NE,
.
Tr nsfer Stat
j b NE Lake Washington , ' S omish Drop-box
j C Transfer Station i.- Northeast yk Area � - ``- �..` _ _ _-
! Transfer Station
iOtRT H ` t
A ,
�' _
GYR
NORTHE_A!ST- ii
tation
SEATTLE - \
Ic
Factoria Transfer Station
i CENT'AAL
%
SR-t 8i1-50 Area Transfer Station. „ - //• N
i/
Tukwila 3•Area '•`�tV nton Transfer Station 0.,�
Transfer, r
i Z Cedar Hills JCedar Falls LancfilVDrco-box
Station } ..,/Regional Landfill
Vashon ,�' not open to ublic '!l
f j Bow Laka Transfer Station�.( P P , 1 � -
% Landfill
S O Hobart LandflVTransfer Saton'• _
VASHONN� - "■
_.1
/ ISLAND
t U South County SOUTH
Transfer Station L
\ .. RU:RA !f
_
CAlgona Transfer Station.,;
\ r�
50 5CEnumclaw Lanbflu Transfer Station
-■�• New transfer
facility upgrade
MILES �'\
.\ ■ New transfer facility i
A Landfill upgrade
O Closure of existing landfill or transfer station
`I ❑ Drop-box
Future transfer facilities locations(conceptual)
TRANSFER STATIONS
CLOSE RURAL LANDFILLS TO BE CLOSED AND NEW TRANSFER STATIONS
• Houghton Transfer.Station REPLACED WITH TRANSFER STATIONS . Nort
theoriast Lake Washington Area
• Renton Transfer Station • Hobart Landfill
• Middle Snoqualmie
• Algona Transfer Station • Intersection of SR-18 and 1-90
UPGRADE • Tukwila Area (if Bow Lake cannot be
• First Northeast Transfer Station upgraded)
• South County Area
UPGRADE OR REPLACE • Hobart
• Factoria Transfer Station
• Bow Lake Transfer Station
Figure I King County Solid W'mm Division service area; vid facility reconuivildations.
latt'ulity,tumtttnrl,
. ..... VII
Construction, Dernobtion, and
Special and Miscellaneous wastes Land Clearing Waste
special wastes are those mixed municipal solid wastes King Couri'ty has provided for CDL disposal services
that may require special handli.ng and therefore must receive through two contracts with Regional Landfill Corporation for
regulatory clearances prior to disposal in the King County solid disposal in Klickitat County (expected to begin in September
waste system. The Plan specifically addresses significant special 1993) and Waste Management in Arlington, Oregon (to
wastes, including contaminated soils; asbestos; biomedical; and commence before mid-1994). There are many in-county
construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) waste. options for CDL recycling and composting of land clearing
NUsullaneous wastes, including woodwaste and magricultura i I pal debris.Planning for disposal is adequate, however better
wastes, are handled outside the King County mixed municipal information is needed on the waste stream and operations of
solid waste disposal system- local recyclers and processors to support waste reduction and
recvcling efforts. Waste generators need to systematically plan
Contaminated Soils for waste handling early in project planning and permitting.
Contaminated soils typically are those that contain CDL materials mark-es also need to be further assessed.
petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Disposal of
contaminated soils at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill creates Miscellaneous Wastes
impacts and contributes 1.5 percent of the disposed tonnage. A
variety of treatment processes to remove or destroy hazardous No solid waste management needs are identified and no
substances from contaminated soil are preferable to disposa action is recommended for the remaining miscellaneous waste
t streams, wcodvvas�e, aoricu!tural waste, sludges and septage,
Treatment processes should be promoted over disposal and 0
disposal options should be revaluated in relation to the waste tires. and dredge spoils
economic and operational impacts to processors and operational
impacts to the Cedar Hills Landfill. Enforcement
Four r, es of enforcement activities are carried out by the
t6bestos Waste St, 'p
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health (Health
No needs have been identified beyond those for waste Department) and the Solid Waste Division.
screening (see Enforcement). The existing s%VnI is otheryu . Sojr�l rz asle&771d:xg faclil,�es permit requirenten1s. The
adequate for asbestos waste disposal. Health Department is responsible for permitting both public and
private solid waste facilities in accordance with the King County
Biomedical Waste Solid Caste Regulations. The existing enforcement SYStern
Because there are no major biomedical treatment facilities appear to be effective to ensure compliance, but staffing levels
to handle wastes.from medical, dental and veterinal), facilities need to be evaluated. i
within King County, biomedical waste, including residuals from . laqe flow cowroi. Waste generated within the K ng
treatment or incineration, should be excluded from flow control Utility solid w:isto planning area must be disposed at King
provisions. Continued disposal at appropriate facilities in and COL111tv facilities unless its disposal is prohibited by the
outside of King County is recommended. Division's waste acceptance policy or disposal elsewhere is
The adequacy of the current option for disposal of home- speciftcalk permitted by ordinance or the Plan. Data indicate
generated sharps.needs to be further assessed. Home generators that toed tonnage delivered to the system 'appeals to be
to
nnage
of shups wastes should receive more education oil proper declining f:lstel- than anticipated, 'Phis impacts financial
disposal measures. planning and operations and indicates a lieed to monitor waste
r
Vl l l
flow control and evaluate needs for further measures. Waste worked cooperatively to identify and resolve Plan issues. The
from jurisdictions that are not part of this Plan must be SWAC also reviewed and commented on the Plan at each stage
charged a triple rate. The Plan recommends increased of its development
attention to the source of waste in order for the rate The plan development process consisted of the three steps
disincentive to work, public education,:and continued described in the following sections.
monitoring.
• Conlrol of incoming waste. The Plan recommends that
expanded waste screening operations at King County and private Draft Development Plan
opment
of the Draft 1992 Plan began in early
transfer stations, to ensure only allowable mixed municipal
solid waste is disposed. 1991. In order to identify countywide concerns, two county-
• Illegal dumping and hilenng. Few data are available to sponsored workshops were held to discuss the 1992 Plan.
accurately assess the nature and extent of illegal dumping and Suburban cities' elected officials, administrators, and managers,
littering. The Plan recommends research and analysis of these SWAC members, recycling coordinators and representatives of
problems. Based on findings, a county-wide information the haulers and recycling businesses participated in these
tracking system may be needed. meetings and workshops. Three community meetings were also
held at locations potentially affected by the Plan's transfer
Impact facility siting recommendations. Based on the input received at
Environmental Im
p these meetings and research conducted by Solid Waste Division
Statement Addendum (SWD) staff and consultants, the Draft 1992 was produced and
distributed for review and comment in August 1992.
This 1992 Plan is substantially similar to the 1959 plan- A 90-day public review period began upon issuance of the
Although this 1992 Plan contains a number of new Draft PlarL The Plan was widely distributed for review and
recommendations, they build upon the same basic solid waste comment by those affected by it King County conducted public
management programs recommended in die 1989 Plan. meetings, hearings, and briefings for elected officials in addition
Because of the similarity of the two plans, the probable to taking written comments. The SWAC and the Suburban
significant adverse impacts of the recommendations and Cities Staff Police; Group reviewed and commented upon the
alternatives in the 1992 Plan fall within the range of those D aft Plan
evaluated in the 19S9 Plan EIS. Therefore, rather than prepare The Draft Plan was formally reviewed by Ecology per
a new EIS on the 1992 Plan, the King County Solid Waste RCW 70.9 and the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Division has decided to adopt the 1989 Plan EIS in its entirety, Commission reviewed the Cost Assessment (Volume 1[, Appendix
and prepare an addendum that contains needed additional F)
information.
Final Plan Development
Plan Recommendations This Final Plan was revised based on strategies developed
A table of Plan recommendations is found at the end of by the public, suburban cities staff, SWAC, and the Staff Policy
this summrtty (Table 4). Group of the Suburban Cities Association during and after the
Draft Plan review period. Based on the comments received,
PLAN DEVELOPMENT issues needing review and revision were identified and strategies
were developed to address the concens raised. Consensus was
Tile 1992 Plan has been developed with extensive early gained on revision strategies through meetings with the Staff
n of the suburban Policy Group, suburban cities rec cling coordinators, the SWAC,
public involvement and the active participatio
cities. City rev 1cling coordinators and County staff have also and Ecology
l:r�t'rdirt ,Srurrnurrp
1X
May 1991 -February 1992
;p Early Public Involvement
nga'� .usrzs�.a��+-r%� •rx:sr:cu�aemrtx; i-
February-March 1992
Q•W
X1.>1 Preliminary Plan Draft Summary for Review and Discussion
�~ (yj4a�i.Yir`M�..S�IY�hivn'14t'aYY�,���J'�.1'i,.`N�9�'}�ri,�%��rs ]r.�."ld.(�1�. •
August- 1992
Draft Plan Issuance
-a
iV-.M A'."-- sgA5�n k3?tx;<.-,�
August-November 1992
Z� Public Comment Period
`-nLu. �a..-.w�.a:r�vtrxe:swrr,.. ..:f.rv-e:Y...r•ax:a -i::��Y -.::.Y.ir..ak:a:.iv:��r->c:�:.:<n..<f�atf'. ��.cia..
J >% August-December 1992
a-X� Ecology-Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Review
7.�84fs4MC-l'S":'ink;�'W[[�c)Y8tc1ik+7k�.�StY.r!iiv�.dTl?.A"+7:=h.Yl..`^iv1L'�37nfi`�":
x W�1, December 1992-June 1993
WA Consensus Building with Suburban Cities and Ecology & Final Plan Development
� F ryy,::.tKk'#'iKbti Y1TI[x.'�.f aYe�'l�.•.iY--�r_c',�Jn'+,.......•. .s�.�::..::.*..^r•u`�> x�.1.v.v. >d...-..�� _ � .-�Ry
% July 1993
Final Plan Issuance
• m
t k..,i., - .^:'rr.7•.s::.r;-.ss. v .7.;ti�.o-•c.. :?+.'+6+ria'tY
.C3 ^ -:uXei�'t1Mu:y�•+Y+"`s`3Y iv:t•.ii.:v+N n �lii`3ax.M.�%G�^�" i:�l;:.Y^.4.»:9:�.tirt.�:'S.:1:�.{h'Y!E•1:'cu4:a�
3rd Quarter 1993
Forum Review
�. `�gW!Wa«;.�X.S=2'£:�i3:ea: .�..Y..'la"+n' •:'Rl�a+1.Sty+ati:SUS:zee0.Y:M-;':F�.'�v%aax:L'^tim--'-s.;.r:..;Fl<1':-+-' '�
3rd Quarter 1993
p Ecology Final Review
Z1•'.T:.Y��+:i.�'Y.._.1a l.a.�.'_ ,-I v:♦. ,4ti�� LP
1 st Quarter 1994zy ¢
Cities and King County Adoption Process Completed
a<
w.-l-:T:SvYs>�.7T.G4'i::-r`S'C!L+>u....r t"+rfi .a�u:ti N..u...:...-w.;;`..�+vr51a r•
Final Plan Submitted to Ecology
With Adoptions for Approval
y
. «i�N'k'+7:K�N.1Oi�'�'iN�'ViVrkR�7'aik�ia�v+'�.'nA6>w.'rc..�w.�,s:•.•�a: 1'Y,^Kut\�1�1f�Aa..,A-..l:+u.lyn\-w,;wt.wv......;nai.';R'1a '"`'t'"
Figure 2 Comprchensi%c Solid Write Nl magcnKnt PLm review ;md tkasion-making process.
X
Based on the consensus achieved during the preceding C. Disposal
process, the Suburban Cities Association has adopted by D. Inactive Landfills
resolution support for the final plan. E. Energy/Resource Recovery
Chapter V: Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
Plan Adoption A. Contaminated Soil
Plan adoption is the third and final stage. Pending B. Asbestos Waste
Ecology's concurrence that the Final Plan and Suburban Cities C. Biomedical Waste
Association recommendations are in compliance with RCW D. Construction, Demolition, and Land Clearing Waste
70.95, Plan adoption wi11 be voted on by suburban the cities E. Agricultural Waste
and then the Icing County Council. The Plan is deemed F. Woodwaste
adopted if cities representing 75 percent of the incorporated G. Other Special Wastes
population approve it within the 120-dap adoption period, Chapter VI: Enforcement
which begins when the Plan is issued. Ecology would grant
final approval once these steps are completed. (The Plan A- Solid Waste Handling Facilities Permit Requirements
process is shown in Figure 2.) B. Waste Flow Control
C. Control of Special Wastes
PLAN ORGANIZATION D. Illegal Dumping and Littering
Chapter VII: Financial Systems
VOLUME I A. Financing Operations
B. Grants
Annotation of 1992 Draft Plan Comments
Executive Summary Environmental impact Statement Addendum
Glossary
Chapter I: Plan Development ReferericMs
A. Planning Background Related Legislation
B. Relationship to Other Plans
C. Administration VOLUME II
D. Planning History
E. Process and Schedule Appendix AL Waste Generation Forecast Methodology
Appendix B: Waste Characterization Study
Chapter II: Planning Area Append x C: Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan
A. Existing Conditions Appendix D: Rec cling 1larkets Assessment
B. Waste Stream Analysis Appendix E: Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs
C. Solid Waste Facility Siting Plan Summary Appendix F Resource Guide to Recycling Centers in King
Chapter III: Waste Reduction and Recycling
County
Appendix G: Resource Guide for Recycling and Disposal
A, Waste Reduction Alternatives for Construction, Demolition, and
B. Recycling Land Clearing Debris
Chapter IV: Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Appendix H: Miaed Waste Ptncessing Feasibility Analysis
Systems Appendix is Landfill Reserve Fund
A. Solid Waste and Rooclahles Collection Appendix J: Al;ricultur:il wLste and Woodwaste
B. 'transfer Sisteni Append x K: 1Vl1TC Solid Waste Cost Assessment
r:r t'fdrnr 5runrrutrr
X1
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
Chapter III - Waste Reduction-and Recycling
WASTE REDUCTION
111.1 Business waste reduction Expand business waste reduction program by developing model office display,
and recognize businesses that incorporate waste reduction into company
practices.
111.2 County in-house program Form a networking committee to expand and create new waste reduction
programs for County In-House program.
111.3 Holiday waste reduction Expand waste reduction programs targeting consumers and businesses during the
holiday season.
111.4 Green teams Increase number of Green Teams school program sites to include all schools.
111.5 Multimedia strategy Purchase videos on waste reduction for airing on public access television and
participate with other jurisdictions and television media to buy air time to promote
waste reduction.
111.6 Targeted waste reduction Develop and implement one waste reduction program per generator type
(residential, business, and institution).
111.7 Packaging analysis Analyze trends in manufacturing and product packag:ng and design and identify
excessive and nonrecyclable packaging.
111.8 Identification of reducible waste Identify categories of waste whih can or cannct be reduced to target eliminating
reducible waste.
111.9 Waste reduction data Identify existing waste reducticr efforts by the private and public setters.
111.10 Consortium building Establish a waste reduction cc.-son;um with trade assoc;ations and manufacturers.
111.11 Intergovernmental coordination Increase intergovernmental coordination to increase influence on waste reduction
decisions.
111.12 National activities Develop proposals for establishing industry consortiums, intergovernmental
coordination and national ccalit;ons to promote waste reduction in products and
packaging.
111.13 Rate incentives Continue to encourage waste reduction and recycling through such rate-related
incentives as mini-can garbage service, special recycling service rate for non-
garbage customers, distributing cost of recycling among all rate pavers, and
establishing substantial cost differentials between solid waste collection service
levels.
RECYCLABLES COLLECTION
Required Collection
111.14 Urban household collection of primary Provide household collection of paper, #1 and #2 plastic bottles (PEF and HDP�,
recyclables yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter), glass containers, and tin and
aluminum cans from all urban single- and multifamily residences
111.15 Rural drop box collection of primary Provide rural single- and multifamily residences with drop-sites for collection of the
recyclables same materials collected at urban households
111.16 Urban single-family household yard Provide household collection of yard waste (less than 3 inches in diameter) from
waste collection urban single-family residences in unservod urban areas
Xii
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
111.17 Urban multifamily onsite yard waste Ensure yard waste collection service options are available to urban multifamily
collection service dwellings
111.16 Urban household bulky yard waste Ensure household collection service options for yard waste too large or in
collection service excessive amounts for regular household collection are available
111.19 Urban household appliance collection Ensure large appliance collection service options are available to urban
service households
111.20 Urban household textiles collection Ensure collection service options are available for textiles on a regular basis
service
111.21 Nonresidential recycling service Ensure that businesses have minimum recycling services available to them
guidelines implementation and
promotion
Optional Collection
111.22 Urban and rural household polycoated Evaluate the inclusion of polycoated materials (milk cartons, butter and frozen food
paperboard collection packages) in household collection programs
111.23 Urban and rural household collection Include #3-7 plastics (vinyl, LDPE, polypropylene, and all other plastics) in
of#3-7 plastics household collection programs
111.24 Rural household collection of primary Collect primary recyclables at the household from rural single- and multifamily
recyclables residences
111.25 Rural drop-site collection of yard waste Provide on-call household or drop-site collection of yard waste
111.26 Rural household collection of Collect appliances from rural households
appliances
111.27 Rural household textiles collection Collect used clothing and fabrics from rural households
111.28 Nonresidential recycling collection Initiate collection contracts to provide minimum recycling services to businesses.
service contracts
Other County Collection Programs
111.29 Recyclables collection at King County Continue current level of primary recyclables including yard waste services at
Solid Waste Facilities existing facilities where feasible; collect these and other materials as needed at
upgraded and new facilities
111.30 Yard waste drop sites Ensure the provision of yard waste drop sites or services in the northeastern, near-
south, and eastside areas of the County
111.31 Yard waste disposal ban Implement a phased ban on yard waste disposal at County disposal facilities
111.32 Incentives to buy-back centers Evaluate the feasibility cf providing financial incentives to existing private buy-back
centers-to encourage them to collect and recycle secondary recyclable materials
111.33 Appliance recycling resource list Maintain and distribute a resource list of appliance dealers and recyclers capable
of accepting, collecting, or recycling used appliances and who meet the new
Federal Clean Air Act CFC regulations -
111.34 Secondary recyclablos collection Coordinate special collection events countywide (urban and rural) for secondary
events recyclables .
111.35 Primary Recyclables Education Develop and implement a campaign to increase public awareness of household
Campaign collection service of primary recyclables.
1.11171fil-e,S•(U71/11(!T1'
d
X 2.
X111
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
CITY/COUNTY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
111.36 Collection'rate incentives Continue to establish rate incentives for solid waste collection that encourage
participation4 in recycling programs (see Recommendation 111.13)
111,37 Procurement policies Continue the adoption of procurement policies that favor the use of recycled or
recyclable products
111.38 Recycling space standards for new Continue to develop new construction standards that require onste space for
construction collecting and storing recyclables in multifamily and nonresidential structures
countrywide
111.39 City annual reports Continue annual reports to the County on progress toward implementing the
Plan's required programs and achieving established diversion goals
111.40 Data reporting by haulers, recyclers, Continue to provide collection data from household and nonresidential collection
cities programs
COUNTY REGIONAL PROGRAMS
111.41 King County Commission for Continue to faster the development and expansion of recycling markets in King
Marketing Recyclable Materials County and the region
111.42 Business recycling program Continue to assist businesses ard institutions in developing and implementing
WRiR programs in the workplace
111.43 King County employee recycling Continue to provide recycling or-ortunities in the workplace to King County
program employees
111.44 School education program Continue to work with cities, schoci districts, haulers and recyclers in the delivery
of school educational and collection programs
111.45 Other WR/R education Continue existing education programs and community events, develop new
programs in the areas of yard waste and mixed waste paper collection, and
develop and coordinate a comprehensive media campaign aimed at multiethnic
and other groups
111.46 C:ean wood collection Study and develop programs to increase waste reduction and recycling
opportunities for clean wood waste.
111.47 Master Recycler Composter program Continue to train community volunteers in recycling and composting techniques
XIV
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation - Description
Chapter IV - Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Handling Systems
COLLECTION
IV.1 Collection authority Pursue state legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and
cities to set recommended minimum service standards for nonresidential collection
of recyclables.
IV.2 Evaluate mandatory collection Study relationships between mandatory collection, seH•haul activity, illegal
dumping, and participation in recycling programs.
IV.3 WUTC rate review Continue to seek changes in statutes and in the WUTC rate review process to
allow haulers to recover costs related to nonresidential recycling service level
improvements called for in the Plan.
IVA Rate incentives Continue to implement rate incentives that will encourage waste reduction and
recycling (see also Chapter III, Recommendations 111.13 and 111.36).
IV.S Waste Management Northwest Not expected to become a part of the County's transfer system.
IV.6 Northeast Lake Washington Begin site selection in 1993, completion in 1999.
IV.7 Houghton Close in 1999, after new Northeast Lake Washington is completed.
IV.B First Northeast Develop Master Facility Flan. Expand if feasible.
IV.9 Factoria Build new facility. Add MR'W services if feasible.
IV.10 South County Build new transfer station- Begin site selection in 1994.
IV.11 Algona Close after new Scuth County Transfer Station is completed in 2000.
IV.12 Bow Lake Develop Master Facility Plan. Expand if feasible, or build a replacement in Tukwila
area.
IVA3 Renton Close Renton after Factoria and Bow Lake expansions or Tukwila replacement
facility is built.
IV.14 Enumclaw Landfill closed. Replaced with new transfer station in 1993.
IV.15 Hobart Close landfill in 1994.
IV.16 New transfer facilities Place on hold pending the outcome of Growth Management Act initiatives
IV.17 Role of Transfer System Develop a study on the role of the transfer system.
IV.18 System Use Data Collection Collect current data on transfer system usage, programs, and regulations.
DISPOSAL
IV.19 KCBOHC Title 10 compliance Continue monitoring compliance. -
IV.20 Capital construction plan- (a) Accelerate development of the Refuse Area 5, Cedar Hills. (b) Delay Vashon
new area development and final cover projects. (c) Adjust costs associated with
Capital Construction Plan with updated estimates.
IV.21 Financial assurance Adjust contributions to individual accounts in next rate period. -
IV.22 Cedar Hills Regional Landfill Modify draft Site Development Plan and associated Draft EIS.
IV.23 Hobart Landfill Maintain existing load restriction and continue operation until capacity is reached.
Close in 1994.
IV.24 Enumclaw Landfill Landfill closed. Gosure process initiated.
IieLC7llilt 1lU1117111 ,
X XV
..........
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendations (Continued)
Rec.
No. Recommendation Description
IV.25 Vashon Landfill (a) Seek clarification on impact of a sole source aquifer designation for Vashon
Island on the continued operation of the Vashon Landfill. (b) Evaluate
replacement options for the Vashon Landfill. (c) Evaluate leachate storage,
transport, and treatment alternatives and select alternative.
IV.26 Waste export Evaluate economics of out-of-county alternatives with continued operation of Cedar
Hills; include back-up level operation necessary for Cedar Hills.
INACTIVE LANDFILLS
IV.27 Inactive Landfills Conduct further study and evaluation to determine what actions may be necessary
to manage inactive lancNls.
Chapter V - Special and Miscellaneous Wastes
CONTAMINATED SOIL
V.1 Recycling and treatment Promote recycling/treatment. Analyze disposal options and the costs and benefits
of in-County vs. cut-of-Ccunl/ disposal.
BIOMEDICAL WASTE
V I
Treatment and disposal Continue to allow treatment and disposal outside of King County.
V.3 Flow control exclusion Remove biomedical waste references from flow control provisions.
V.4 Home-generated sharps education Develop and distribute additional education materials for home generators of
sharps waste.
V.5 Home-generated sharps disposal Continue tc evaluate the adequacy of current disposal options for home-generated
sharps.
CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION,AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
V.6 Source separation Encourage a policy of source separation for COL. Promote an increase in the
number of cispersed locations receiving COL recyclabres.
V.7 Cnsite assistance Conduct ons!te waste audits
IV.8 Resource guides and brochures Develop broad distribution network for the *Resource Guide.' Develop new
brochures to target various audiences, e.g., COL generators and recyclers.
V.9 Workshops Conduct workshops in conjunction with building trades organizations
V.10 Waste exchange Expand the work of the IME-Y group to add components of demolition and
construction waste into its listing. Expand the County's procurement policy to
cover COL materials most easily recycled, such as asphalt, untreated wood, and
compost made from land clearing debris. Develop incentives to encourage
recyclers to locate in King County or expand their existing operations. Develop
monitoring program for non-contracted recyclers.
V.1 1 Permitting Develop, in conjunction with DOES and city permit agencies, a waste reduction
and recycling plan requirement for commercial and residential building, grading,
or subdivision permits.
V.1 2 Disposal ban Study imposition of a disposal ban on specific COL materials.
V.13 Waste screening Evaluato instituting a waste screening program.
V.14 Record keeping Monitor the disposal of CCL waste.
xvi ze
Table 4 Final 1992 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Recommendanons (Continued)
Rec. Description
No. Recommendation
Chapter VI - Enforcement
WASTE FLOW CONTROL '
VI.t Waste flow control education Develop waste flow control education program.
VI.2 Enforcement Increase enforcement of flow control and waste acceptance policies.
CONTROL OF INCOMING WASTES
VI.3 Expanded waste screening Allocate resources for routine observation of unloading, periodic load checks, and
documentation of screening activities at transfer stations.
VIA Staff training Provide additional training for employees to screen wastes.
VI.5 Regulation of private transfer stations Establish screening and record keeping requirements at private transfer stations.
ILLEGAL DUMPING AND LITTERING
VI.6 Evaluate current systems Evaluate current monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup systems.
VI.7 Central monitoring system Develop a central system for monitoring illegal dumping complaints and
countywide enforcement activities.
VI.8 Abatement of illegally dumped waste Research provision of revciving fund for abatement.
VI.9 Model litter control ordinance Research and draft a model ordinance to address litter and illegal dumping
concerns.
ftl'!t7lJ!!Y.'.1}(11lDJ(J17�
1`
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS WATER MAIN REBUILDS -
eamptETE'
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept as complete the
contract with Briggs Construction Company for the Miscellaneous
Water Main Rebuilds project and release of retainage after
receipt of State releases.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes and memorandum from
Public Works Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
the longer range County ' s plan .
Committee unanimously agreed to recomrlend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County P.oad Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
Sidewalk Repair Work
Wickstrom indicated on CBD sidewalk map locations where sidewalks
had been replaced either through our City crews or thru our Public
Works contracts . Wickstrom also explained that some of the
sidewalks were paid for under the various road projects or utility
projects . There was no further discussion on this .
King County Comprehensive solid Waste Plan
Mark Buscher with King County Solid Waste Division presented an
Comprehensive Solid Waste
overview of
the Final 1992 County
Management Plan which basically effect= solid was
�E manacE:<<Ent In
the llnlnCOrpOratEC areas Of King County and also suburban cities
for the nex- saveral years . At this ti ,E, rL'sCI handed out a
��.- W:r_Cl, ollLilneC the :::ajor recc--lends-ions CCPtclnEd
briefing pa-=_ -
in the 1992 =1a!1 and exnlainec, she Cl- -erEnCEs b'Et:;Eer: i � and T-hE
adopted 19c9 =tan .
r.
BllSC'!'iEr E:{_:-a_nEC �.":ct the C1t1Es and CC'--''`.r'iEcDrcP. c , Buse'-_yr said
dCClircr�t is issued to aQCD� _ .
the time the 1 -clan res C.luziCn h the
that this p:a-. �r:as_ endorsed as a zinc_ _ b`:
suburban C __= •-sscciaticn in June .
ri _o -C��c1V acreEd t0 reCOi-.�.E".0 a__Ct_Cn cf the King
C07
county CO -_-=_-c=1sivE c01 id Waste PlcP. .
240th/ 108th -_affic si_cnal
-~ Committee had pre':icusly authorized the
Wickstrc::� s==� �•-�� 2o0th
F = nds from a signal no,��4beinc built by Target at
transfer o� = form an LID with the
and loth and we had indicated that we we ld publ . c
-,EEting and
balance. jV i'-.\-i-rOrl explained that WE had the we have
the neichbcrs knc, what their as Ss .Ents re any
concurrence fcr at least 40 Which would be the minimu-k necessary
to legally an LID . In response to �; .1 Wickstre-, said that
we are in =ian stage now for the sicnci and it should be
`4 .1
installed in
Committee a sr.-mou=ly agreed to recommend proceeding with the
formation c= LID.
MiscellaneoL:: Ovate=-.-lain Rebuilds
St lte�i that this WlS project lW.lri�Ei t0 13L-lgg=•
Wickstr�.rl _
Construction _"=
t}'.d re COnstructiol, OI lv ltc'L'lll.1.111-, ,111�� 1'; �J111 F-i li'tCc .
3
Committee unanimously recom,.
complete .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMII�)TTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM �V
RE: MISCELLANEOUS WATER MAIN REBUILDS
The project consisted of the construction of water main work in six
separate locations.
The project was awarded to Briggs Construction Company on April 20,
1993 for the bid amount of $281, 265 . 90 . The final construction
cost is $279, 206 . 09 .
ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as completed.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CENTRAL AVENUE & 259TH TRAFFIC SIGNAL - -A�"AS
COMP E-L�
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept as complete the
contract with Service Electric Company, Inc. for the Central
Ave. & 259th Traffic Signal project and release of retainage
after receipt of State releases.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes, memorandum from
Public Works Director and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0) -
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom stated that this project was awarded to Service Electric
Co. and is now complete.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
South 196th Street Bridge Removal at Mill Creek
Wickstrom stated that this was the bridge serving the Western
Processing site however because it was hazardous we removed it.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Washington Avenue Short Plat utilities - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
The Lakes Division 3 - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
Sewer Extension at the School on 108th .
Bennett asked why this was extended across. Wickstrom stated that
it is in the council ' s adopted policy, both in the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and Construction Standards, that when property
needs to obtain sewer service it must extend it to its farthest
corner from the sewer, so that it could be extended by the next
property when there are other properties to be serviced. In this
case, there were other properties to be serviced. Wickstrom said
that' s why we had it extended up to 108th.
Meeting adjourned at 6: 15 p.m.
4
the longer range County' s plan.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County Road Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
Sidewalk Repair Work
Wickstrom indicated on CBD sidewalk map locations where sidewalks
had been replaced either through our City crews or thru our Public
Works contracts. Wickstrom also explained that some of the
sidewalks were paid for under the various road projects or utility
projects. There was no further discussion on this.
King County comprehensive solid Waste Plan
Mark Buscher with King County solid Waste Division presented an
overview of the Final 1992 County Comprehensive solid Waste
Management Plan which basically effects solid waste management in
the unincorporated areas of King County and also suburban cities
for the next several years. At this time, Buscher handed out a
briefing paper which outlined the major recommendations contained
in the 1992 Plan and explained the differences between it and the
adopted 1989 Plan.
Buscher explained that the cities and counties have 120 days from
the time the document is issued to adopt the plan. Buscher said
that this plan was endorsed as a final plan by resolution by the
Suburban Cities Association in June.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of the King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan.
240th/108th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom said that Committee had previously authorized the
transfer of funds from a signal now being built by Target at 260th
and 104th and we had indicated that we would form an LID with the
balance. Wickstrom explained that we had the public meeting and
the neighbors know what their assessments are and we have a
concurrence for at least 40o which would be the minimum necessary
to legally form an LID. In response to White, Wickstrom said that
we are in design stage now for the signal and it should be
installed in 1994 .
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend proceeding with the
formation of the LID.
Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds
Wickstrom stated that this was a project awarded to Briggs
Construction for the reconstruction of watermains and is completed.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMJITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM �U/
RE: CENTRAL AVE & 259TH TRAFFIC SIGNAL -
ACCEPT AS COMPLETE
The project consisted of the construction of a traffic signal at
South Central Avenue and South 259th Street.
The project was awarded to Service Electric Company, Inc. on
February 16, 1993 for the bid amount of $97 , 000. 00 . The final
construction cost is $97, 750. 00 .
ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete.
a
WHARRISO rh ST \'�`Y W HARRISON ST rzi j, _ +.F IT z 0 'rt•_REITE J`. N'•�- �h ST.JAM
ZF �� < gT Jy r h '.t �O ECHO
J z
< "W p MEEKER ST Z E ME KER
ST 01s1 orb r� ��� � :. .��,�� WEILAND S
. 2 4 w z 1'nw. ,y� > 6
E
> SuL < W < GOWE ST �.. r 'qp�o .p• ST 24
r
< WILLIS z Ste Z W ENT r 7-I --- � < } „ {i, �hpg\ TACOMA STCHE RY OL O � Oq
STREET w > L.EM, 516 �E „ 1C• 'vI
INTCHG °< '° < -0 c < w w HILL ST
* DEANO E DEAN O > -•.\
1B1 z To TITU ST1- '+ f ST ST< <E MACLYN ST
W F 1.
!� 'j. w x
` V
m \ Wy 5MR '� SAAR 3 r1 of GUIBERSON ST �1. '•
< AL 1�•.A
4� m I ST WAY U . i ¢ E TTLE q WILLIS ST z < W SEA
„ w ST
W w m i Z 516 a �H.s`.>;) < SEATTLE ST w_ �' t•.�
\ / m W ROV ST RU LL < W z O
Y > O z �� E CHICAGO ST
Fire v « ¢ z CHI GO > ¢
Stn lJon O MO ON OpQ m ST E LAUREL ST <
I N m In„ ST =
I > r H < .' <O W Jl Op O E HEMLOCK ST 8
< s W 3CARTER mw z ;
a
m i 1 xm < MARION m E FILBERT 5T Wa W a
rn Hn ST it W Z zW „ I
Ii WAL UT N
A <
r O
2a � � 2' 30PROJECT o < MAPLE ST
25
-� LOCATION m
1
259TH ST
m S 259 ST CEMETF.
C Sm
DER LN ._
261ST I S 262NO LF9
S 262N0 '� STDo ST
N
N .
w < I <
x
1 W
S 266TH STlp
-
Np r,
>
J
Z
W c- '
z
U.
74
1 l T^
W { CID
a\
1 J }Q N 25 30 Z - ---- -
25 > 36 31
36
THOMAS STREET m O ui d Ln
w /
Z INTERCHANGE ➢ f
c G ° bA
co a�
G
p g
Q Y S 277TH Z ST AUBURN _ CIT
W
i
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: S. 196TH STREET BRIDGE REMOVAL nr�rFnm ac nn*a�ryrmF__
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to accept as complete the
contract with Frank Coluccio Company for the demolition of the
S. 196th St. Bridge at Mill Creek and release of retainage
after receipt of State releases.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes and memorandum from
Public Works Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be .accepted as
complete.
Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom stated that this project was awarded to Service Electric
Co. and is now complete.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
South 196th Street Bridge Removal at Mill Creek
Wickstrom stated that this was the bridge serving the Western
Processing site however because it was hazardous we removed it.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Washington Avenue Short Plat Utilities - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
The Lakes Division 3 - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
Sewer Extension at the School on 108th
Bennett asked why this was extended across. Wickstrom stated that
it is in the Council ' s adopted policy, both in the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and Construction Standards, that when property
needs to obtain sewer service it must extend it to its farthest
corner from the sewer, so that it could be extended by the next
property when there are other properties to be serviced. In this
case, there were other properties to be serviced. Wickstrom said
that' s why we had it extended up to 108th.
Meeting adjourned at 6 : 15 p.m.
4
the longer range County' s plan.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County Road Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
Sidewalk Repair Work
Wickstrom indicated on CBD sidewalk map locations where sidewalks
had been replaced either through our City crews or thru our Public
Works contracts . Wickstrom also explained that some of the
sidewalks were paid for under the various road projects or utility
projects. There was no further discussion on this.
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan
Mark Buscher with King County Solid Waste Division presented an
overview of the Final 1992 County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan which basically effects solid waste management in
the unincorporated areas of King County and also suburban cities
for the next several years. At this time, Buscher handed out a
briefing paper which outlined the major recommendations contained
in the 1992 Plan and explained the differences between it and the
adopted 1989 Plan.
Buscher explained that the cities and counties have 120 days from
the time the document is issued to adopt the plan. Buscher said
that this plan was endorsed as a final plan by resolution by the
Suburban Cities Association in June.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of the King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan.
240th/108th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom said that Committee had previously authorized the
transfer of funds from a signal now being built by Target at 260th
and 104th and we had indicated that we would form an LID with the
balance. Wickstrom explained that we had the public meeting and
the neighbors know what their assessments are and we have a
concurrence for at least 40% which would be the minimum necessary
to legally form an LID. In response to White, Wickstrom said that
we are in design stage now for the signal and it should be
installed in 1994 .
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend proceeding with the
formation of the LID.
Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds
Wickstrom stated that this was a project awarded to Briggs
Construction for the reconstruction of watermains and is completed.
3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM V 1
RE: SOUTH 196TH STREET BRIDGE REMOVAL AT MILL CREEK
ACCEPT AS COMPLETE
The project consisted of the demolition of the bridge on South
196th Street crossing Mill Creek.
The project was awarded to Frank Coluccio Construction Company in
the amount of $44 , 685. 00. The final construction cost is
$48, 674 . 29 .
ACTION: Recommend project be accepted as complete.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WASHINGTON AVENUE SHORT PLAT UTILITY EXTENSION -
2 . RY STATEM r
Public Works��
Comm' cceptance of the bill of sale and warranty
agreement submitted by Young Development and Construction Co. ,
Inc. for continuous operation and maintenance of 220 feet of
water main extension, and 292 feet of sanitary sewers and
release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period.
The project is located in the vicinity of Washington Avenue &
James Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes, memorandum from
Public Works Director and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom stated that this project was awarded to Service Electric
Co. and is now complete.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
South 196th Street Bridge Removal at Mill Creek
Wickstrom stated that this was the bridge serving the Western
Processing site however because it was hazardous we removed it.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Washington Avenue Short Plat Utilities - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
The Lakes Division 3 - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
Sewer Extension at the School on 102th
Bennett asked why this was extended across . Wickstrom stated that
it is in the council ' s adopted policy, both in the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and Construction Standards, that when property
needs to obtain sewer service it must extend it to its farthest
corner from the sewer, so that it could be extended by the next
property when there are other properties to be serviced. In this
case, there were other properties to be serviced. Wickstrom said
that ' s why we had it extended up to lOSth.
Meeting adjourned at 6 : 15 p.m.
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS COM,MIITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM
RE: WASHINGTON AVENUE SHORT PLAT - UTILITY EXTENSION
BILL OF SALE
Young Development & Construction Co. , Inc. , the developer of
Washington Avenue Short Plat Utility Extension has completed the
water and sanitary sewer improvements for this project. The
Washington Avenue Short Plat improvements are in the vicinity of
Washington Avenue & James Street.
ACTION: Recommend the Bill of Sale be accepted and bonds released
after the one year maintenance period.
r
I IL7 i:I,:L
$. 220 TH ST �-
> J
_ g e
2NU
1 1 12 \\ 12 7 _
14 13 13 18
226 TH AVE.
1.; 1
W
_ < w
c ? I m
s 228TH ST a
2 a
St c, w \ <
N
INDUSTRIAL AREA t _
Z
LA HDIND ^ WAY I I m
167
z <
N
S. 234TH F a Z
N ■
T z
> > `' •i __
ST y W W '
1 Lc
K W < < T 1�
COLS ST A Z t F I
CLOUOY ST
,Li j W
S 2387H S LOU ly S
O E OE ROE O}
�ryry �s _ F 1 .-Z Z 1<J�ST
< �I
JaNES cT 14 13 Z t4AM ES ST Z Z
4
23 24
KE 2 4
JR.NIT. <SCoo
. EWCE CPROJ CT SAM ST ItIr)L
LOC TION
Z ' < PIONEER S. <
I o O 5
pJ
J I O M ILLAN O E
cc
vt Z MILWAI'1h F.t' f > ST
�� J I'LAFFIhI U� Y < < Z
Lj' ST
W SMITH ST Z< Z < W SMITH ST 4 F T Ml G
�Z Z H WARD XCENTt
~ W HARRISO ST �-
O `
W HARRISON ST r >__�:a•4i 37 Z h
Z < Z Z
Z 1 ",w MEEKER ST Z ME KER ST M Qy
S 246TN 4 7 W ST n `~
ST 2 Z f'n...., W OOWE ST - 1 E 60 6 < n1
sub
< „
< LLIS >
1REET z sl lox W ENT * q', .a,. T < „ 4
INTCH6 .o > LEM 116 Vf
h < SCH
y� 1N0
181 O w S Ire TITL STp 4C
Z n ST T.
I W Z
I w n✓ N • SAAR i S7
' 4 WILLIS 1 ST WAY V +
Z '
o > > W E
4/
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 . 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: THE LAKES, DIVISION 3 - BILL OF SALE
2 . MMIRY STATEM �_ As recommended by the Public Works �—
Committee cceptance of the bill of sale and warranty
a eement submitted by University Savings Bank for continuous
operation and maintenance of 3 , 402 feet of sanitary sewers and
release of bonds after expiration of the maintenance period. E-
The project is located in the vicinity of Russell Road &
Lakeside Blvd. West.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee Minutes, memorandum from
Public Works Director and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom stated that this project was awarded to Service Electric
Co. and is now complete.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
South 196th Street Bridge Removal at Mill Creek
Wickstrom stated that this was the bridge serving the Western
Processing site however because it was hazardous we removed it.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Washington Avenue Short Plat Utilities - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
The Lakes Division 3 - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
Sewer Extension at the School on 108th
Bennett asked why this was extended across . Wickstrom stated that
it is in the Council ' s adopted policy, both in the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and Construction Standards, that when property
needs to obtain sewer service it must extend it to its farthest
corner from the sewer, so that it could be extended by the next
property when there are other properties to be serviced. In this
case, there were other properties to be serviced . Wickstrom said
that ' s why we had it extended up to 108th.
Meeting adjourned at 6 : 15 p.m.
4
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: PUBLIC WORKS CO'M,MIITTEE
FROM: DON WICKSTROM 1
RE: THE LAKES - DIVISION 3
BILL OF SALE
University Savings Bank, the developer of The Lakes Division #3 ,
has completed the sanitary sewer improvements for this project.
The Lakes Division #3 improvements are in the vicinity of Russell
Road & Lakeside Blvd West.
ACTION: Recommend the Bill of Sale be accepted and bonds released
after the one year maintenance period.
A�j
j A'�•
OYOtl /
5
FRAGER
O :7
FRAOER nO
L.. s c
N ~ Z
W A
C
RUSSELL ROAD 54 TH AVE.5
(53RD AVE S)
N
58 TH AVE S
/• x Ca N
cD co D
O(�lm \ M
00 64 TH AVE.S
6< y AVE
64TH AVE S D D f
O O
s — i
N
S' N
N N O -- r
m O O A .- 68TH AVE
(nj p = M WASHINOT VE �, (WEST VALLEY R
i 4 C �_ h.
a n O = Lo
a r
jTH MPSON -� C .n ST Z7 72ND AVE
D N =m
< PL S N
N D _
N LINCOLN AV
? d D
SOH AVE= 2 •
H 6TH AYE N
N
,f
N 5TH AVE ///r
4TH AVE
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL ABSENCES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of ,$ requestSfrom Councilmember5
�Qn�E aA d Chri� Houser for ss. excused absenceffrom the November 16,
1993 , City Council meeting.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Councilmember Houser
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Councilmember Houser
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
MEMORANDUM
TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHRISTI HOUSER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1993
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE
I would like to request an excused absence from the November 16, 1993 City Council meeting.
I will be out of town and unable to attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
CH.jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16, 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES REZONE (RZ-93-2)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended
denial of an application by Jeffery J. Wolfson to rezone 6. 5
acres from R1-121 Single Family Residential, with a minimum
lot size of 12, 000 square feet, to R1-7 . 2 , Single Family
Residential, with a minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet.
This rezone is in conjunction with a preliminary plat request
(#SU-93-3) . The property is located at 10922 and 11004 SE
244th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Findings and Recommendations
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner August 4 1993
(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 ACTr(I�ON:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to accept the findings of the Hearing Examiner,
and to adopt/rete-ctymad±fy' the Hearing Examiner' s recommenda-
tion of denial of the Applewoude Estates Rezone RZ-93-2 -ate-
if
' �.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: �
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
CITY OF ZQ�,t OM tS
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1993
FILE NO: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #RZ-93-2
APPLICANT: Jeffery J. Wolfson, Tacoma Associates
REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 6. 5
acres of property from R1-12 , Single
Family Residential (12 , 000 square foot
minimum lot size) , to R1-7 . 2 , Single
Family Residential (7 , 200 square foot
minimum lot size) . This rezone is in
conjunction with a preliminary plat
request (#SU-93-3) .
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Matthews Jackson, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 6. 5 acres
from the current zoning of R1-12 , Single Family
Residential (12 , 000 square foot minimum lot size) , to
R1-7 . 2 , Single Family Residential (7, 200 square foot
minimum lot size) , in order to create a 21 lot
residential subdivision.
B. Location
The subject property is located at 10922 and 11004
SE 244th Street.
C. Size of Property
The rezone proposal is approximately 6 . 5 acres in size.
1
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
D. Zoning
Property to the north of the proposed site is zoned MR-M,
Medium Density Multifamily Residential. Property to the
east, west and south of the proposed site is zoned R1-121
Single Family Residential (12 , 000 square foot minimum lot
size) .
E. Land Use
There are currently two single family residences located
on the site. There are also four small accessory
buildings on the property. Surrounding land uses include
Highland Creste and Royal Firs Apartments to the north,
and single family residences to the west, east, and
south.
F. History
The subject property was annexed to the City of Kent as
part of the approximately 400 acre East Hill Well
Annexation Area 2 on April 22 , 1987 . The annexation
occurred as a result of the City taking over and
improving the water system for customers of the East Hill
Well Company. The subject property and adjacent
properties north of SE 252nd Street, south of SE 240th
Street and east of 100th Avenue SE (extended) were zoned
R1-12 per Ordinance No. 2721 .
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
(#ENV-93-16) for the rezone proposal was issued on May 7 ,
1993 with conditions. The MDNS is a part of this record.
B. Significant Physical Features
Topography and Vegetation
The topography of the site is fairly flat with elevations
ranging from 414 feet at the northwest corner to 444 feet
at the southeast corner. There are several mature and
significant evergreen trees located on the site,
primarily associated with two wetland areas. These
wetland areas and associated drainage are located along
2
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
the northern property line. The developer has agreed to
implement an approved wetland mitigation plan as outlined
in the document titled Wetland Delineation Report,
Applewoude Estates, dated March 1993 .
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property is located on SE 244th Street
which is an unimproved matt finished street. This
street is classified as a Residential Collector.
The right-of-way is 60 feet in width of which
approximately 21 feet is paved. Southeast 244th
intersects with 104th Avenue SE on the west and
with 116th Avenue SE on the east. The average
daily traffic count on SE 244th Street is less than
2500 vehicle trips per day.
2 . Water System
The site is served by an 8-inch water main located
within SE 244th Street.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing 10 inch sanitary sewer is available to
serve the subject property. The sewer is situated
at the southerly end of 108th Avenue SE. Sanitary
sewer is also within the Highland Creste Apartment
complex to the north of the subject property,
however, off-site easements will be necessary to
connect to said system.
4 . Stormwater System
A stormwater system is necessary to accommodate new
development.
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:
3
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
City Administrator 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 City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
concerning the future of Kent and the area within the
Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
guide growth, development, and spending decisions.
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of
Kent. The proposed rezone area is served by the East
Hill subarea plan. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map
designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and
north of SE 248th Street as MF 12 , Multifamily (7-12
units per acre) . The following is a review of both plans
as they relate to the subject property.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two
entities, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written
goals, objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan
Map designates the project site as MF, Multifamily
Residential.
4
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
Goal 1: Assure the provision of safe and efficient
routes and terminal facilities for vehicular
traffic moving within and through Kent.
Objective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for
both local and through traffic,
separating the systems when
possible.
Planning Department Comment:
The existing street system is not adequate to serve
traffic generated from current development. SE 244th
Street is substandard, and as the area develops,
improvements will be required to bring the system up to
current standards.
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
Goal 2 : Guide new residential development into areas
where the needed services and facilities are
available, and in a manner which is compatible
with existing residential neighborhoods.
Objective 2 : Permit new residential development
on the East and West Hills as the
necessary facilities and services
are available.
Policy 2 : Designate suitable areas for future
residential development.
Policy 3 : Encourage development of new single
family housing, by creating
neighborhood environments attractive
to single family builders and
homeowners .
5
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
Policy 4 : Utilize regulatory measures, such as
zoning, to restrict and discourage
development which contributes to
urban sprawl.
Policy 6: Limit expansion of multifamily
' development in rural residential
areas.
Planning Department Comment
In 1988 the City Council requested an update of the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. Resolution 1172
directed the Planning Department to conduct a two phased
study: 1) a proposed update of the Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element; and 2) an area by area analysis of
multifamily residential densities for the West Hill, East
Hill, and Valley Floor Planning Areas .
Amendments to the Housing Element of the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan were made in 1989 . These amendments
emphasized:
1) Retention of existing residential areas as livable
and attractive neighborhoods.
2) Promotion of a community and neighborhood spirit,
including a renewed emphasis on single-family housing.
3) Recognition of the relationships between housing
density and circulation, public facilities and services.
4) Emphasis on the importance of preserving the natural
features of the land.
5) Recognition of the need to provide housing
opportunities for all persons in the community.
The amended Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
places a strong emphasis on single family neighborhoods
and development of opportunities for new single family
construction. A Single Family Designated Area overlay
was created to: a) conserve existing single family
neighborhoods, b) to protect single family neighborhoods
from incompatible uses, and c) to promote new single
family development. The subject property is within the
Single Family Designated Area .
6
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
EAST HILL PLAN
The East Hill Plan Map designates the project site as
MF 12 , Multifamily (7-12 units per acre) .
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL
RESIDENT HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY
FACILITIES AND SERVICES .
GOAL 2 : Development patterns that promote residential
quality and provide diverse housing
opportunity.
Objective 1: Promote flexible residential
development approaches. . .
Objective 2 : Decisions concerning land use
designations and development
proposals shall consider surrounding
residential land uses and mitigation
measures necessary to minimize
potential conflicts .
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is requested for a proposed 21 lot
residential subdivision. The Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance issued for the proposed Applewoude
Estates Preliminary Plat (#SU-93-3) , included 11
conditions which are intended to mitigate the anticipated
impacts of this development.
B. Growth Management Act
House Bill No. 2929 , The Growth Management Act of 1990,
made it mandatory that jurisdictions in the region plan
for future growth through the adoption of new
Comprehensive Plans. The Growth Management Act states
thirteen separate planning goals which are to be adopted
to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive
plans and development regulations . Those goals which are
of particular importance to this application include:
7
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
IRZ-93-2
1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas
where adequate public facilities and services exist or
can be provided in an efficient manner.
2) Reduce Sprawl . Reduce the inappropriate conversion
of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density
development.
4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the population of
this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing
housing stock.
12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those
public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development at
the time the development is available for occupancy and
use without decreasing current service levels below
locally established minimum standards.
C. 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 Comprehensive
Plan and East Hill Plan map designations which calls for
multifamily development at 7-12 units per acre. However,
because the site is located in the Single Family
Designated Area, no new multifamily development is to be
allowed. At the proposed density of 7 , 200 square foot
minimum lot size, the site could potentially yield a
maximum of 6 units per acre.
2 . The proposed rezone and subsequent development of
the site would be compatible with development in
the vicinity.
8
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone would not have a negative impact on
existing development in the vicinity. The area has a mix
of residential, commercial, and professional office
development. The residential areas range from medium
density multifamily to single family development on large
multi-acre lots. This area includes developed single
family parcels which are smaller than the existing 12 , 000
square foot minimum lot size. Improvements which will be
required as part of future development on the site will
compliment the 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
Traffic impacts at proposed levels were addressed through
the SEPA process in #ENV-93-16 .
4 . Circumstances have changed substantially since the
establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone.
Planning Department Comment
When this property was annexed to the City in 1987, it
was during a time of tremendous growth in multifamily
development. As a result of this explosive growth, there
was a subsequent downzone in the amount of potential
multifamily units allowed on East Hill. At the same
time, the City asserted its renewed effort in promoting
single family housing.
During this same period the region experienced enough
unchecked growth to enable the Growth Management Act of
1990 to become law. The City is mandated to look at its
future growth and plan for it in a way which maintains
the quality of life citizens expect and deserve. The
Growth Management Act states that new growth is to occur
in existing urban areas where it is cost effective to
deliver services, while protecting our resource lands and
open space. Current analysis of potential units under
existing zoning shows that we may come short in meeting
9
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
the needs of our projected new population. This proposal
will not only allow greater density in an established
urban area where services can be readily provided, but it
promotes the City' s effort to encourage single family
development.
The City has made capital facility investments in the
area since it was annexed to the City. The Kent Police
and Fire Departments have opened a training center and
substation on 116th Avenue SE at SE 248th Street. The
Kent Parks Department is currently constructing an
approximately 4 .75 acre neighborhood park on SE 248th
Street between 104th Avenue SE and 116th Avenue SE. The
Kent School District has recently opened the George T.
Daniel Elementary School at 11310 SE 248th Street. These
investments have been made to serve existing and future
residents of East Hill.
There have been several final plats recorded in the
vicinity since this area was annexed to the City. The
Eastwood Plat, located on 4 . 36 acres at 100th Avenue SE
and SE 244th Street, created 21 single family lots. The
Hemlock Acres No. 19 Plat, located on 3 . 66 acres along
the east side of 112th Avenue SE, and 650 feet north
SE 240th Street, created 14 single family lots. The
Canterbury Place Plat, located on 4 . 51 acres north of
SE 248th Street between 98th Avenue South and 100th
Avenue South, created 15 single family lots. Both the
Eastwood and Hemlock Acres No. 19 plats were created on
7 , 200 square foot minimum lots, while the Canterbury
Place plat was created on 9 , 600 square foot minimum lots.
5 . The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Kent.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed rezone is consistent with the intent of the
City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Plan and
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. Subsequent action on the site will
have to meet applicable codes, regulations, and
processes.
10
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Rezone
#RZ-93-2
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 Applewoude Estates Rezone request.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 13 , 1993
c:rz932.rpt
11
City of Kent - Planning Department
iu
NA n!!t NA
KfOR1a.aT
xwo • � —
.1RACT.�'
U �r
n �
121 SF
� 713M 9F � IA I �g
uw
i
/ , I 7749 sF ..
Z7373a mm.
„ 7 / ' ' 1 �
0000 0F t n
e `I Sul
r r i
a 7244
ll�i i. KV IA — �.lL' O IWSL
I
RD ` - �)
O
1 04 d d 4
7326 I w« Ro+• vrn 1 yi 11�,
7l39 SF 21
II
I a1 _ a 27 SF �I / 29157 SF I I
„. �—
u C.
I Y
11 L
•y — N— W 45>Z /
SS 224 TR SST '
I•
j-�-�-
- p a
My1• SViU E F T1 SbEXTV.•p¢C
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #RZ-93-2 DATE: July 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Rezone �.
LEGEND
Application site
Site Plan
City of Kent - Planning Department
x —
"U SE 234TH ST
z N
0
v, w
z >
w ¢
m
N
C
E 237TH ST
w
> w
¢ cn
0
z
N
O =
H
O
O
f
SE 2447 5
H ST
CO
w
N w
> L, SE 251ST ST
¢ >
x ¢
? n
0 99 co 252NQ PL
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #RZ-93-2 DATE: July 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
Application site
Vicinity Map .--o-- . 3ailroad tracks
Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
S.C. CVo*x. Si.
--- • 17 1.4.:1 Ln.11_I I,IIJ .4�M.1 n°
reI—
1 + O
1 I I I 11 , �
1...•�1 1 . .+ 5..•� 1 ... C3jjjjj
13
tr N p F
41 da
S.C. 2WV . Si. C'S
4� W �C3 o >;l E
ID
� a I
Q ° La
f ❑ ❑
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #RZ-93-2 DATE: July 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Rezone
LEGEND
µ Application site
Zoning / Topography ® Zoning boundary
Kent City Limits
CITY OF �21E2��
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
_ (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
�tS4II(C`Q�
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #RZ-93-2
APPLICANT: Jeffery J. Wolfson, Tacoma Associates
REQUEST: A request to rezone approximately 6.5 acres of property from
R1-12, Single Family Residential, with a minimum lot size of
12,000 square feet, to R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. This rezone is in
conjunction with a preliminary plat request (#SU-93-3).
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 10922 and 11004 SE 244th
Street.
APPLICATION FILED: May 24, 1993
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: May 7, 1993
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: August 18, 1993
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Matthews Jackson, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Jeffery J. Wolfson, applicant
Others:
Ed Heineman, Jr.
John Gardner
Robert L. Houck
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Don Jensen
Mr. and Mrs. Van Gart
Mr. and Mrs. Huston
Douglas Walker
Mr. and Mrs. Bangart
1
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
EXHIBITS: SEE: Page 3, Number 5 for listing.
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.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Examiner recommends that the application to rezone 6.5 acres from R1-12 to
R1-7.2 be DENIED for failure to meet the standards and criteria necessary for
approval. The primary reasons given for this recommendation include:
1 . Inconsistency with comprehensive planning policies that seek to "maintain and
improve the existing residential neighborhoods.. and assure housing that
"offers a desirable living environment" that is "supported by adequate
community facilities and services."
2. Incompatibility with existing development in the vicinity of the rezone due to
the significant increases in density associated with the rezone proposal.
3. Lack of a substantial change of circumstances to warrant the proposed rezone
as the area in the vicinity of the proposed rezone has remained relatively
unchanged since the adoption of the existing R1-12 zoning in 1987.
4. Evidence of adverse impacts on the welfare of the citizens in the area
surrounding the proposed rezone in that development associated with the
proposed rezone would result in loss of an identifiable neighborhood character
and increased stormwater runoff without assurance of adequate stormwater
management.
In addition, it is noted by the Examiner that reasonable economic use of the property
proposed for a rezone can occur without the approval of the rezone request.
2
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
1 . The applicant, Jeffery J. Wolfson, is a developer who filed a request for a
rezone from 131-12 to R1-7.2 on May 24, 1993. The rezone request is coupled
with a request for preliminary plat approval consistent with the requested
zoning designation.
2. A Determination of Nonsignificance, without conditions, was issued by the City
on May 7, 1993 and became final on May 22, 1993. It was not appealed.
3. A public hearing was held on this rezone request on August 4, 1993.
4. At the public hearing, the Planning Department presented a recommendation
of approval without conditions. Exhibit 1 (Hearing Examiner file). The applicant
also appeared at the public hearing and voiced support for the rezone.
5. Several letters opposing the rezone request were received prior to the hearing
date and are included in Exhibit 1 (Hearing Examiner file). Several individuals
appeared at the public hearing to present testimony in opposition to the rezone
request. Exhibit 2; Testimony of Heinman, Gardner, & Houck. A petition
against the rezone signed by approximately 38 persons was submitted at the
time of the hearing. Exhibit 3. Those opposed to the rezone stated that the
proposal would allow for development of a higher density than that which
surrounds the 6.5 acre parcel such that it would be incompatible with the
existing neighborhood; that traffic and noise levels would be increased; that it
would set a precedent to encourage other parcels in the area to seek rezones
to higher density; that drainage problems would be exacerbated; that increased
traffic would make the roads unsafe for pedestrians; that schools would be
impacted with increased children; and that the aesthetic value of the area
would be negatively impacted. Letters of Janet and Michael Huston, Douglas
Walker, Mr. and Mrs. Bangart and Don Jensen; Exhibit 2 (Letter of Ed
Heineman); Exhibit 3 (petition); testimony of Heineman, Houck and Gardner.
FINDINGS
1 . The property proposed for a rezone is located at 10922 and 11004 SE 244th
Street. The area of the site is approximately 6.5 acres. Exhibit 1, Planning
Report.
2. The owners of the property are Torfin & Ruth Stendal and Harold & Elsie Ward.
The applicant is Jeffery Wolfson, a developer. Exhibit 1, Application.
3
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
3. The site is presently zoned 131-12, Single Family Residential with a 12,000
square foot minimum lot size. The site received that zoning designation in
April, 1987 following annexation. The applicant proposes to rezone'the site to
R1-7.2, Single Family Residential with a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size.
The rezone proposal is coupled with a preliminary plat application seeking
approval for a 21 lot subdivision known as Applewoud.
4. Property to the north of the site is zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
Residential. Property to the east, west and south of the site is zoned R1-12.
5. There are currently two single family residences on the site and four accessory
buildings. Land use around the site includes apartments to the north and single
family residences to the east, west and south. Exhibit 1, Planning Report,
page 2.
6. Both the City-wide and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan maps designate the
site as MF, Multifamily Residential. However, in 1989 the City adopted
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan which included a Single Family
Designated Area Overlay. The site is within this area. Exhibit 1, Planning
Report, page 6.
7. The request to approve the proposed rezone is presented in conjunction with
a request to approve a preliminary plat application with 19 new building lots.
If the rezone and preliminary plat are approved, an increase in traffic of 210
vehicle trips per day is expected. Exhibit 1, Application & SEPA Checklist.
8. Since the current zoning district was established, some circumstances have
changed in the area around the proposed rezone site.
(a) The City has made several capital facility improvements in the vicinity of the
rezone since it was annexed to the City in 1987 as described on page 10 of the
Planning Report included in Exhibit 1 . Several final plats have also been
recorded in the vicinity of the rezone since the annexation in 1987 as described
on page 10 of the Planning Report in Exhibit 1 .
(b) Since the apartment complexes were constructed to the north of the site
proposed for a rezone, the Garrison Creek drainage conduit has overflowed
resulting in flooded areas to the north of the site. Development of the site
proposed for a rezone would impact that drainage as the natural drainage of the
site is to the north. Exhibit 2.
4
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
(c) The Growth Management Act became a state law in 1990. Chapter
36.70A. RCW. The Growth Management Act requires cities to plan for growth
within urban growth boundaries established pursuant to the act.
10. Other circumstances in the area surrounding the site proposed for a rezone
have not changed substantially since the R1-12 zone was established.
Southeast 244th Street extends from 116th Avenue NE to about
102nd Avenue NE. Exhibit 2. There are 72 single family residences facing or
with access to SE 244th Street from 104th Avenue NE to 116th Avenue NE.
Nearly all residences are at least 25 years old and have been built gradually
since platting in 1905. Exhibit 2.
11 . Except for the applicant, all citizens who testified at the public hearing on this
application stated that the proposed rezone would allow development that
would be incompatible with the existing development in the vicinity. Those
testifying expressed their general concerns with the proposed increase in
density including increased noise, increased traffic and loss of a neighborhood
feeling of those currently living in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction and Authority
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this quasi-judicial
rezone, and to issue a written recommendation for final action to the Council,
pursuant to RCW 35A.63.170 and Chapters 2.32 and 15.09 of the Kent City Code.
Section 15.09.050 (A)(3) of the Kent Zoning Code sets forth the standards and
criteria the Examiner must use to evaluate a request for a rezone. A request for a
rezone shall only be granted if:
a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be
compatible with development in the vicinity;
C. The proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the
vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be
mitigated;
5
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the
current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone;
e. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the health, safety, and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent.
Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner makes the following conclusions:
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
CONCLUSION 1: The proposed rezone is consistent with the both the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan map designations,
but is inconsistent with several housing objectives of those plans.
1 .1 At one time the site proposed for a rezone was designated for multifamily
development. The proposed rezone would not be consistent with that plan map
designation. However, the Comprehensive Plan map was amended in 1989 with a
Single Family Designated Area overlay. This overlay was created to conserve existing
single family neighborhoods, protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible uses
and to promote new single family development. The proposed rezone is from one
single family designation to another. This is consistent with the Single Family
Designated Area overlay map designation, but is not consistent with the Housing
Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plans.
1.2 The Examiner must consider the policies of the comprehensive plans as well as
the map designations. The City of Kent Council decided to develop a comprehensive
plan as authorized by state law many years ago. See, Chapters 35.63 and 35A.63
RCW. According to state law, a comprehensive plan means "the policies and
proposals approved by the legislative body" in the manner set forth in state law. RCW
35A.63.010. This may include a map or maps, charts, diagrams, reports and
explanatory text as well as "other devices and materials" to "express, explain or
depict" the elements of the plan. RCW 35A.63.061 . The policies of the East Hill Plan
include an overall housing goal to "assure present and future East Hill resident housing
that is safe, offers a desirable living environment, and is supported by adequate
community facilities and services." The City-wide Comprehensive Plan contains a
specific objective to "maintain and improve the existing residential neighborhoods on
the East and West Hill." Exhibit 1 , Planning Department Report, page 5: Housing
Element, Goal 1 , Objective 2. The East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan contains
policies to "provide for increased single-family residential densities as a transition
between more intensive and less intensive residential uses". Housing Element,
Objective 1 , Policy 5.
6
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
1 .3 There are several inconsistencies between the proposal and certain elements of
the City's comprehensive plans. Residents of the area around the site proposed for
a rezone all testified that the proposed rezone would lead to development that would
adversely affect the desirability of the neighborhood and would not be supported by
adequate community facilities and services, specifically an adequate storm water
drainage system and adequate roads.
The Planning Department report notes that "the existing street system is not adequate
to serve traffic generated from current development". Exhibit 1, Planning Report,
page 5. The road is presently two lanes with no lighting and no sidewalks. Although
mitigation measures are proposed for the development associated with the rezone,
these measures are limited to improvement of the frontage of the subdivision. It is
uncertain when street improvements to the remainder of SE 244th Street or parallel
street corridors may occur.
Several citizens testified about the inadequate stormwater drainage system that now
exists by pointing out that flooding occurs regularly north of the property site. The
City testified that improvements are planned for the Garrison Creek drainage to
eliminate the flooding problem and that the planned improvements are funded. The
City also noted that the planned improvements would be necessary regardless of the
zoning density of the site. If the site density is increased due to a rezone, the
increased stormwater runoff due to smaller lots would need to be managed by
increased detention facilities on the site. While these improvements are planned and
funded, it was uncertain when the improvements would actually be made. To be
consistent with comprehensive plan policies, these improvements should be put in
place prior to or concurrently with additional development.
The increased density proposed by the applicant would not serve as a transition
between more and less intensive uses in the area, but would be set in the midst of
R1-12 residential areas. There is no evidence in the comprehensive plans or other
City Council policies of an intent to designate all properties north of SE 244th Street
with a higher density residential classification. If this was the case, the proposed
rezone may be consistent with that plan. As proposed, however, it would be the only
R1-7.2 zoning designation in the area along SE 244th Street. The most recent City
Council action impacting land use planning in this area was to place the site within the
Single Family Designated Overlay Area. This was done, in part, to conserve existing
single family neighborhoods. There is no evidence of any intent to encourage
increased density. The rezone should not be approved without clearer evidence of a
City policy to encourage increased density in existing single family neighborhoods
where there has been no substantial change of circumstances.
7
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity
CONCLUSION 2: The increased density associated with the development proposal
would not be compatible with the existing single family development in the vicinity
of the proposed rezone.
2.1 To determine compatibility with surrounding uses, the Examiner must determine
the type of use presently surrounding the proposed rezone site and the impacts of the
proposed development. Most development in the area is on lots greater than 10,000
square feet. The proposed rezone would allow lots of 7,200 square feet. The
subdivision proposal associated with the proposed rezone is less dense than some
other residential developments but still will have greater impacts on the existing area
than would occur with single family development under the existing zoning of R1-12.
This is true because of the change in neighborhood character and the increased
stormwater runoff associated with higher density development. To determine
compatibility, the Examiner must give substantial weight to the testimony of those
who live in the area around the site proposed for a rezone. The testimony of all
residents in the area surrounding the proposed rezone was that the proposed
development associated with the rezone would be incompatible with existing
development because of the greater density proposed with the rezone.
2.2 The City's rebuttal to the neighbor's testimony was to indicate different densities
around the area including a R1-7.2 parcel to the northeast of the site and densities to
the south of the site of approximately 10,000 square feet per lot. It is clear,
however, that density all along SE 244th Street is less than that allowed in a 131-7.2
zoning designation. The SE 244th Street corridor is the appropriate area to consider
on the issue of compatibility because it is that street corridor that defines the
neighborhood.
Burden on Transportation System
CONCLUSION 3: The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation
system
3.1 The traffic impacts associated with the potential development of the proposed
rezone were reviewed by the City as part of the environmental review of the
preliminary plat application submitted in conjunction with this rezone proposal.
Conditions were applied to the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued for
the preliminary plat proposal. If those conditions are adhered to, there would be no
significant impact on the existing transportation system associated with this rezone
and potential subsequent development. Although there were allegations of increased
traffic to the detriment of the existing neighborhood made at the public hearing, no
8
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
##RZ-93-2
one presented any evidence to attempt to show there would be an undue burden on
the existing transportation system if the rezone were approved.'
Change of Circumstances
CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have not changed substantially since the
establishment of the single family zone to warrant the proposed rezone.
4.1 The Examiner must selectively review "changed circumstances and consider
only those that are "substantial" since the establishment of the current zoning district
and that would "warrant the proposed rezone."
4.2 The City and the applicant argue that the rezone request must be approved
because certain provisions of the Growth Management Act are intended to support
increased density of the type of development the applicant proposes. The argument
is that passage of the Growth Management Act is a "changed circumstance" that
supports the rezone proposal.
4.3 While this argument is interesting and may be relevant in the future, it is
premature to consider the impact of the Growth Management Act on this
rezone/development proposal. The Growth Management Act establishes a specific
long-term planning process for certain counties and cities including adoption of
comprehensive plan provisions for urban growth boundaries, transportation, housing,
capital facilities, utilities, intergovernmental coordination, and demand-management
strategies. RCW 36.70A.070. Comprehensive plans for those counties and cities
required to plan must be adopted by July 1 , 1994. RCW 36.70A.040. County-wide
planning policies, used solely for establishing and adopting a county-wide framework
from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed, were required to be
'The question of an undue burden on the transportation system is different from
the question of availability of transportation facilities addressed in Conclusion 1 .3.
Traffic impacts associated with development may be mitigated so they will not be an
undue burden on the transportation system in the long run, but the timing of those
mitigation measures is also important to consider when viewing a development
proposal. The Growth Management Act, and existing City policies as stated in the
comprehensive plans, encourage mitigation measures that are put in place prior to or
concurrently with developments. A mitigation measure that requires contributions to
transportation system improvements without a specified date for installation may give
assurance that there will be no long-standing undue burden on the system, but it does
not give assurance there will be adequate facilities to accommodate development at
the time it occurs.
9
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
adopted by counties on July 1, 1992. Development regulations to implement the
comprehensive plans are not required until one year after the adoption of a city's
comprehensive plan, or July 1, 1995. Once development regulations are adopted, the
City must perform activities in conformity with their comprehensive plan. RCW
36.70A.1202 Until that time, the comprehensive plan and growth management
policies are merely one element to consider when deciding if a rezone request should
be approved or denied. The comprehensive plan map designation and policy goals do
not dictate the decision on a rezone request. See, Lutz v. Longview, 83 Wn.2d 566
(1974); Barrie v. Kitsao County, 93 Wn.2d 843 (1980); Sharninghousev Bellingham,
4 Wn. App. 198 (1971); and Shelton v. City of Bellevue, 80 Wn.2d 518 (1972).
Similarly, while the Growth Management Act requires urban growth boundaries and
planning for growth, it does not dictate a level of density within those urban growth
boundaries.
4.4 Other circumstances that have changed since the time of the initial zoning of R1-
12 in 1987 that are relevant to this application are the rapid development of
multifamily housing from 1985 through 1989 and the Council adoption of policies
encouraging single family housing in 1989. These are policy changes only and have
not directly affected the character of the land surrounding the site proposed for a
rezone. These changes do not warrant the proposed rezone because there is no clear
evidence of Council intent to increase density in a Single Family Overlay Designated
Area. Rather, the policies associated with the Overlay suggest preservation of
existing single family neighborhoods.
4.5 Other recent rezone requests in the City have pointed to the changing character
of a neighborhood from residential to commercial uses or a change of circumstances
due to significant increases in traffic around the site proposed for a rezone. The
Examiner has recommended approval of the rezone where there is clear evidence of
a change in circumstances. There are no such substantial changes in circumstances
associated with this rezone application. Essentially, the character of the neighborhood
has remained the same since the time of annexation and initial zoning in 1987. While
some multifamily housing has been constructed to the north of the site, nearly all
development along SE 244th Street is on lots of more than 10,000 square feet. The
proposed development associated with this rezone request would significantly
increase the density of development in the neighborhood.
21t is interesting to note that the 1993 Legislature removed earlier requirements
that development regulations must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. This
seems to suggest more flexibility for a city on how it implements its comprehensive
plan. RCW 36.70A.120, 1993 amendments of SHB 1761 .
10
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
Health, Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent
CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would adversely affect the general welfare of
the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone.
5.1 The Examiner must review the proposed rezone to determine if there would be
adverse impacts on the "health, safety, and general welfare" of the citizens of the
City of Kent. There is nothing in the record presented to the Examiner that leads the
Examiner to conclude there would be adverse health or safety impacts. While there
was some concern expressed about increases in traffic, this potential adverse impact
could be mitigated by traffic mitigation measures imposed on any development
proposed for the site.
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 those citizens,
without exception, was that the proposed rezone and associated development
proposal would reduce the quality of life they now enjoy. While this adverse impact
is only one consideration when reviewing the rezone request, the Examiner recognizes
the unanimity of the testimony offered by the citizens attending the public hearing and
of those who submitted testimony in writing. These citizens testified that the future
of their neighborhood is under consideration with this rezone request. If it were
approved, other properties in the vicinity would likely seek similar increased densities.
While increased density may be a desirable goal in some areas of the City, it does not
appear appropriate for this area which retains an "urban fringe" character. Specific
concerns presented by the neighbors related to the loss of a neighborhood feeling and
impacts associated with increased stormwater runoff. These concerns are supported
by the evidence presented. These considerations suggest that approval of the rezone
request would have an adverse impact on the general welfare of citizens in the area.
5.3 The proposed development associated with this rezone proposal is for a
subdivision with 19 new building lots. The applicant could subdivide the site into
several additional building lots within the current zoning designation. While it is not
the role of the Examiner to undertake site development planning, it is the opinion of
the Examiner that significantly increased economic use could be made of the property
without an approval of this rezone request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City
Council DENY this request for a rezone. It is the Examiner's opinion that the rezone
request, as proposed, does not meet the criteria for approval established by the
Council.
11
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#RZ-93-2
Dated this 18th day of August, 1993.
THEODOREPAULHUNTER
Hearing Examiner
APPEALS FROM HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS.
Reauest 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:rz932.fin
12
I Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16, 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT (SU-93-3)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended
denial of an application by Jeffery J. Wolfson for a 21-lot
single family preliminary subdivision. This is in conjunction
with the Applewoude Estates rezone request. The property is
located at 10922 and 11004 SE 244th Street.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, Findings and Recommendations, Staff
report
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner -
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ti' des, Councilmember seconds
to accept/- t l-* the findings of the He ring Examiner
and to adopt ,/xee the Hearing Examiner' s recommenda-
tion of denial f the Applewoude Estates Subdivision SU-93-3p.
and t c n r7 tG 2te2I1 a - to- 1E
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
J Item No. 4B
CITY OF LWU9BIT
r CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
November 16 , 1993
MEMO TO: MAYOR DAN KELLEHER AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT (#SU-93-3)
On August 4 , 1993 the Kent Hearing Examiner held a public hearing
to consider a request by Jeffery J. Wolfson for a 21-lot single
family residential preliminary subdivision. The property is
approximately 6 . 5 acres in size, and is located at 10922 and 11004
SE 244th Street, Kent, Washington. On August 18 , 1993 , the Hearing
Examiner issued a recommendation of denial of the Applewoude
Estates Preliminary Plat No. SU-93-3 . The Council will consider
the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of denial of the Applewoude
Estates 21-lot preliminary subdivision on November 16th. If the
City Council approves the Applewoude Estates preliminary plat, it
needs to be referred back to the Hearing Examiner so he can apply
conditions since his recommendation of denial comes to the Council
without conditions.
JPH/mp:c: su933 .pp
CITY OF ),LtD��
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
_ (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
dFS®DCC1S�
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #SU-93-3
APPLICANT: Jeffery J. Wolfson, Tacoma Associates
REQUEST: A request to subdivide approximately 6.5 acres of property into
21 residential lots. This preliminary plat request is in conjunction
with a rezone request (#RZ-93-2)
LOCATION: The subject property is located at 10922 and 11004 SE 244th
Street.
APPLICATION FILED: May 24, 1993
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: May 7, 1993
MEETING DATE: August 4, 1993
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: August 18, 1993
RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Matthews Jackson, Planning Department
Bill Wolinski, Public Works Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Jeffery J. Wolfson, applicant
Others:
Don Jensen
John Gardner
Doug Walker
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Mr. and Mrs. Huston
Douglas Walker
Mr. and Mrs. Bangart
EXHIBIT: Exhibit 1 : Hearing Examiner File
1
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#SU-93-3
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, Jeffery J. Wolfson, is a developer who filed this request in
conjunction with a request for a rezone from R1-12 to R1-7.2 on May 24,
1993. This request for preliminary plat approval assumes approval of the
rezone request and would be consistent with the requested zoning designation.
2. The property site proposed for subdivision into 19 new building lots has a
current zoning designation of R1-12. Fourteen lots proposed in this preliminary
plat application are less than 12,000 square feet.
3. The Examiner issued a recommendation of denial on the applicant's request for
a rezone. The City Council has not accepted or rejected the Examiner's
recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
1 . The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this
application; to consider all evidence presented at the public hearing; and, based
on that evidence, to present a recommendation to the City Council to approve,
disapprove or approve with conditions the preliminary plat application. KCC
12.04.360, KCC 2.32.090.
2. Notice of the public hearing on this application was properly given in
accordance with applicable state statutes and city ordinances including Chapter
58.17 RCW and KCC 12.04.360.
3. The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner must be supported by the
evidence presented, as stated in the Findings of Fact of this recommendation,
and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for review specified in
state statutes and city ordinances.
2
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#SU-93-3
4. Standards and criteria for review of preliminary plat applications are found in
Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code (KCC) and Chapter 58.17 of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW). These review criteria include:
(a) KCC 12.04.020 which provides that the purpose of the city's subdivision
regulations is to:
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for
subdividing land in the City of Kent, ensuring that the
highest feasible quality in subdivision will be attained; that
the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of
the City of Kent shall be promoted and protected; that
orderly growth, development, and the conservation,
protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that
proper provisions for all public facilities (including
circulation, utilities, and services) shall be made; that
maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken
into consideration; and that conformance with provisions
set forth in the City of Kent Zoning Code and Kent
Comprehensive Plans shall be ensured.
(b) KCC 12.04.330 which specifies eight requirements that must be shown on
the preliminary plat map including appropriate names and dates, proposed
platted property lines, contours and elevations, proposed public service areas,
square footage calculations for developed and open space, dimensions of each
lot, statements of soil type and drainage conditions, a description of existing
land cover, and a description of wildlife present.
(c) KCC 12.04.370 which requires a written statement from the Seattle-King
County health department as to the general adequacy of the proposed means
of sewage disposal and water supply.
(d) KCC 12.04.430 which provides for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable
environmental amenities so that urban development may be as compatible as
possible with the ecological balance of the area including preservation of
drainage patterns, protection of ground water supply, prevention of erosion and
preservation of trees and natural vegetation.
(e) KCC 12.04.440 which specifies requirements for utilities including sanitary
sewers, a proper drainage plan and a proper water distribution system.
3
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#SU-93-3
(f) KCC 12.04.450 which requires due consideration to the allocation of public
service usage areas and due regard for all natural features including large trees,
water courses,historical spots and other community assets that would add
attractiveness and value to the property.
(g) KCC 12.04.490 which provides for mitigation of any adverse effects of
development upon the existing park and recreational facilities in the City of
Kent.
(h) RCW 58.17.1 10 which requires an inquiry into the public use and interest
proposed to be served by the subdivision and a determination that appropriate
provisions are made for public health, safety and general welfare and for such
open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit
stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation,
playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including
sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for
students who only walk to and from school."
5. This application is submitted in conjunction with an application for a rezone of
the site from R1-12 to 131-7.2. The Examiner recommended that the rezone
request be denied. The Kent Subdivision Code requires that a subdivision
proposal conform with the provisions of the Kent Zoning Code. Since the
Examiner has recommended denial of the rezone request, this preliminary plat
application would not be in conformance with the Kent Zoning Code if the
recommendation of the Examiner is accepted by the City Council. This
application should, therefore, be denied.
6. If the Recommendation of the Examiner is rejected by the Council, and the
Council rezones the proposed site to 131-7.2, the Examiner should issue
complete Findings, Conclusions and a Recommendation on this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings and Conclusions above, the Examiner recommends the
application for preliminary plat approval be DENIED. If the rezone request of the
applicant is approved by the City Council as requested, this application should be
reconsidered immediately by the Examiner.
4
Hearing Examiner's Findings and Recommendation
Applewoude Estates
#SU-93-3
Dated this 18th day of August, 1993.
W-IT
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:su933.fin
5
CITY OF )0\11HI
CITY OF KENT
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF AUGUST 41 1993
FILE NO: APPLEWOUDE ESTATES #SU-93-3
APPLICANT: Jeffery J. Wolfson, Tacoma Associates
REQUEST: A request to subdivide approximately 6 . 5
acres of property into 21 residential
lots. This preliminary plat request is in
conjunction with a rezone request
(#RZ-93-2)
STAFF
REPRESENTATIVE: Matthews Jackson, Planner
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Description of the Proposal
The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 6 .5
acres of property into 21 residential lots. The property
is presently zoned R1-12 , Single Family Residential.
This is being considered in conjunction with rezone
request, #RZ-93-2 , to change the zoning to R1-7 . 2 .
B. Location
The subject property is located at 10922 and 11004
SE 244th Street.
C. Size of Property
The subdivision proposal is approximately 6. 5 acres in
size.
D. Zoning
Property to the north of the proposed site is zoned MR-M,
Medium Density Multifamily Residential. Property to the
east, west and south of the proposed site is zoned R1-12 ,
Single Family Residential (12 , 000 square foot minimum lot
size) .
1
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
E. Land Use
There are currently two single family residences located
on the site. There are also four small accessory
buildings on the property. Surrounding land uses include
Highland Creste and Royal Firs Apartments to the north,
and single family residences to the west, east, and
south.
F. History
1. Site History
A tentative plat meeting was held for this proposed
plat on March 11, 1993 . The comments generated at
that meeting are contained in this report and
reflected on the preliminary plat submitted by the
applicant.
2 . Area History
The subject property was annexed to the City of
Kent as part of the approximately 400 acre East
Hill Well Annexation Area 2 on April 22 , 1987 . The
annexation occurred as a result of the City taking
over and improving the water system for customers
of the East Hill Well Company. The subject
property and adjacent properties north of SE 252nd
Street, south of SE 240th Street and east of
100th Avenue SE (extended) were zoned R1-12 per
Ordinance No. 2721 .
II . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Environmental Assessment
A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
(#ENV-93-16) for the preliminary plat was issued on
May 7 , 1993 with conditions. The MDNS is part of the
record for the preliminary plat.
B. Significant Physical Features
Topography and Vegetation
The topography of the site is fairly flat with elevations
ranging from 414 feet at the northwest corner to 444 feet
2
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
at the southeast corner. There are many mature and
significant evergreen trees located on the site, several
of which are associated with two wetland areas. These
wetland areas and associated drainage are located along
the northern property line. The developer has agreed to
implement an approved wetland mitigation plan as outlined
in the document titled Wetland Delineation Report,
Applewoude Estates, dated March 1993 .
C. Significant Social Features
1. Street System
The subject property is located on SE 244th Street
which is an unimproved matt finished street. This
street is classified as a Residential Collector.
The current average daily traffic count on the
street is less than 2500 vehicles per day. It has
been determined that the proposed development will
cause additional congestion at the intersections
of:
South 244th Street at 104th Ave SE
South 240th Street at 104th Ave SE
The current average daily traffic count along
S. 240th Street near 100th Avenue SE is 27, 200
vehicles. The Applewoude Estates development
currently generates 19 daily, and 2 PM peak hour
trips; and will add an estimated 181 daily and 19
PM peak hour trips to the area.
2 . Water System
The site is served by an 8-inch water main located
within SE 244th Street.
3 . Sanitary Sewer System
An existing 10-inch sanitary sewer is available to
serve the property. The sewer is situated at the
southerly end of 108th Ave SE. Sanitary sewer is
also within the Highland Crest Apartment complex to
the north of the subject property, however, off-
site easements will be necessary to connect to said
system.
3
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
4 . Stormwater System
Detailed plans of the storm water improvements will
be required as part of the plat approval.
Stormwater mitigation conditions have already been
determined as part of the SEPA review process.
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:
City Administrator City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Chief
Building Official city Clerk
Kent School District
King County-Parks, Planning & Resource Department
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone
Puget Sound Power and Light
Seattle-King County Health Department
Washington Natural Gas
In addition to the above, all persons owning property
which lies within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report
where applicable.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City of Kent first adopted a City-wide Comprehensive
Land Use Plan in 1969 . The goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan represent an
expression of community intentions and aspirations
concerning the future of Kent and the area within the
Sphere of Interest. The Comprehensive Plan is used by
the Mayor, City Council, City Administrator, Planning
Commission, Hearing Examiner and City departments to
4
Staff Report _
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
guide growth, development, and spending decisions.
Residents, land developers, business representatives and
others may refer to the plan as a statement of the City' s
intentions concerning future development.
The City of Kent has also adopted a number of subarea
plans that address specific concerns of certain areas of
the City. Like the City-wide Plan, the subarea plans
serve as policy guides for future land use in the City of
Kent. The proposed rezone area is served by the East
Hill subarea plan. The East Hill Subarea Plan Map
designates the area west of 112th Avenue SE extended and
north of SE 248th Street as MF 12 , Multifamily (7-12
units per acre) . The following is a review of both plans
as they relate to the subject property.
CITY-WIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City-wide Comprehensive Plan is made up of two
entities, the Comprehensive Plan Map and the written
goals, objectives and policies. The Comprehensive Plan
Map designates the project site as MF, Multifamily
Residential.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ESTABLISH A BALANCED, SAFE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL.
Goal 1 : Assure the provision of safe and efficient
routes and terminal facilities for vehicular
traffic moving within and through Kent.
Objective 1: Provide adequate trafficways for
both local and through traffic,
separating the systems when
possible.
Planning Department Comment:
The existing street system is not adequate to serve
traffic generated from current development.
Southeast 244th Street is substandard, and as the area
develops, improvements will be required to bring the
system up to current standards .
5
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: INSURE A DECENT HOME AND SUITABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT FOR FAMILIES DESIRING TO LIVE IN KENT.
Goal 2 : Guide new residential development into areas
where the needed services and facilities are
available, and in a manner which is compatible
with existing residential neighborhoods.
Objective 2 : Permit new residential development
on the East and West Hills as the
necessary facilities and services
are available.
Objective 3 : Guide new residential growth so that
it occurs in a responsible manner,
consistent with neighborhood
objectives.
Policy 3 : Encourage infill development of
areas already served by utilities
and transportation systems, to
achieve maximum efficiency in the
provision of services and the
preservation of natural features.
Planning Department Comment
Amendments to the Housing Element of the City-wide
Comprehensive Plan were made in 1989 . These amendments
emphasized:
1) Retention of existing residential areas as livable
and attractive neighborhoods .
2) Promotion of a community and neighborhood spirit,
including a renewed emphasis on single-family housing.
3) Recognition of the relationships between housing
density and circulation, public facilities and services.
4) Emphasis on the importance of preserving the natural
features of the land.
5) Recognition of the need to provide housing
opportunities for all persons in the community.
6
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
The amended Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan
places a strong emphasis on single family neighborhoods
and development of opportunities for new single family
construction. A Single Family Designated Area overlay
was created to: a) conserve existing single family
neighborhoods, b) to protect single family neighborhoods
from incompatible uses, and c) to promote new single
family development. The subject property is within the
Single Family Designated Area .
This proposed plat is consistent with the above mentioned
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
It encourages development in a location where urban
services can be efficiently provided by the time of
development and occupancy. It also encourages single
family development which is a stated goal of the City.
Goal 4 : Assure environmental quality in residential
areas.
Objective 1: Preserve and maintain as much of the
natural environment as possible.
Policy 2 : Require site design to conserve
natural features, such as streams,
steep slopes, trees, and wetlands.
Objective 2 : Provide open green areas in the
City ' s residential neighborhoods.
Policy 2 : Require contiguous open green area
in new single family subdivisions.
Planning Department Comment:
No trees of six-inch caliper or greater shall be removed
from any lot except pursuant to a tree plan approved by
the Planning Department. Appropriate mitigation,
including the replacement of trees at a greater than 1: 1
_ ratio, shall be required if any significant trees are to
be removed. The tree plan for the general site, for the
roadway, and for all individual lots showing all trees
six inches in diameter or greater, and their relationship
to any proposed structure must be approved by the
Planning Department prior to approval and construction of
the final roadway design and prior to the issuance of a
development permit for any lot. In addition, a SEPA
7
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
JSU-93-3
condition requires the applicant to protect and provide
a buffer for existing wetland and drainage areas.
Development on all lots shall protect solar access to
properties to the north of each lot according to the
calculations identified in Kent Zoning Code section
15. 08 . 234 .
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2975, the applicant subdivision
consists of 21 residential lots, each of which is less
than 43 , 500 square feet and is not a PUD, and is located
on approximately 6. 5 acres of land. Therefore, the
applicant or developer shall dedicate five (5) percent of
the total property being subdivided as open space or pay
a voluntary fee-in-lieu of dedication.
EAST HILL PLAN
The East Hill Plan Map designates the project site as
MF 12, Multifamily (7-12 units per acre) .
HOUSING ELEMENT
OVERALL GOAL: ASSURE PRESENT AND FUTURE EAST HILL
RESIDENT HOUSING THAT IS SAFE, OFFERS A DESIRABLE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT, AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE COMMUNITY
FACILITIES AND SERVICES .
Goal 1: Residential development that is related to the
availability of community facilities and
services .
Objective 1: When making decisions concerning
land use, consider the adequacy of
and impact upon roads and other
public facilities and services
including utilities, police and fire
protection, public transportation,
schools, and parks.
Goal 2 : Development patterns that promote residential
quality and provide diverse housing opportunity.
Objective 1: Promote f Lexible residential
development approaches. . .
8
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
Objective 2 : Decisions concerning land use
designations and development
proposals shall consider surrounding
residential land uses and mitigation
measures necessary to minimize
potential conflicts.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed preliminary plat is requested for a 21 lot
residential subdivision. The Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance issued for the proposed Applewoude
Estates Preliminary Plat (#SU-93-3) , included it
conditions which are intended to mitigate the anticipated
impacts of this development. As stated previously, the
request for subdivision was routed to the Police, Fire
and Parks Departments, as well as the Kent School
District. There was no indication that the proposed
project would have undue impact on the provision of fire
or police protection, schools, or public transportation.
The property owner shall provide to residents of each lot
information on mass transit opportunities in the vicinity
of the site and about the safe use and disposal of
household hazardous waste, including motor oil, in order
to minimize surface water pollution. The Kent Planning
Department shall provide the property owner with sample
information brochures that may be distributed or made
available to residents to satisfy this requirement.
Growth Management Act
House Bill No. 2929 , The Growth Management Act of 1990,
made it mandatory that jurisdictions in the region plan
for future growth through the adoption of new
Comprehensive Plans. The Growth Management Act states
thirteen separate planning goals which are to be adopted
to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive
plans and development regulations. Those goals which are
of particular importance to this application include:
1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas
where adequate public facilities and services exist or
can be provided in an efficient manner.
9
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
2) Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion
of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density
development.
4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the population of
this state, promote a variety of residential densities
and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing
housing stock.
12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those
public facilities and services necessary to support
development shall be adequate to serve the development
at the time the development is available for occupancy
and use without decreasing current service levels below
locally established minimum standards.
B. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A SUBDIVISION
The purpose of the City of Kent Subdivision Code is to
provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards
for subdividing land in the City of Kent, insuring that
the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general
welfare, and aesthetics of the City of Kent shall be
promoted and protected; that orderly growth, development,
and the conservation, protection and proper use of land
shall be insured; that proper provisions for all public
facilities (including circulation, utilities, and
services) shall be made; that maximum advantage of site
characteristics shall be taken into consideration; that
conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plan shall be insured.
Planning Department Comment
The proposed plat is in general conformance with the
regulations of the Subdivision Code. The Subdivision
Code calls for right-of-way widths for cul-de-sacs to be
50 feet and the proposal is in compliance with this
requirement. All proposed sewers, water mains, and other
utilities will comply with applicable City requirements.
C. FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPOSED LOTS
This proposal is being heard in conjunction with rezone
proposal #RZ-93-2 . This rezone proposal is to change the
10
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
zoning of the subject property from R1-12 (12 , 000 square
foot minimum lot size) , to R1-7 . 2 (7, 200 square foot
minimum lot size) . Development on all lots in the
proposed subdivision will be subject to Zoning Code
requirements for development in the R1-7 . 2 , Single Family
Residential, zoning district. All lots must also comply
with solar access setback regulations and the tree
preservation ordinance.
Planning Department Comment
All proposed lots meet minimum lot size and width
requirements. Development on the proposed lots also will
have to meet solar setback requirements. The purpose of
the solar access setback provision is to provide a
reasonable amount of solar access to lots in the City so
that the economic value of solar radiation falling on
those properties will be preserved and the option to use
solar energy will be encouraged. Any structures built on
the lots in a single family residential must maintain
solar access to the adjacent lots to the north.
Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right
angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines.
Each lot must front upon a public street or road. The
size, shape, and orientation of lot shall meet the
minimum area and width requirements of the R1 district
and shall be appropriate for the development of single
family residences . Corner lots may be required to be
platted with additional width to allow for the additional
side yard requirements. Lots which are bordered by two
(2) streets shall be permitted access to only (1) of
those streets. All lot corners at intersections of
dedicated public rights of way shall have a minimum radii
of fifteen (15) feet.
D. PROPOSED FINDINGS
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan, proposed zoning, land
use, street system, flood control problems and comments
from other departments and finds that:
1 . The City-wide comprehensive Plan Map designates the
site as MF, Multifamily Residential.
11
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
2 . The East Hill Plan Map designates the site as
Multifamily 7-12 units per acre.
3 . The site is within the Single Family Overlay Area.
4 . The site is currently zoned R1-12 , Single Family
Residential, with 12 , 000 square foot minimum lot
size.
5 . Rezone proposal #RZ-93-2 is being heard in
conjunction with this proposal to change the
current zoning to R1-7 . 2 , Single Family
Residential, with 7, 200 square foot minimum lot
size.
6 . Land uses in the immediate area are predominantly
single family residential.
7 . A mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was
issued for the plat on May 7 , 1993 .
8 . There are two wetland and buffer areas on the site.
There are also significant tree groupings located
on the property.
9 . The site has access to SE 244th Street.
10. The subject property would receive water and sewer
service from the City of Kent.
V. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code
criteria for granting a preliminary subdivision, the City
staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Applewoude Estates
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
A. PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECORDATION OF FINAL
PLAT:
1 . Comply with all applicable SEPA conditions
(#ENV-93-16) , ie;
a. Traffic mitigation agreement
b. Storm drainage analysis, design, easements,
etc. . .
C. Water quality treatment
12
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
d. Wetland mitigation, buffers, setbacks, etc. . .
e. Traffic signal mitigation agreement
2 . Submit detailed engineering plans for review and
approval and either construct or bond for the
following improvements:
a. Gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all
lots including lots 20 and 21, and provide for
extensions to serve adjacent parcels. The
sewer system shall be designed to service its
designated service area as determined by the
city. The sewer system shall extend to South
244th Street and along the entire plat
frontage as determined appropriate by the
City.
b. Water system meeting domestic and fire flow
requirements to service all lots.
C. Storm drainage system meeting Kent standards
for conveyance, detention, water quality
treatment, etc. . .
d. Street improvements as denoted in #ENV-93-16.
In addition, the applicant shall redesign
SE 243rd Place and the cul-de-sac at the end
of SE 243 Place ( 111th Court SE) , to increase
the radius to 45 feet at the curb face, and a
minimum radius of 53 feet at the property
line.
3 . Dedicate all necessary public right of way and
provide all public and private easements necessary
for the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the above required improvements.
4 . To mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater
runoff quantity, construct an on-site detention
system in accordance with Kent Construction
Standards. These standards specify two different
criteria (valley and hillside) , depending on
project location. The standard to be met for this
project shall be that for the HILLSIDE.
5 . To mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater
runoff quality, construct an above ground
stormwater treatment system in accordance with Kent
Construction Standards. Options include the
following: wetpond, constructed wetland, extended
13
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
detention pond, biofiltration swale or strip, or
any combination of the above options acceptable to
Public Works. The treatment system will be located
outside all wetlands and wetland buffers.
6 . Submit a detailed Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan to Public Works for review and
approval. Design of temporary controls shall be in
accordance with Kent Construction Standards.
7 . To prevent or minimize water pollution after
construction, site design shall incorporate Best
Management Practices or BMPs, wherever practicable.
BMPs are specific structures or actions intended to
prevent pollution at the source.
8 . As both wetlands are considered Category 2 wetlands
as referenced by Kent' s Wetland Management Code, an
undisturbed 50 foot buffer shall be maintained
adjacent to on-site wetlands Conservation
easements shall be established for each lot ensure
the preservation of the wetland and buffer areas.
9 . The sanitary sewer conveyance system shall be
located, designed and constructed so as to avoid
on-site wetlands and buffers, as well as Garrison
Creek to the north . Manholes and other
appurtenances will be designed to avoid any
reduction in channel flow capacity.
Increased conveyance capacity for Garrison Creek
within the easement is currently being designed by
City engineers. Coordination with City engineers
on the design of the sanitary conveyance system
within the 20 foot easement will be required.
10. Any off-site easements necessary to connect to the
existing sanitary system to the north shall be
acquired, if necessary.
11. Grant to the City a drainage and slope easement on
the northerly 25 feet of this property for the
operation and maintenance, including improvements.
Also provide access easement from SE 243rd Street
to said drainage easement along with the necessary
access road and maintenance road along Garrison
Creek.
14
Staff Report
Applewoude Estates Preliminary Plat
#SU-93-3
12 . Existing residences on proposed lots 20 and 21
shall be connected to the City ' s sanitary sewer
system.
B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON ANY LOT:
1. Construct all the improvements noted in Section A
above.
2 . Comply with City standards for all street
identification signs and shall obtain approval from
the City prior to installation.
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
July 13 , 1993
c:su933.rpt
15
City of Kent - Planning Department
JJJ CE,dnw fWa
eZN
Id SF I
/ wL.
121
I " lnio SF IR �•� j s' l°Aw>Ts
—�
f
19
I SF
7373 Sr
Sr
SF r 7�12� 11 a•
1 (�) 73sS d 17
oGW 8F /10(
2 RDI �� II.,W R�<�a i r� f •',
7 SF
/ I zo 21
I G I ti 1 8?1 7 SF 11 i, // 29067 g
i x �x Rom. i l
m
a SB 2# TR ST
IT
Rom,, IOY 0 4> T
W3< SWiIE f TV SNEYM4�pcC ��`� ��
L
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #SU-93-3 DATE: July 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
Application site
Site Plan
City of Kent - Planning Department
x
o �-
z �
z � SE 234TH ST -
0
w
>
w ¢
m
K =
H
c [3 n
w
v 237TH ST
w
> w
Cr co
0
z
N
O
x
c-
m
O
{pper
f` Ft
I t�
L_ SE 2447 _Sit
H ST
4u
CO
w
(n w
w N
> w SE 2515T ST
Crx
® 252ND PL
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #SU-93-3 DATE: July 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND N
Application site
Vicinity Map railroad tracks
Kent City Limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
- S.L. 2•orx. Sr.
CD
t tt CIC
re ei
ttt ' t
� t ttt t • ' � .
I t t: t
CL
5
M
i
a 4a
13
s
3.L. 2vxT.. 3i. 3.:. natx. St.
o [� o
13
I Lj -q Li
APPLICATION NAME: Applewoude Estates
NUMBER: #SU-93-3 DATE: JUIy 21 , 1993
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat
LEGEND
r,.N Application site
Zoning / Topography Zoning boundary
Kent City Limits
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EIS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT - APPROVAL OF BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City Council previously authorized
staff to distribute a Request for Proposals to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Comprehensive
Plan. Based on review of the proposals and interviews with
consulting firms, staff has identified the need for a budget of
$50, 000 to complete this project. ��� � by Y-CC'+r'/ 4-0-�'J-4
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, City Council 7/20/93 minutes, Planning
Committee minutes of 10/19/93
4 . RECOMMENDED Y: Planning Committee, Budget Committee
(Committee Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISC L PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 1�
FISCAL PERSONNE NOTE: Recommended/7 . PA
Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE RE UIR D: $50 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1 93 CIP Contingency Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember llnsrmove�, C seconds
to authorize the allocation of $50, 000 from the 1993 Capital
Improvement Program Contingency fund for the Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) , and to authorize staff to
prepare a contract for review and signature by the Mayor.
DISCUSSION: h,,ft c' e cti r�J J UA'�-d
ACTION: � ` �O`l Ga/
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
CITY OF L"2-42
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
of NOVEMBER 16 , 1993
MEMO TO: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (EIS)
On July 20, the City Council authorized staff to distribute a
Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the City' s comprehensive plan (see attached minutes) . In
September staff distributed an RFP, in which we asked not only for
firms' relevant qualifications but also for their best estimate of
a project budget.
On October 19 , the Council Planning Committee reviewed the range of
proposals received, and authorized staff to proceed on interviewing
the firms which had responded with budget estimates on the middle
to lower end of the scale. The Planning Committee requested that
after the interviews, staff identify a cost figure for the Budget
Committee' s consideration (see attached Planning committee
minutes) .
Five consulting firms have been interviewed for the project. At
this writing, two firms, Shapiro and Associates and BRW, have been
identified as the finalists for the project. Both firms estimate
a budget of approximately $50 , 000 to complete this project. On
November 15, the Council Budget Committee will review this
estimated budget, and identify funding sources . It is anticipated
at this time that the source of funds will be the 1993 Capital
Improvement Program contingency fund (see attached memo to the
Budget Committee) .
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council allocate $50, 000 from the
1993 Capital Improvement Program contingency fund for the
Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement, and authorize
staff to prepare a contract for review and signature by the Mayor.
KON/mp:a: eisbudcc.mem
Attachments
cc: Tony McCarthy, Chief Administrative Officer
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
July 20, 1993
GROWTH (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
MANAGEMENT Environmental Impact Statement - Re uest for
Prop`_ Adoption of a new City Comprehensive
Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act will
require preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) . In order to prepare such a
technical document in a short period of time,
outside professional services are required. On
June 28 , 1993 , the Council ' s Budget Committee
recommended that the staff be authorized to
prepare and distribute a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the EIS. The RFP process will allow
the City to review the qualifications of various
consulting firms and help to establish a budget
for the project. JOHNSON MOVED to authorize the
preparation and distribution of a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for an Environmental Impact
Statement for the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and,
based on the results of the RFP process, develop
a budget for the project for consideration by
the City Council . White seconded and the motion
carried.
SEGREGATION (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
REQUESTS Segregation Request - LID 327 . Th ublic Works
Committee has recommended adoptio of a resolu-
tion authorizing the segregatio of Assessment
45 in LID 327 , said parcels �ying within Van
en' s Landing. This segregation is due to the
sa of the property by Bir- cher Frank Proper-
ties . WHITE MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1365
authors ing the segregation of Assessment #45 in
LID 327 a d Assessment./#7 in LID 330 . Orr sec-
onded and e motion/carried.
(OTHER BUSINES ITEM 4E)
Segregation Re u t - LID 330. The Public Works
Committee has re,om ended adoption of a resolu-
tion authorizing the egregation of Assessment
#7 in LID 330 said par is lying within Van
Doren' s Landing. This segregation is due to the
sale of the property by Birtcher Frank Proper-
ties. WHI E MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 1366
authorize g the segregation of sessment #7 in
LID 330 . Bennett seconded -and th motion car-
ried.
5
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 19, 1993
Page 2
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Satterstrom presented stated reported on two action
items that needed the Committee 's approval . First, the Committee agreed
to set up a Council Workshop on November 30, 1993 between 5: 00 p.m. to
9: 00 p.m. regarding the Capital Facilities Plan. The Henderson & Young
consultants will provide information regarding inventory, projected
revenue that the City has, the current levels of service, and what the
City's needs are. Chair Orr mentioned she would bring this up under
reports at the Council meeting at the October 19, 1993 Council meeting.
The City Council authorized the Planning Department in July to proceed
ahead with a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Department did
this. Nine responses came back with $200, 000 the highest bid and the
lowest bid around $35, 000, the other bids congregated in the middle. The
Planning Department plans to interview the people with bids in the middle
range. Bennett MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to authorize the
Planning Department to proceed ahead with the interviews to try to
identify a cost figure, put this item on the next Budget Committee 's
Agenda of November 8, and forward this item to the City Council on
November 16, 1993 . Motion carried.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS - LIBRARY BOARD, PLANNING
COMMISSION, HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s reappoint-
ments of Luella White as a member of the Kent Library Board,
Edward Heineman, Jr. and Robert (Bob) McIsaac as members of the
Kent Planning Commission, and Susan Ramos and Lucyle Wooden as
members of the Kent Human Services Commission. { ' '
Ms. White ' R L {
11/98 .
Mr. Heiner
12/31/96 .
Ms. Ramos D
1/1/97 .
This matte
meeting. i
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMEND] ;" ...' 0
( xe_
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: � �
Councilmember � v1 moves, Councilmember u seconds
mat confirmation of the Mayor ' s reappointment of Luella White
to the Kent Library Board, and Susan Ramos and Lucycle Wooden
to the Kent Human Services Commission.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION.
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL ESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1993
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT LIBRARY BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
I have recently reappointed Luella White as a member of the Kent Library Board. This will be Ms.
White's second term on the Board and will be in effect until 11/98.
I have reappointed Edward Heineman, Jr. and Robert (Bob) McIsaac to continue serving as
members of the Kent Planning Commission. Mr. Heineman's and Mr. McIsaac's new terms will be
effective until 12/31/96.
I have reappointed Susan Ramos and Lucyle Wooden to continue as members of the Kent Human
Services Commission. Their new appointments will continue to 1/1/97.
I submit this for your confirmation.
DK:jb
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: November 12 , 1993
TO: Kent City Council
FROM: Roger Lubovich
RE: CONFIRMATION OF MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS
The Mayor has requested confirmation of reappointments of Luella
White to the Kent Library Board, Edward Heineman, Jr. and Robert
(Bob) McIsaac to the Kent Planning Commission, and Susan Ramos
and Lucyle Wooden to the Kent Human Services Commission. The
issue is whether or not the Council must confirm the appointments
of the Mayor, whose term expires before or at the same time as
the terms of the appointed individuals.
1. Human Services Commission. Human Services Commission
appointments are made by the Mayor and confirmed by the
Council . Terms are for three years. The individuals
nominated for reappointment have terms that expire on
January 1, 1994 . The Human Services Commission meets the
fourth Thursday of each month at 3 p.m.
2 . Planning Commission. Appointments are by the Mayor and
confirmed by the Council . Terms are for six years. Terms
of the individuals nominated for reappointment expire on
12/31/93 . The Planning Commission holds a workshop on the
second Monday of the month and meets on the fourth Monday of
each month for normal business.
3 . Library Board of Directors. Appointments are by the Mayor
and subject to the approval of the Council. Approval of the
Council is the same as confirmation. Terms are for five
years and no member may serve more than two full terms. The
term of the individual nominated for reappointment expired
on November 30, 1993 . The Board meets on the second Tuesday
at 7 : 30 p.m.
With respect to the individuals nominated for reappointment,
Susan Ramos specifically requested that she and Lucyle Wooden be
reappointed to the Human Services Commission. Luella White has
agreed to reappointment to the Library Board of Directors, and
Bob McIsaac and Edward Heineman, Jr. have agreed to be
reappointed to the Planning Commission.
Although mayors have the power of appointment and removal of all
appointive employees (RCW 35A. 12 . 090) , confirmation by the
Council of appointments shall be required when so provided by
ordinance. 090 id. City ordinances require confirmation of
appointments for Human Services commissioners. KCC 2 . 53 . 040 (A) .
Planning commissioners, KCC 2 . 56 . 020 (A) and Library Board
members, KCC 4 . 03 . 010.
Since all appointments as nominated by the Mayor for
reappointment require Council confirmation, no position can be
filled for the term without such confirmation. Since the
relevant ordinances do not provide that the incumbent remain
seated following expiration of the term pending nomination and
confirmation of a successor, the positions would probably become
vacant at the end of the term and remain vacant pending
nomination and confirmation of a successor.
With respect to the Planning Commission, the term of planning
commissioners is 6 years pursuant to RCW 35. 63 . 030. The city' s
prior ordinance set the term at 3 years. The city code provision
regarding appointments, KCC 7 . 56 . 020 (A) , was amended to be
consistent with state law when the city adopted the new code
earlier this year. Current appointments were made for 3 year
terms under the old code. It is recommended that confirmation of
the pending appointments to the Planning Commission be deferred
and that all commissioners be reappointed to staggered terms
pursuant to RCW 35. 63 . 030. In the interim, current commissioners
will remain in their appointments as originally appointed until
council confirms the reappointments.
appoint.mem
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE - CONFIRMATION
1j`
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment
of Carole A. Grayson for municipal court judge. Ms. Grayson's'
appointment will be for a term of four years commencing
January 1, 1994 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Letter of appointment and resume
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: $ N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Counclmember seconds
appointment of Carole A. Grayson f�r the position of municipal
court judge for a term of four ye rs commencing January 1,
1994 .
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL ESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DAN KELLEHER, MAYOR y+--t-
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1993
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF CAROLE A. GRAYSON AS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
I have recently selected Carole A. Grayson to serve as Judge when Kenfs new Municipal Court
opens January 3, 1994.
Ms. Grayson is a member of the Washington State Bar Association and has practiced law for 15
years. Most of her experience has been in criminal law and she has also served as a neutral fact-
finder in three forums. She has served as a judge pro tem for three years in Seattle Municipal
Court, has served as a civil arbitrator in King County Superior Court for six years and also has
extensive experience at a private alternative dispute center.
Ms. Grayson is very knowledgeable, experienced and organized and with her background in
criminal law and having sat as a pro tem judge for three years, it is my belief that she will be an
excellent Judge when our Municipal Court opens.
DK:JB
F3 E C E � D f01YFSLERWAY
ICI 1993 SUITE605
CAROLE A. GRAYSON
PERSONNEL DEP T SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 9810-1
(206) 62S-0II7
August 5, 1993 FAX(206) 625-095 i
Mr. Don Olson
Human Resources Director
City of Kent, Human Resources Department
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Re: Kent Municipal Judge
Dear Mr. Olson:
Please consider this as my letter of interest in being
considered for appointment as Kent Municipal Judge, as announced in
the July 1993 King County Bar Bulletin.
I am eminently and uniquely qualified to serve as Kent
Municipal Judge. I have practiced law for 15 years, mostly in
criminal law. I also have served as a neutral fact-finder in three
forums and understand judicial accountability. I have no conflicts
of interest which would prevent me from sitting as Kent Municipal
Judge. I am a member of the Washington State Bar Association and
live at 4100 50th Avenue South, Seattle, WA 98118 .
My duties as a judge pro tem for three years in Seattle
Municipal Court duplicated the duties which I expect the Kent
Municipal Judge would have to perform: resolving conditions of
release and evidentiary issues; presiding over arraignments, guilty
pleas, dispositions, and jury and bench trials. As a civil
arbitrator in King County Superior Court for six years and at a
private alternative dispute center for nine years, I know how
important it is for all parties to feel respected in a courtroom or
hearing room.
My fluency in Spanish led to my being asked to evaluate the
qualifications of interpreters by a state-wide association before
the state agency handling this function was created. A high
percentage of my clients have always been persons for whom English
is not their first language. Such persons are appearing in the
courts in increasing numbers. It is vital that the courts treat
all persons, be they plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, or victims
of crime, and regardless of their language or intellectual or
financial resources, with respect and with the protections extended
to them under the law. I have always done so in the past and would
continue to do so as Kent Municipal Judge.
Carole A. Grayson
Letter of August 5, 1993 to Don Olson
I have gained an intimate view of how our legal system works
from serving on important bar committees which have analyzed and
remedied court congestion, screened candidates for district and
municipal courts, trained pro tem judges for superior court, and
assembled criteria for pro tem judges at the municipal and district
court levels. I have enjoyed working with bench and bar to improve
state court judicial administration and would use my energy and
experience to work with court administrators and others to guide
the Kent Municipal Court as appropriate.
Through -17 ;:corking relationships with state and local Bar
leaders and judges, and through my committee work and editorial
responsibilities, I have also seen how the bench and bar wrestle
with such issues as funding for indigent defense, equal justice
under the law, and professionalism.
During my 15 year legal career, I have enjoyed practicing law
and learning the many lessons it can offer. I now wish to make the
transition to sitting as a judge. I am an open-minded, inquisitive
person with a broad range of skills and capabilities . I see my
achievements during my 15 years in practice as laying a foundation
for further accomplishments as a member of the legal community, but
while sitting on the other side of the bench.
In summary: I feel very motivated to serve on Kent's newly
forming municipal court. I have a wide understanding of legal
issues in the criminal area as well as traffic infractions and
civil forfeitures (which are other areas with which the court may
be concerned) . I am well-regarded by my peers, judges, prosecutors
and other opposing attorneys, and law enforcement. I am accustomed
to making tough decisions under pressure. I am familiar with the
conduct of court proceedings as judge pro tem and attorney-
advocate. In the course of my career, I have handled hundreds of
trials; in the last fire years, some 85 trials, jury and nonjury,
at all levels of federal, state, and local courts.
I would be honored to be appointed as Kent Municipal Judge and
would well and truly serve in that capacity. My resume is
attached, as is a list of references. I look forward to hearing
from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
lCaro"leA. '#GrayXn'�
enc. : resume
references
CAROLE A. GRAYSON
101 Yesler Way, Suite 605
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 628-0117
(206) 628-0953 fax
BAR MEMBERSHIP 1985 U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
1984 U. S. District Court, W.D. Washington
1981 Washington
1980 U. S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
1979 U. S . District Court, M.D. Florida
1978 Florida
EDUCATION J. D. 1977 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
A.B. 1974 Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey
Doherty Foundation grant for
field research in Latin America
LEGAL EXPERIENCE
1985-present Solo practice, 70% criminal and 30% civil,
including federal Criminal Justice Act Panel
(since 1988) , arbitrator with King County Superior
Court mandatory program (since 1987) and
Washington Arbitration Services (1984-1993) ; and
judge pro tem in Seattle Municipal Court (1986-
1989) . I represent retained and appointed adult
and juvenile clients in state and federal courts.
1984 Richards and Kinerk
Seattle, WA 98122
Three-day-a-week lawyer for civil firm emphasizing
products liability, personal injury, and medical
malpractice trial work.
1981-1984 Snohomish County Public Defender Association
Everett, WA 98201
Felony and juvenile court lawyer with motion and
trial practice, including post-trial proceedings,
probation and parole revocations, extraditions,
and involuntary civil commitments.
1978-1981 Office of Public Defender
Bartow, FL 33830
Felony and misdemeanor lawyer with trial, motion,
and appellate practice. Supervised legal and
support staff . Observed misdemeanor mediation
program.
101 YESLER WAY
CAROLE A. GRAYSON SUITE 605
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 9810-1
(206)628-0117
FAX(206) 628-0953
REFERENCES FOR CAROLE A. GRAYSON
Hon. Norma Huggins, King County Superior Court, Seattle, 296-9096
Hon. James McCutcheon, King Co. Superior Court, Seattle, 296-9210
Hon. William Downing, King County Superior Court, Seattle, 296-9362
Hon. Walter McGovern, U. S . District Court, Seattle, 553-5410
Duncan Bonjorni, Attorney at Law, Auburn, 854-2710/833-5840
Peter Greenfield, Evergreen Legal Services, Seattle, 464-1422
Douglas Whalley, Asst. U. S . Attorney, Seattle, 553-7970/4882
Floyd Short, Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, 623-7580
Randal Steckel, SCRAP (public defender agency) , Seattle, 322-8400
John Belatti, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, 296-9000
Robert Knieff, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, 296-9000
Kathy Goater, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, 296-9000
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 5TH AVENUE EMERGENCY SEWER REPLACEMENT - TITUS TO
SAAR STREETS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: During the recent reconstruction of the
water main and storm sewer system on 5th Avenue, the Public
Works Department found that the sandy road bed under the
street pavement section is being washed into the sanitary
sewer system, creating significant voids. Due to the
hazardous condition that exists to the public, the Public
Works Director asks that this situation be declared an
emergency. In so doing, the Public Works Department would
proceed in securing a contractor to start the reconstruction
work as soon as possible. The total cost is estimated to be
$120, 000 to $150, 000, including street restoration. tu�ck5i�o� �
f�oi-ed f� W h.,i-e �'G�afi 4-��tea_ au S.:d c aGa v; t t^c �►/
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc�y
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO / YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $150 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Miscellarfeous Sewer Proiects Budget
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: g�
Councilmember ti 'V' move, Cori seconds
to acknowledge that an emergency situation as described in
the Public Works Director' s memo of November Sth exists, and
to direct and authorize the Public Works Director to proceed
with resolving the matter accordingly.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4F
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 8, 1993
TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM� � ��,�
RE: 5TH AVENUE EMERGENCY SEWER REPLACEMENT
TITUS STREET TO SAAR STREET
With the recent reconstruction of the water main and storm sewer
system on 5th Avenue, we found that the sandy road bed under the
street pavement section is being washed into the sanitary sewer
system, creating significant voids . Because of the potential
hazardous condition that exists to the public, (unexpected sudden
collapse of the road) we are acting on this situation accordingly.
As such, we have closed off 5th Avenue to all but localized
traffic. On Tuesday the buses for Kent Elementary, which normally
load and unload off of 5th Avenue will now do so off of 4th Avenue .
This will probably cause some traffic problems along with some
upset motorists, however in the interest of overall safety, it is
a necessary inconvenience .
We hope to be in a position to authorize a contractor to start work
within the next two weeks . We estimate the total costs to be
$120 , 000 to $150, 000 which would include the street restoration
work. No monies would have to be budgeted as adequate funds exists
within the Miscellaneous Sewer Replacement Fund. On the November
16th Council agenda, will be an item asking that this situation be
declared an emergency. By doing so, we could save a significant
amount of time in getting the reconstruction work on the way.
Literally months could be saved in the design, permitting, bid and
award process . Presently the ground water table is at its lowest
level . As such, this is the opportune time for replacing sewers in
the valley floor. A delay of a month or months may result in an
inability to do the project this year or cause it to be exceedingly
expensive.
Because time is of the essence and this is an emergency, we hope
the fact that this agenda item has not been thru a committee will
not delay your decision thereon.
YV�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: UNION PACIFIC REALTY LAND PURCHASE - AGREEMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: In conjunction with implementing the
Wildlife Preserve/Valley Stormwater Detention project,
significant property adjacent to the abandoned Sewer Lagoon
needed to be acquired. As a result, the Public Works �y
Department has secured a Purchase and Sale Agreement. A��
memorandum thereon and the Purchase & ale Agreement 4, in-
cluded in the Council packet. � i-s -the Public Works
Department�c recommend that the Council concur with the
terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreementpand
directs and authorizes the Public Works Director to proceed
accordingly.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Public Works Director and
vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Recommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $3 , 500 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: 1986 & 1993 Sewerage Bonds and County Grant
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: I
Councilmember � �� moved, CmmCr I`mem er �on3s
to accept and concur with the terms and conditions of the
Purchase and Sale Agreement,
to adopt same, and fur-ther to direct and authorize the
Public Works Director to proceed with the purchase pursuant
to the terms of said agreement.
DISCUSSION: Yv� 5� ( JruFc t d
ACTION: 64,41 d 4 kx-
Council Agenda
Item No. 4G
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 10, 1993
TO: MAYOR & CITY CQO�U�N�IL
FROM: DON WICKSTROM=��"
RE: WILDLIFE PRESERVE/VALLEY STORM WATER DETENTION PROJECT
As you know, the Public Works Department has been negotiating with
Union Pacific Realty for acquisition of their property surrounding
the City's abandon Sewage Lagoon site. The property is needed to
facilitate the converting of the abandon lagoons into the long
proposed and needed Wildlife Preserve/Valley Storm Water Detention
facility.
A key hindrance to implementing the project has been the securing
of a disposal site for the approximate 400, 000 cubic yards of
material anticipated to be excavated therefrom. With Council
concurrence as to the terms and conditions of the attached Sale and
Purchase Agreement, this major hindrance would be resolved. Under
the agreement, the City will take ownership of approximately 272
acres which, as shown on the attached map, runs from 228th Street
on the south to 212th Street on the north and from the abandon
lagoons on the east to Russell Road/Green River on the west. The
cost to the City thereof is $3 , 500, 000 which is within 9% of the
property's appraised value. Funding therefore was anticipated and
included in the last drainage rate increase for which revenue bonds
were just recently sold. In addition, the City 'has received Grant
approval for $1, 000, 000 related to the acquisition of that portion
of the property which lies north of Puget Power 's transmission
lines (approximately 210 acres) . The Grants are from Metro and
King County and relate to preservation of shoreline and open space.
While we will be using the property as a disposal site during the
construction of the Lagoon conversion project, we plan to
recontour, revegetate and reforest it in such a manner that
enhances its environmental features and, thusly those of the Lagoon
project. Once complete, the entire 280 acre site (Lagoon plus 209
acres) will become not only a significant environmental amenity of
the City, but also of the County. As such, the Public Works
Department recommends the Council concur with the terms and
conditions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement and proceed ahead
with the acquisition.
eee add 1-2409-119
SEHI�T,��
PRINT OF SALE PARgZL
U01< _M, G
441
;, 0 1•� � �'rnj'r�
� � I
+'1ti,t w • � ��
a
Ill o✓` is-3
M Y.I•Yy a(s
r
1 tiy^
Yti.ti� +w
ww M1•I. ) I
lit t, 1
�t 11
1
11/05�3
17i�;'L.±irr 1 E C) K3�IN.AL
�!� r:;i 1r;S r Ct7Uiy��A �AT 1-2409-119
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made on/)')c, L r -- -hrf//, 1993, between
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPO TION, a Nebraska corporation
("UPLRC") , and UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Nebraska
corporation ("UIDC") , whose address is 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha,
Nebraska 68179 (collectively, "Seller") , and CITY OF KENT, a
Washington municipal corporation, whose address is 220 4th Avenue
South, Kent, Washington 98032 ("Purchaser") .
Section 1. Purchase and Sale of the Property.
Seller owns and agrees to sell and Purchaser agrees to
purchase, on the terms and conditions of this Agreement, certain
real property in Kent, King County, Washington, shown on the print
marked Exhibit A-1, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof
and described in Exhibit A-2 attached hereto and hereby made a part
hereof ("Sale Parcel") .
Section 2. Purchase Price.
The total purchase price for the Sale Parcel is Three
Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,500,000.00) ("Purchase
Price") , which shall be paid to Seller in cash or by certified or
cashier's check drawn on a financial institution acceptable to
Seller or by confirmed wire transfer of immediately available funds
to Morgan Guaranty, ABA #021000238, Account No. 22890516 for credit
to Treasurer, Union Pacific Corporation.
Section 3. Conditions Precedent to Sale.
This Agreement is subject to the following conditions
precedent:
(a) Title Review. Purchaser is in receipt of a title
report on the Sale Parcel dated June 10, 1993, Order No.
214920, from Stewart Title Company of Washington, Inc. , 1201
Third Avenue, Suite 3800, Seattle, Washington 98101 ("Title
Company") and copies of all documents referred to therein, as
supplemented by Supplement No. 1 dated August 16, 1993.
Purchaser shall have until on or before November 22, 1993 in
which to approve or disapprove any defects in the title or any
liens, encumbrances, covenants, rights of way, easements or
other outstanding rights disclosed by the title report or the
Survey referred to in subparagraph (b) below, except those
matters set forth in Section 5. Disapproval shall be by
written notice given by Purchaser to Seller setting forth the
specific item(s) disapproved by Purchaser. If no such notice
of disapproval or notice of approval is given by Purchaser on
or beforef November 22, 1993, then 'this Agreement shall
11/05/93 1
1-2409-119
terminate. In the event of disapproval by Purchaser of any
item(s) contained in or disclosed by the title report or
Survey, Seller shall have until on or before December 3, 1993
to eliminate any disapproved items from the policy of title
insurance to be issued in favor of Purchaser. In the event
any such disapproved item is not eliminated on or before
December 3, 1993, then this Agreement shall terminate unless
Purchaser shall have elected to waive its prior disapproval in
writing on or before December 10, 1993. In the event of
termination as provided in this subparagraph (a)., this Agree-
ment shall be without any further force and effect, and
without further obligation of either party to the other.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this subparagraph
(a) , Seller shall cause to be removed at or before closing the
title exception for the LID 330 assessment appearing in the
title report at Paragraph 62 as well as any exceptions for
other liens (other than for taxes and non-LID 330 assessments,
which shall be prorated as provided in Section 4) disclosed by
the title report (or any supplement thereto) which are of a
definite and ascertainable amount which may be discharged by
the payment of money, regardless of whether or not Purchaser
objects thereto.
(b) Property Materials. Within ten (10) days after the
date of execution of this Agreement by both parties, Seller
shall provide to Purchaser, at Purchaser's offices, copies of
the survey performed by International Land Surveying dated
October 1990 (the "Survey") , and the Environmental Report(s)
and other document(s) (if any) listed on Exhibit B attached
hereto (collectively, the "Property Materials") . Seller makes
no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or complete-
ness of the information contained in the Property Materials.
(c) Feasibility Studies. Upon execution of this
Agreement by both parties, Purchaser, and its agents and
contractors, are granted the privilege to and including
December 9, 1993 ("Feasibility Review Period") of entering
upon the Sale Parcel to perform environmental audits, soil
tests, engineering and feasibility studies of the Sale Parcel
as Purchaser may deem necessary to determine the suitability
of the soil conditions and other physical conditions of the
Sale Parcel. Purchaser shall deliver written notice to Seller
prior to the end of the Feasibility Review Period that
Purchaser has either (1) approved the condition of the Sale
Parcel and intends to proceed with the purchase of the Sale
Parcel or (2) elected to terminate this Agreement. If
Purchaser fails to give either notice before the end of the
Feasibility Review Period, Purchaser shall be deemed to have
elected to terminate this Agreement. In the event of
termination as provided in this subparagraph (c) , Purchaser
shall surrender to Seller copies of all audits, soils,
11/05/93 2
1-2409-119
engineering and any other reports prepared for Purchaser
pertaining to the Sale Parcel and said reports shall become
the sole property of Seller without cost or expense of Seller
(and the contents thereof shall be kept confidential by
Purchaser and Purchaser's consultants) , and this Agreement
shall be without any further force and effect, and without
further obligation of either party to the other. Regardless
of whether or not this Agreement is terminated, Purchaser
shall promptly furnish Seller with copies of any and all
reports on environmental assessments of the Sale Parcel.
If Purchaser, its agents or contractors, enter upon the
Sale Parcel for the purposes of this Section 3 (c) , such entry
shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
(i) Purchaser agrees to indemnify and save harmless
Seller and/or Seller's affiliates ("Seller's affiliates"
means any corporation which directly or indirectly
controls or is controlled by or is under common control
with Seller) , their officers, agents and employees,
against and from any and all liability, loss, costs and
expense of whatsoever nature growing out of personal
injury to or death of persons whomsoever, or loss or
destruction of or damage to property whatsoever, where
such personal injury, death, loss, destruction or damage
arises in connection with or incident to the occupation
or use of the Sale Parcel by, or the presence thereon of
Purchaser, Purchaser's agents, contractors or employees
prior to closing unless caused by the negligence of
Seller, Seller's affiliates, or their officers, agents
employees; q5 a KSJ —c{ (%4JIC4S�v- e�
�cflUc�7 a� ocCuF4Hcy a�Sc-oj y�
Purchaser agrees t pay for all materials
affixed to the Sale Parcel and to pay all persons who
perform labor upon said premises, and not to permit any
mechanic's or materialman's lien to be enforced against
the Sale Parcel for work done or materials furnished
thereon at the request of Purchaser; and Purchaser agrees
to indemnify and hold harmless Seller against and from
any and all liens, claims, demands, costs and expenses of
whatsoever nature in any way connected with or growing
out of such work done, labor performed or materials
furnished prior to closing;
(iii) If the sale and purchase of the Sale Parcel
does not close, Purchaser shall, as soon as possible and
at Purchaser's sole expense, restore the Sale Parcel to
the same condition it was in immediately prior to the
time Purchaser entered the Sale Parcel. If Purchaser
fails to complete restoration of the Sale Parcel within
ten (10) days after Seller gives Purchaser written notice
11/05/93 3
1-2409-119
to do so, then Seller may perform the work of restoration
and Purchaser shall reimburse Seller for the cost and
expense thereof within thirty (30) days after rendition
of bill therefor by Seller; and
(iv) Notwithstanding any provisions in this
Agreement to the contrary, in the event this Agreement is
terminated for any reason whatsoever, Purchaser never-
theless shall be obligated to comply with the provisions
of this Section 3 (c) .
(d) Purchaser's Approval. The terms and conditions of
this transaction are subject to approval by the Kent City
Council. Notice of approval or disapproval shall be given by
Purchaser to Seller on or before December 10, 1993, and
failure to give such notice within said time period shall be
deemed notice of disapproval. If no notice of Kent City
Council approval is given to Seller within said time period,
this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and without any
further force and effect, and without further obligation of
either party to the other.
Section 4. Escror.
On or before the date of closing of escrow, Purchaser
shall deposit with Stewart Title Company, 1010 South 336th Street,
Suite 120, Federal Way, Washington 98063-4560 ("Escrow Holder") the
Purchase Price, and Seller shall deposit therein the Statutory
Warranty Deeds referred to in Section 5. Upon execution of this
Agreement by Seller and Purchaser, Escrow Holder shall sign a
counterpart of this Agreement to signify its consent to the escrow
provisions of this Agreement. Escrow Holder shall be instructed
that when it is in a position to deliver to Seller the Purchase
Price, and Title Company is in a position to issue a standard ALTA
owner's policy of title insurance in the full amount of the
Purchase Price, insuring fee simple title to the Sale Parcel in
Purchaser, subject only to the items set forth in Section 5, Escrow
Holder shall:
(1) record and deliver the Statutory Warranty Deeds to
Purchaser;
(2) deliver to Seller the Purchase Price; and
(3) issue and deliver to Purchaser the standard ALTA owner's
policy of title insurance.
At closing, (a) Seller shall pay the following:
(1) One-half of the escrow fee;
11/05/93 4
1-2409-119
(2) All assessments under LID 330 for the Sale Parcel;
(3) The premium for the issuance of the ALTA standard owner's
policy of title insurance;
(4) Seller's pro rata share as of 12:01 a.m. on the date of
closing of the following:
(i) real estate taxes (whether general or special,
except as provided above with respect to
assessments for LID 330) assessed against the Sale
Parcel and due and payable for the year of closing;
and
(ii) any water and utility charges and other expenses of
Seller normal to the ownership, use, operation and
maintenance of the Sale Parcel.
(5) The Washington State real estate excise tax, if any; and
(6) The cost of the required state revenue stamps, if any.
(b) Purchaser shall pay the following costs:
(1) One-half of the escrow fee;
(2) The cost of recording the Statutory Warranty Deeds; and
(3) Purchaser's pro rata share as of 12:01 a.m. on the date
of closing of the following:
(i) real estate taxes (whether general or special,
except as provided above with respect to
assessments for LID 330) assessed against the Sale
Parcel and due and payable for the year of closing;
and
(ii) any water and utility charges and other expenses of
Seller normal to the ownership, use, operation and
maintenance of the Sale Parcel.
(c) If Seller has been unable to dispossess the tenants
under the Leases as provided in Section 8 (a) (ii) , Seller's right,
title and interest under such Leases shall be assigned to, and
assumed by, Purchaser at closing with any rentals prorated as of
closing. In such event, Seller agrees to reimburse Purchaser for
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by Purchaser
after closing in dispossessing such tenants, provided that
Purchaser commences dispossession efforts within six (6) months
after closing of escrow and thereafter continues to prosecute such
dispossession efforts.
11/05/93 5
1-2409-119
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement to the contrary, if Purchaser shall become liable after
the closing of escrow for payment of any property taxes assessed
against the Sale Parcel for any period of time prior to the closing
of escrow and/or any penalties attributable to such property taxes,
Seller shall immediately reimburse Purchaser on demand for such tax
assessment and/or penalty paid by Purchaser.
Section 5. Title.
Upon closing of escrow as set forth in Section 4, title
to that portion of the Sale Parcel owned by UIDC shall be conveyed
by UIDC to Purchaser by a duly executed Statutory Warranty Deed in
the form marked Exhibit C attached hereto and hereby made a part
hereof, and that portion of the Sale Parcel owned by UPLRC shall be
conveyed by UPLRC to Purchaser by a duly executed Statutory
Warranty Deed in the form marked Exhibit D attached hereto and
hereby made a part hereof. Title shall be in fee and insurable as
free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, exceptions, and
reservations other than the following:
(1) Non-delinquent real property taxes (whether general or
special) ;
(2) Standard general exceptions in the title policy; and
(3) Items disclosed in the title report and Survey and
approved or waived by Purchaser as set forth in Section
3 (a) .
section 6. closing; Possession.
Escrow for the Sale Parcel shall close on or before
December 16, 1993. Possession of the Sale Parcel shall pass to
Purchaser on closing of escrow, subject to the rights of the
tenants under the Leases referred to in Section 8 (a) (ii) .
Purchaser shall have no right to possession or occupancy of or
entry upon any portion of the Sale Parcel [except as set forth in
Section 3 (c) ] and title thereto shall be and remain vested in
Seller until closing of escrow.
Section 7. As Is; Indemnity.
(a) Purchaser and its representatives, prior to the date
of closing of escrow, will have been afforded the opportunity to
make such inspections of the Sale Parcel and matters related
thereto as Purchaser and its representatives desire. Purchaser
acknowledges receipt of the environmental report(s) ("Environmental
Reports") listed on Exhibit B. Seller makes no representation or
warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of said Environmental
Reports. Except as otherwise specifically provided in Section
11/05/93 6
1-2409-119
8 (a) , Seller makes no repr
esentations or warranties of any kind
whatsoever, either express or implied, with respect to the Sal
Parcel, including, without limitation, the use, condition,
V&WMi
occupation, acreage or management of the Sale Parcel. Purchaser
acknowledges that it is entering into this Agreement on the basis
of Purchaser's own investigation of the physical and environmental
conditions of the Sale Parcel, including the subsurface conditions,
and Purchaser assumes the risk that adverse physical and environ-
mental conditions may not have been revealed by its investigation.
Purchaser acknowledges that notwithstanding any prior or contempo-
raneous oral or written representations, statements, documents or
understandings, this Agreement constitutes the entire understanding
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and the
purchase and sale of the Sale Parcel and supersedes any such prior
or contemporaneous oral or written representations, statements,
documents or understandings.
(b) From and after closing, Purchaser shall, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, defend and save harmless Seller,
its affiliates, their employees, agents, officers, successors and
assigns, from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or
administration proceedings, claims, demands, fines, punitive
damages, losses, costs, liabilities and expenses, including
attorney's fees, in any way arising out of or connected with (1)
the presence in, on, under or adjacent to the Sale Parcel of any
Hazardous Material [as defined in Section 8 (a) (i) ] , whether
occurring before or after closing, which has its source at any
property now or formerly owned by Purchaser, including, without
limitation, Purchaser's sewage lagoon property, and (2) the
presence in, on, under or adjacent to the Sale Parcel of any
Hazardous Material stored, placed, released, used, generated or
disposed of by Purchaser or with the consent of Purchaser or on
behalf of Purchaser. Purchaser shall have the burden of proving
that any Hazardous Material in, on, under or adjacent to the Sale
Parcel is not a Hazardous Material covered by this indemnity, and
Purchaser agrees that it shall be a rebuttable presumption that any
Hazardous Material in, on, under or adjacent to the Sale Parcel is
covered by this indemnity.
section S. Representations and Warranties.
(a) In order to induce Purchaser to enter into this
Agreement, Seller represents and warrants to Purchaser as follows:
(i) Hazardous Materials. Except with respect to any and
all matters which may be disclosed by the Environmental
Report(s) listed on Exhibit B, Seller has no actual, current
knowledge of any use; release, manufacture, treatment, trans-
portation, processing, generation, storage or disposal of any
Hazardous Materials on or under the Sale Parcel or any prop-
erty located within one thousand (1,000) yards of the Sale
11/05/93 7
1-2409-119
Parcel which is not now or was not formerly owned by
Purchaser. As used in this subparagraph, the term "Hazardous
Materials" shall mean any hazardous or toxic substance,
material or waste regulated by or subject to any local govern-
mental authority, any agency of the State of Washington, or
any other agency of the United States Government, including,
without limitation, any material or substance which is (i)
defined as a "hazardous waste", "extremely hazardous waste",
"restricted hazardous waste", "hazardous substance",
"hazardous material", "dangerous waste, substance or
material", "toxic material" or "toxic substance" under any
federal, state or local governmental rule, regulation,
ordinance, statute or act; (ii) petroleum and any petroleum
by-products; (iii) asbestos; (iv) urea-formaldehyde foam
insulation; or (v) polychlorinated biphenyl.
(ii) Parties in Possession. Except for the leases
("Leases") between Seller and DeLane A. Garrett and Beth
Garrett and Seller and Luisito A. Cuaresma, copies of which
have been provided by Seller to Purchaser, Seller has granted
no unrecorded leases, licenses or other rights to use and
occupy the Sale Parcel, and Seller has no actual knowledge of
any other persons in possession or occupancy of the Sale
Parcel or any part thereof, or of any other persons who have
or claim possessory rights in respect to the Sale Parcel or
any part thereof, or of any unrecorded mortgages or other
encumbrances against the Sale Parcel. The Leases have expired
by their own terms, and Seller shall, prior to closing, use
its best efforts to terminate any current rights of the
tenants thereunder as holdover tenants or otherwise.
(iii) Violations of Law. Seller has received no actual
notice from any official representative of any governmental
entity of any current violation of any applicable law,
ordinance, rule, regulation or requirement of any governmental
agency relating to the Sale Parcel.
(iv) Authority. Seller has full right, power and
authority to execute this Agreement and, assuming it has been
duly authorized, executed and delivered by Purchaser, this
Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation of the
Seller enforceable in accordance with its terms. No other
authorizations or approvals, whether of governmental bodies or
otherwise, will be necessary in order for Seller to enter into
and perform its obligations under this Agreement. Neither the
execution and delivery of this Agreement nor the consummation
of the transactions contemplated hereunder will: (1) conflict
with or result in the breach of any law, regulation, writ,
injunction or decree of any court or governmental instrumenta-
lity applicable to Seller; or (2) constitute a breach of any
11/05/93 8
1-2409-119
evidence of indebtedness or agreement to which Seller is a
party or by which Seller is bound.
(v) No Defaults. Neither the execution of this
Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated
hereby, nor the fulfillment of the terms hereof, will conflict
with or result in a breach of any of the terms, conditions or
provisions of, or constitute a default under, any agreement or
instrument which affects the sale Parcel or to which the Sale
Parcel is subject or any applicable laws or regulations of any
governmental body having jurisdiction over the Sale Parcel.
(vi) No Encumbrance Before Closing. Seller hereby agrees
from and after the date hereof until the closing of escrow, or
the termination of this Agreement, that (1) it will take no
action that will adversely affect title to the Sale Parcel;
(2) it will not mortgage, encumber or permit the encumbrance
of all or any portion of the Sale Parcel without Purchaser's
prior written consent; and (3) without Purchaser's prior
written consent, it will not enter into any written or oral
contracts or agreements with respect to the operation of the
Sale Parcel which cannot be cancelled on or after the closing
of escrow by Purchaser on no more than thirty (30) days notice
without premium or penalty.
(vii) Litigation. Seller has no actual, current knowledge
of any claim, litigation, proceeding or governmental
investigation pending or threatened against or relating to the
Sale Parcel, or the transactions contemplated by this
Agreement.
(viii) No Prior Options. Sales or Assignments. Seller has
not granted any options nor committed nor obligated itself in
any manner whatsoever to sell the Sale Parcel or any portion
thereof to any party other than Purchaser, except for
agreements which have terminated.
(ix) Insurance. Seller has not received any notices from
any insurance companies with respect to any violations con-
cerning the Sale Parcel.
(x) Special Assessments. Seller has not received any
official written notice during Seller's ownership of the Sale
Parcel of contemplated improvements to the Sale Parcel or the
area surrounding the Sale Parcel which would result in a
special assessment or similar lien against the Sale Parcel,
other than LID 306 and the matters disclosed in the title
report referred to in Section 3 (a) .
(xi) Survival. The representations and warranties of
Seller set forth in this Section 8 (a) shall survive the
11/05/93 9
1-2409-119
closing for a period of ten (10) years only and shall
thereafter be of no further force and effect.
(b) In order to induce Seller to enter into this
Agreement, Purchaser makes the following representations and
warranties as of the date of this Agreement and again as of the
closing of escrow:
(i) Authority. Purchaser is a municipal corporation
duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of Washington. Purchaser has full right, power and
authority to execute this Agreement, and assuming it has been
duly authorized, executed and delivered by Seller, this
Agreement is a -valid and binding obligation of the Purchaser
enforceable in accordance with its terms. No other
authorizations or approvals, whether of governmental bodies or
otherwise, will be necessary in order for Purchaser to enter
into and perform its obligations under this Agreement.
(ii) No Default. Neither the execution and delivery of
this Agreement nor the consummation of the transactions
contemplated thereunder will: (1) conflict with or result in
the breach of any law, regulation, writ, injunction or decree
of any court or governmental instrumentality applicable to
Purchaser; or (2) constitute a breach of any evidence of
indebtedness or agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by
which Purchaser is bound.
Section 9. Purchaser's Covenant.
Purchaser, for itself, its successors and assigns,
covenants and agrees to make no use of the Sale Parcel, including,
without limitation, the design, construction or maintenance of the
lagoon/wetlands project, which will cause the adjacent property
currently owned by Seller to become subject to the two hundred foot
(20011 ) buffer requirement outlined in the City's Valley Studies
Program set forth in City ordinance Nos. 2630 and 2604 passed on
May 5, 1986 and January 21, 1986, respectively, or any similar
successor ordinance or similar state or federal statute, rule or
regulation.
Section 10. Notices.
Any notices required or desired to be given under this
Agreement shall be in writing and personally served, given by
overnight express delivery, or given by mail. Telecopy notices
shall be deemed valid only to the extent they are (a) actually
received by the individual to whom addressed and (b) followed by
delivery of actual notice in the manner described above within
three (3) business days thereafter. Any notice given by mail shall
be sent, postage prepaid, by certified mail, return receipt
11/05/93 10
1-2409-119
requested, addressed to the party to receive at the following
address or at such other address as the party may from time to time
direct in writing:
Seller: Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation
ATTN: Lee E. Olson, Senior Vice President
24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 360
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Telephone: (714) 455-0866
Facsimile: (714) 455-0620
with copy to: Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation
ATTN: Christine M. Smith
1416 Dodge Street, Room 830
Omaha, Nebraska 68179
Telephone: (402) 271-5761
Facsimile: (402) 271-5610
Purchaser: CITY OF KENT
ATTN: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Telephone: (206) 859-3383
Facsimile: (206) 859-3559
Title Company: STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC.
ATTN: Robert L. Ludlow
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 343-1327
Facsimile: (206) 343-1330
Express delivery notices shall be deemed to be given upon receipt.
Postal notices shall be deemed to be given three (3) days after
deposit with the United States Postal Service.
section 11. Assignment.
Purchaser shall not transfer or assign this Agreement, or
any interest therein, without the consent in writing of Seller, and
it is agreed that any such transfer or assignment, whether
voluntary, by operation of law or otherwise, without such consent
in writing, shall be absolutely void and shall, at the option of
Seller, terminate this Agreement.
section 12. Waiver of Breach.
A waiver by either party hereto of a breach of the other
party hereto of any covenant or condition of this Agreement shall
not impair the right of the party not in default to avail itself of
any subsequent breach thereof. Leniency, delay or failure of either
11/05/93 11
1-2409-119
party to insist upon strict performance of any agreement, covenant
or condition of this Agreement, or to exercise any right herein
given in any one or more instances, shall not be construed as a
waiver or relinquishment of any such agreement, covenant, condition
or right.
Section 13. Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
Section 14. Law Governing.
This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the
laws of the State of Washington.
Section is. Merger.
The terms, provisions, covenants and conditions herein
contained shall merge into the deed to be delivered by Seller to
Purchaser at closing and shall not survive the closing of escrow,
except for the provisions of Sections 3 (c) , 4 (c) and (d) , 7, 8 (a)
(for the ten-year period specified therein) and (b) , 91 16 and 19.
Section 16. No Brokers.
The negotiations relative to this Agreement and the
transactions contemplated hereby have been carried on by the part-
ies without the intervention of any person which would give rise to
any valid claim against either of the parties hereto for brokerage
commissions or other like payment. Each party hereto shall
indemnify and hold harmless the other party against and from any
and all claims for brokerage commission or other like payment
arising out of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement and
occasioned by the actions of such indemnifying party.
Section 17. Casualty.
Seller shall, except as otherwise provided in this
Section 17, maintain the Sale Parcel in substantially the same or
better condition until closing of escrow. If, prior to the date of
closing of escrow, the Sale Parcel shall be damaged by fire, flood,
earthquake or other casualty to a material degree, that is, if the
cost of restoration of the damaged Sale Parcel exceeds ten percent
(10%) of the Purchase Price, Purchaser shall have the option either
to (i) elect not to acquire the Sale Parcel, in which case this
Agreement shall terminate and be without any further force and
effect, and without obligation of either party to the other, or
(ii) acquire the Sale Parcel, subject to such casualty, without
adjustment in the Purchase Price and otherwise in accordance with
the terms and provisions of this Agreement, but Purchaser shall be
entitled to all insurance proceeds actually paid by an insurer on
11/05/93 12
1-2409-119
account of such casualty which would otherwise accrue to Seller.
Purchaser shall give written notice to Seller of any election
pursuant to this Section 17 within fifteen (15) business days
following receipt by Purchaser of any written notice of such
casualty. Failure of Purchaser to make such election within said
period shall be deemed an election to proceed to purchase the Sale
Parcel pursuant to clause (ii) above. If prior to the close of
escrow the Sale Parcel suffers a casualty other than to an extent
entitling Purchaser to elect not to acquire the Sale Parcel
pursuant to this Section 17, Purchaser shall close the transaction
contemplated by this Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof
as though such casualty had not occurred, except that Seller shall,
at closing, pay or assign to Purchaser any insurance proceeds
actually paid or payable to Seller in respect thereof.
section is. Successors and Assigns.
Subject to the provisions of Section 11, this Agreement
shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto, their successors and assigns; provided, however, that this
Agreement and the terms and provisions hereof, shall bind UPLRC and
UIDC, and their respective successors and assigns, only with
respect to their respective ownership interests in the Sale Parcel.
Section 19. Special Provision.
UPLRC, Federal ID No. 13-2678588, is not a foreign
corporation and withholding of Federal Income Tax from the amount
realized will not be made by Purchaser. A Certification prepared
in conformance with IRS regulations under Section 1445 of the
Internal Revenue Code is attached as Exhibit E.
UIDC, Federal ID No. 13-3109307, is not a foreign
corporation and withholding of Federal Income Tax from the amount
realized will not be made by Purchaser. A Certification prepared
in conformance with IRS regulations under Section 1445 of the
Internal Revenue Code is attached as Exhibit F.
Section 20. Attorneys' Fees.
In the event either party hereto finds it necessary to
bring an action at law or other proceeding against the other party
to enforce any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof or any
instrument executed pursuant to this Agreement, or by reason of any
breach or default hereunder or thereunder, the party prevailing in
any such action or proceeding shall be paid all costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees by such prevailing party and in the
event any judgment is secured by such prevailing party all such
costs and attorneys' fees shall be included in any such judgment.
The reasonableness of such costs and attorneys' fees shall be
determined by the court and not a jury.
11/05/93 13
1-2409-119
Section 21. Entire Agreement.
It is understood and agreed that all understandings and
agreements, whether written or oral, heretofore had between the
parties hereto are merged in this Agreement, which alone fully and
completely expresses their agreement, that neither party is relying
upon any statement or representation not embodied in this
Agreement, made by the other, and that this Agreement may not be
changed except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement in duplicate as of the date first herein written.
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES
Witness(: CORPORATION
h C�/k �✓ B
Title' 71� (71 c r `<�7s c f J
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Witness: COMPANY
c�e
� r
Witness: CITY OF KENT
By - —
Title: _N✓YC�c�
11/05/93 14
1-2409-119
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
as.
COUNTY OF RING )
On this ! �� day of �7�L ���� �� , 199_3 , before me
personally appeared , to me known
to be the D\ c}a p, ,� t vkc G}w t� corporation that
executed the within and foregoing ins rumend acknowledged such
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
affixed my official seal the day and year last above written.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
My commission expires:
(SEAL)
11/05/93 15
1-2409-119
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On �� r.n�raGc2�- // , 1993 , before me,
, a Notary Pub is in and for said County an
State, personally appeared /- and of UNION PACIFIC LAND
Senior Vice President and stint Secret" "
RESOURCES CORPORATION, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names
are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me
that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and
that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the
entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
am
inguez / 1 &5<?2l l � ZA,G�e
cau oaN;n� NotaryUSTY
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On //Gu% �/ , 1993 , before me,
a Notary Pubjic in and for said County an
State, personally appeared Z .G-� .��� and
Senior Vice President and of UPLAND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by
their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon
behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
0 Priscilla t)dffliflgu0a Notary P c
,.£ Comm,09764§g
orany eu406-641pgAd!
(SEAL) a €€Dina
Comm m fWOg tier.1,IWO
11/05/93 16
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT A-1
w
PRINT OF SALE PARCEL
+ i zz hht-
I
1`1
1.C�' � �..M• �
i
.' � • HLLrM.t•/
r
i tI- r
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT A-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONT OF THE SALE PARCEL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL A:
Parcel A of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No. LL-91-3 rrc:orded
under Recording Number 9101231064 (being a portion of Parcel 2, City
of Kent Lot Line Adjustment #LL-89-23 recorded under Recording
Number 8907271104) . more particularly described as follows:
That portion of Government Lot 2 and the southwest quarter of the
northeast quarter, Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows:
Commencing at the center of said Section 11:
thence south 69017 '53" east, 77.00 feet to the 'TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence north 00042107" east, 995.26 feet;
thence north 89017 '53" west, 199.98 feet;
thence north 00054 '15" east, 336 .19 feet to a point on the south
line of South 212th Street;
thence along said south line the following three courses:
1) south 88048 '00" east, 259 . 84 feet, to the beginning of a
curve, concave southerly, having a radius of 2, 797.55 feet;
2) easterly, along said curve, through a central angle of
03019130 162.35 feet;
3) south 85028133" east, 557.97 feet;
thence south 00054115" wesL, 698 .49 feet;
thence south 89005 '45" east, 505. 00 feet;
thence south 00054 ,15" west, 506 . 67 feet, to the beginning of a
curve, concave northwesterly, having a radius of 50 .00 feet;
thence southwesterly, along said curve, through a central angle of
83006 ,26 72 . 52 feet ;
thence south 00054115" west, 30.33 feet;
thence north 89017 ,53" west, 1, 136 .44 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within drainage ditch as same was
condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 32912.
AND EXCEPT that portion of the southwest quarter of the northeast
quarter of Section 11, TownshiV 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , .in
King County, Washington, described as follows :
Commencing at the center of said Section 11;
thence south 89017 '53" east, 513 .26 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence continuing south 89017 '53" east, 700. 18 feet ;
(legal description, continur_d)
S00'39Cd 25:9t CS. S noN _
., .„ ,.
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 3
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
thence north 00154115" east, 30 .33 feet to the boginning of a
non-tangent curve concave northwesterly, having a radius of 50 . 00
feet;
thence northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of
8300612611 , 72.52 fcct (a chord distance of 66 ,73 feet) ;
thence leavin tangent to the last-described curve north 00054 ` 15"
east, 506 . 67 feet;
thence north 89005145/1 west, 744 .22 feet;
thence south 00054115/1 west, 589 .12 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL B:
Parcel R of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No. LL-91-3 recorded
under Recording Number 9101231064 (being a portion of Parcel 2, City
of Kent Lot Line Adjustment #LL-89-23 recorded under Recording
Number 89072711.04) , more particularly described as follows:
That portion of Government Lot 2 and the southwest quarter of the
northeast quarter, Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
w.M. , in King County, washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the center of said Section 11;
thence north 89017153" west, 683 . 00 feet;
thence north 00042 ,07" east, 995 .26 feel;
thence south 89017153" east, 760 . 00 feet;
thence south 00042107" west, 995 .26 feet;
thence north 89*17153" west, 77 . 00 feet to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within drainage ditch as same was
condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 32912 .
PARCEL C:
Parcel C of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No . LL-91-3 recorded
under Recording Number 9101231064, more particularly described as
follows:
That portion of Government Lots 2 and 3, Section 11, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as
follows:
Commencing at the center of Said Section 11;
thence north 89017153" west, 683 . 00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
(legal description, continued)
900 '39bd ES :9l E6, 9 nON _
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 4
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
3" wcst, 1 , 448 .36 feet to a point on the
thence north 89°17 ' 5
southeast line of Russell Road;
thence along said southeast line the following three courses:
feet1) north 33051'17" east, 34.3having aoradius ofthe beginning 686 .34ffect;
curve, concave aoutheacterly, h a central angle of
2) northeasterly, along said curve, through
18°00 ' 00" , 215. 62 feet;
3) north 51051'17a east, 668.33 feet ;
thence south 89°17 '53" east, 139 .42 feet;
thence north O1°06' 58" east, 124 . 09 feet to the beginn:poi - afradial
nontangent curve, concave northwesterly, point also being
line bears north 45044101" west, 985 .37 feet, said p
on the southeast line of Russell Road;
thence along said southeast line and northeasterly, along said
curve, through a central angle of 18°39 ' 03" , 320 .76 feet;
thence south 89017153" east, 444 .94 feet;
thence south 00042107rr „refit, 995 .26 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL D:
That portion of Government Lot 3 in the Southwest quarter of the
T
northwest quarter in section ton, lying1southNofttheRnorLh4linetof
W.M. , in King County,
thatmc
recordedoas Recordingof andnveye Numbert5180926,Sdescribedbas�follows ' hi
Dee
(That portion oofG O in
King Co section
unty, Washington,Tmore hparticularly
Range 4 East, ,
described as follows:
Beginning at a stake at the southeast corner of said Government Lot
3 ;
thence north along the east line of said government lot, 9 ofchains
and 20 links to a stake at the southeast corner. of the school lob
thence west 2 chains and 89 links to a point on the edge of the bank
of the White River 52 links west of the stake at the southwest
corner of the school lot;
thence south 480 west 5 chains to a small stake on the west side of
the road, said stake being south 50 ' east 20 links from a cedar
witness post near the edge of the river bank;
thence south 490 east 8 chains and 97 links to the point of
beginning) .
(legal description, continued)
L@0 '39Fid C9: 91 C6, S f10N
10;47 i J1LhrWI
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 5
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
AND west of Russell Road South (County Road No. 8) as established in
Volume 33 of Commissioner' s Records, Page 369;
AND
That portion of Government Lot 2 in the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter in Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M. , in King County, Washington, lying east of the west line and
south of the north line of that tract of land described an Parcel A
in Quit Claim Deed recorded as Recording Number 8906220496,
described as follows:
('chat portion of Government Lot 2 and the southwest quarter of the
northeast quarter, ALL in Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4
East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Government Lot 2;
thence north 12.40 chains (816 .40 feet) to the east bank of the
Green (White) River;
thence along said east bank north 30000100" east 3 .10 chains
(204 .60) feet;
thence east 38 .46 chains (2, 958 ,36 feet) ;
thence south 15 . 08 chains (9 . 28 feet) to the south line of said
southwest quarter of the northeast quarter;
thence west 40 chains (21640 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING,;
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within Russell Road South (County
Road- No. 8) as established in Volume 33 of Commissioner'a Records,
page 369;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof lying within drainage ditch as same
was condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 32912;
AND EXCEPT the easterly 100 feet thereof conveyed to the City of
Kent by Deed recorded under King County Recording Number 8601030229) .
A= lying weot of Ruocoll Road 20%lth (County Aoad 110- 8) ao
established in Volume 33 of Commissioner's Recorder page 389 .
PARCEL E:
That portion of Government Lot 4 in Section 11, Township 22 North,
Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at a point 6 .94 chains (458.04 feet) east of quarter
section corner on lines between Sections 10 and 11, Township 22
North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington;
(legal description, continued)
8B0 '39tid CS : 9I E6 . S f10N
11- 5-93 10:45
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 6
Order No, 214920
LEGAL. DESCRIPTION:
thence south 22°11 ' west 1.08 chains (11.38 feet) ;
thence mouth 1.51 chains ('99 .66 feet) ;
thence east 6 .05 chains (531.30 feet) -
thence north 2 . 51 chains (165.66 feeth
thence west 7. 65 chains (504 . 90 feet) to the point of beginning;
EXCEPT portion thereof lying within Russell Road South (County Road
No. 8) as established in Volume 33 of Commissioner' s Records, Page
389 .
PARCEL F.--
That portion of Government Lot 4, SecLion 11, Township 22 North,
Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County, Washington, described as follows :
Commencing at the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of said
Section 11;
thence south 89017 '53" east, 458 . 04 feet along the north line of
said southwest quarter; '
thence south 22052 , 07" west, 71.28 feet;
thence south 00042107" west, 24 .41 feet to the easl,Czly margin of
Russell Road as determined by City of Kent Survey;
thence continuing south 00042107" west, 75 .25 feet;
thence south 69017153" east, 56 . 85 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence continuing south 89017 ' 53" east, 474 .45 feet;
thence north 00042 ,07" east, 165 . 68 feet to the north line of said
southwest quarter;
thence south 89017 ' 53" east, 290 .39 feet along said north line to a
west line of "Parcel 2" as deeded to Union Parific T,and Resources'
Corporation by instrument recorded under Recording Number
77o1310588, records of said County;
thcncc south 00051 '23" west, 499 . 06 feet along said west .line of
said adjoining "Parcel 2" to an angle point in said adjoining
boundary;
thence north 89°08 '37" west, 985 .54 feet along a north line of said
adjoining "Parcel 211 ;
thence north 36015 '28" east , 59 . 98 feet;
thence north 32014 '51" east, 50 .22 feet;
thence north 32010 '32" east, 73 .78 feet;
thence north 35028 '47" east, 214 .53 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
(legal description, continued)
see •3�dd
_ 99:91 Cs, s nor,
10:48 STE6ARf l (1L1.
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 7
Oider No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL G:
A parcel of land situate in the southeast quarter of Section 10, the
northeast quarter of Section 15, and the southwest quarter of
Section 11, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King County,
Washington, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at the center of said Section 11;
thence along the north-south centerline of said section, south
01001 /280 wart, 2378 . 00 feet to the northeast corner of that certain
parcel of land conveyed to Puget Sound Power & Light Company by
Statutory Warranty Deed, dated September 30, 1961, recorded under
Recording Number 5337459, records of said County;
thence along the north line of said deeded parcel, south 79023156"
west, 735 .24 feet to a point on the east line of the David A. Neely
Donation Land Claim, said point also being the northeast corner of
that certain parcel of land described as Parcel B, conveyed to Puget
Sound Power & Light Company by a Correction Statutory Warranty need
dated April 18, 1962, recorded under Recording Number 5417800 ,
records of said County;
thence along the northerly line of said deeded parcel, south
82048144" west, 950.67 feet;
thence along the northerly line of a parcel of land described as
Parcel A in said Deed, north 890131001, west, 515 .37 feet;
thence north 000471001, east, 150 . 00 feet;
thence north 89013 ' 00" west, 250. 00 feet;
thence south 000471001, west, 150 . 00 feet to a point on said
northerly line of Parcel A;
thence along said northerly line, north 89013 ,001, west, 924 .23 feet
to a point 175 . 00 feet distant easterly, when measured radially or
at right angles from the vegetation line of the east bank of the
Green River (vegetation line is "ordinary high water mark" as per
R.C.W. 90 .58 . 030, Shoreline Management Act of 1971) , as located on
December 13 . 1983, and shown on Record of Survey for Upland
Industries Corporation, Recording Number 8404049014, in Volume 39 of
Surveythences, Pages parallel212 withnsaid2A, records of vegetation line,King
theCounty,
follow�inghfouro (4)
courses ;
1) north 22001 '04" east, 32.70 feet;
2) north 22039121" east, is2 . 66 feet;
3) north 18°54 '17" east, 117. 09 feet;
4) north 08058 '20" east, 26.19 feet;
(legal description, continued)
010 '35bd SS: 91 E6. S RON
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 8
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
thence south 89013100" cast, 113 .62 feet;
thence north 01001156/, east, 379 .00 feet to a point on the north
line of said Neely Donation Land Claim;
thence along said north line, south 89013 /00/1 east, 343 . 13 feet;
thence north 000471001/ east, 165 .00 feet;
thence north 33020146/1 east, 364.32 feet;
thence north 89013100/1 west, 490.61 feet to a point on the easterly
line of that certain parcel of land described as Strip No. 3 and
conveyed to the City of Kent by Quit Claim Dced dated October 15,
1982, recorded under Recording Number 8212130085, records of said
County;
thence along said easterly line, north 33/120146/, east, 963 .89 feet
to a point that is 175 . 00 feet distant aoutheastcrly, measured
radially or at right angles from said vegetation line;
thence parallel with said vegetation line, the following three (3)
courses :
1) north 670131511, east, 78 .02 feet;
2) north 50024104/1 east, 92.57 feet;
3) north 39056 /301/ east, 103 . 12 feet;
thence south 89008/3711 easL, 985 .54 feet;
thence north 00051123° ea®t, 499.06 feet to a point on the east-west
centerline of. said Section 11;
thence along said east-west centerline, south 89017153/1 east,
1372 . 95 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL A :
Parcel 2 of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No. LL-89-33 , being
more particulary described as follows:
A parcel of land situate in the west half of the northwest quarter
of Section 14, Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King
County, Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 14 ;
thence along the north line of said section, north 88059121/1 west,
720 .32 feet to a point on the east line of the D. A. Neely Donation
Land Claim;
thence along the east line of said Donation Land Claim, south
01005 ,4711 west, 149 .32 feet;
thence north 89013 , 00,, west, 1400 .70 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
(legal description, continued)
ti0 '3�Jtld 95 :9t e6. 9 noN
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 9
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
thence south 04025i24" east. 212. 64 Feet, to the beginning of a
curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 218 .00 feet;
thence southerly along said curve, through a central angle of
05031 '11" 1 21 .00 feet;
thence south 01005147" went, 585.31 feet;
-thence south 88054113" west, 1611.11 feet, to a point on the east
line of that parcel of land conveyed from Union Pacific Land
Resources Corporation to the City of Kent by Donation Quit Claim
Deed, and recorded under Recording Number 6411070009, in records of
said County; ,
thence along the east line of said parcel the following nine courses:
1) north 30057111" east, 73 .44 feet;
2) north 33014116" east 61 .48 feet;
3) north 29058108" east, 95.49 feet;
4) north 26008129" east, 83 .10 feet;
5) north 18040137" east, 108.89 feet;
6) north 20025145" east, 75.50 feet;
7) north 15034147" east, 115.48 feet;
8) north 18020113" east, 273 .42 feet;
9) north 15012 ,11" east, 86.40 feet;
thence south 89013100" east, 1279 . 88 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL I :
Parcel 3 of City of Kent Lot Line Adjustment No. LL-89-33, being
more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land situate in the west half of the northwest quarter
of Section 14 , Township 22 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in King
County, Washington, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 14 ;
thence along the north line of said section, north 88059121" west,
720 .32 feet to a point on the east line of the D. A. Neely Donation
Land Claim;
thence along the east line of said Donation Lane) Claim, south
01005 '47" west, 149 .32 feet;
thence north 89013100" west, 1400 .70 feet;
thence south 04025124" east, 212 .64 feet, to the beginning of a
curve, concave westerly, having a radius of 21a. 00 feet ;
thence southerly along maid curve, through a central angle of
050311211, , 21 . 00 feet;
(legal description, continued)
Lr= : 9 1 Es .
4- IT
SENT-BY: 11- 5-03 10:50 STEWART TITLE 411/12
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 10
Order No . 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
thence south 0110514711 west, 585 .3.1 feet, to the TRUE POINT Or
BEGINNING;
thence south 01105147'r west, 1454 . 00 feet, to a point on the
northerly line of T. S . Russell Road conveyed by Union Pacific Land
Resources Corporation to the City of Kent, by Quit Claim Deed
recorded tinder Recording Number 8212130085, record of said County;
thence along said northerly line the following three courses:
1) north 88v27157ft west, 26 .20 feet, to the beginning of a
curve concave northerly, having a radius of 670 .16 feet;
2) westerly, along said curve, through a central angle of
1004113011 , 125 .06 feet;
3) north 7704612711 west, 70 .74 feet, to a point on that
certain parcel of land conveyed from upland Industrial
Development Company to the City of Kent by Statutory Warranty
Deed recorded under Recording Number 8907201051, records of
said County;
thence along the northeasterly line of said deeded parcel the
following five courses :
a) north 1201313311 east, 10 .00 feet;
2) north 7801014011 west , 111 .28 feet;
3) north 8100412511 west, 188 .81 feetj
4) north 6OD2214611 west, 413 .80 feet;
5) north 2804314811 west, 249 .56 feet, to a point on that
certain parcel of land conveyed from Union Pacific Land
Resources Corporation to the City of Kent by Donation Quit
Claim Deed, and recorded under Recording Number 8411070009 in
records of said County;
thence along the east line of said parcel the following sixteen
courses :
1) north 0305613211 east, 58.45 feet;
2) north 03026100" west, 70 . 20 feet;
3) north 06041 '10" wesL, 119 .3S feel ;
4) north 25'4010611 west , 131 .76 feet;
5) north 350341361, west, 88 .29 feet;
6) north 40044 ,0811 went, 73 . 24 feet ;
7) north 4801010911 weot, 77.85 fact;
8) north 5500611911 west, 63 . 35 feet;
9) North 6001414411 west, 174 .53 feet;
10) north 560191121, west, 136 .49 feet;
11) north 48*461041, west, 71. 93 feet ;
12) north 2105314411 west, 74 .82 feet;
13) north 01027150" west, 17.42 feet;
e10 ' 39dd L5 :91 E6, 5 OON
SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT
Page 11
Order No. 214920
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
14) north 11-27 '43" east, 31. 99 feet;
15) north 261113 ' 09" east, 51.40 feet)
16) north 30057112" east, 15.76 feet;
thence south 88054 '13" east, 1611.11 feet, to the TRITE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
12/4354F
1-2409-119
E%HIBIT B
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT S) AND DOCUMENTS
1. Phase I Environmental Assessment
of the Van Doren's Landing Site
UPRC #53 1030 033 06
Kent, Washington
For Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
Final Report
Prepared on Behalf of: Union Pacific Corporation
Prepared by: ICF Technology Incorporated
Date: September 26, 1989
2. Phase II Environmental Audit, Northwest Region
Van Doren's Landing, Kent, Washington
Project No. TC 3914-08
Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc.
Dated: December 20, 1989
3. Wetland Assessment of the Upland Industrial Development
Company and Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation
Properties
Project No. 92061
Prepared by: Raedeke Associates, inc.
Dated: March 29, 1993
11ro5i9 1
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT C
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY OF KENT
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Attn:
(Space above for Recorder's use only)
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a corporation of the
State of Nebraska ("Grantor") , for the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and warrants to CITY OF KENT,
a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, whose address
is 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032 ("Grantee") , the
real property (the "Property") in the City of Kent, King County,
Washington, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
This deed is made SUBJECT TO the following:
(a) All taxes and assessments, or, if payable in
installments, all installments of assessments, levied upon or
assessed against the Property which became or may become due
and payable in the year 1993 shall be prorated as of the date
of delivery of this deed by Grantor to Grantee, said date
being the day of December, 1993.
(b) All liens, encumbrances, clouds upon, impairments of
and defects in the title created or permitted to be created by
Grantee on and after the date of delivery of this deed by
Grantor to Grantee, and any and all restrictions and
limitations imposed by public authority, and any outstanding
rights of record, including, without limitation, the
following:
(i) (Any matters disclosed by the title report
and/or Survey approved or waived by Purchaser pursuant to
Section 3 (a) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, will be
inserted. ]
11/05/93 1
1-2409-119
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be
executed by its proper officers this day of ,
1993 .
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Attest: COMPANY
(Seal) By:
Assistant Secretary Title:
11/05/93 2
1-2409-119
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
sa.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On , 1993 , before me,
a Notary Public in and for said County and
State, personally appeared and
Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary of UPLAND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names are
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and that by
their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the entity upon
behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
11/05/93 3
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT A TO EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ATTACHED
11/05/93 4
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT D
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
CITY OF KENT
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Attn:
(Space above for Recorder"s use only)
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION, a corporation of the
State of Nebraska ("Grantor") , for the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00)
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and warrants to CITY OF KENT,
a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, whose address
is 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032 ("Grantee") , the
real property (the "Property") in the City of Kent, King County,
Washington, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and hereby made a part hereof.
This deed is made SUBJECT TO the following:
(a) All taxes and assessments, or, if payable in
installments, all installments of assessments, levied upon or
assessed against the Property which became or may become due
and payable in the year 1993 shall be prorated as of the date
of delivery of this deed by Grantor to Grantee, said date
being the day of December, 1993 .
(b) All liens, encumbrances, clouds upon, impairments of
and defects in the title created or permitted to be created by
Grantee on and after the date of delivery of this deed by
Grantor to Grantee, and any and all restrictions and
limitations imposed by public authority, and any outstanding
rights of record, including, without limitation, the
following:
(i) (Any matters disclosed by the title report
and/or Survey approved or waived by Purchaser pursuant to
Section 3 (a) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, will be
inserted. ]
11/05/93 j
1-2409-119
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this instrument to be
executed by its proper officers this day of ,
1993.
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES
Attest: CORPORATION
(Seal) By:
Assistant Secretary Title:
11/05/93 2
1-2409-119
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
On , 1993, before me,
a Notary Public in and for said County and
State, personally appeared and I
Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary of UNION PACIFIC LAND
RESOURCES CORPORATION, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names
are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me
that they executed the same in their authorized capacities, and
that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or the
entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
(SEAL)
11/05/93 3
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT A TO EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ATTACHED
11/05/93 4
1-2409-119
EXHIBIT E
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FOREIGN STATUS
Under Section 1445(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, a
corporation, partnership, trust, or estate must withhold tax with
respect to certain transfers of property if a holder of an interest
in the entity is a foreign person. To inform the transferee, CITY
OF KENT, that no withholding is required with respect to the
trustor of a U.S. real property interest by UNION PACIFIC LAND
RESOURCES CORPORATION, the undersigned hereby certifies the
following on behalf of UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION:
1. UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION is not a foreign
corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust, or foreign estate
(as those terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and Income
Tax Regulations) ;
2. UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION'S U.S. employer
identification number is 13-2678588; and
3. UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION'S office address
is 1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68179, and place of
incorporation is Nebraska.
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION agrees to inform the
transferee if it becomes a foreign person at any time during the
three year period immediately following the date of this notice.
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES CORPORATION understands that this
certification may be disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service by
the transferee and that any false statement contained herein could
be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have examined this
Certification and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is
true, correct and complete, and I further declare that I have
authority to sign this document on behalf of UNION PACIFIC LAND
RESOURCES CORPORATION.
UNION PACIFIC LAND RESOURCES
CORPORATION
By:
Title:
Date:
11/05/93
1-2409-119
BSHIBZT F
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FO EXON STATUS
Under Section 1445 (e) of the Internal Revenue Code, a
corporation, partnership, trust, or estate must withhold tax with
respect to certain transfers of property if a holder of an interest
in the entity is a foreign person. To inform the transferee, CITY
OF KENT, that no withholding is required with respect to the
trustor of a U.S. real property interest by UPLAND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, the undersigned hereby certifies the following
on behalf of UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY:
1. UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY is not a foreign
corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust, or foreign estate
(as those terms are defined in the Internal Revenue Code and Income
Tax Regulations) ;
2. UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S U.S. employer
identification number is 13-3109307; and
3 . UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY'S office address is
1416 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68179, and place of
incorporation is Nebraska.
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY agrees to inform the
transferee if it becomes a foreign person at any time during the
three year period immediately following the date of this notice.
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY understands that this
certification may be disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service by
the transferee and that any false statement contained herein could
be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Under penalties of perjury I declare that I have examined this
Certification and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is
true, correct and complete, and I further declare that I have
authority to sign this document on behalf of UPLAND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
UPLAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
By:
Title:
Date:
11ro5i93
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 16 , 1993
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Eighteen bids were received for the
Interurban Trail Bridge Replacement project. Frank Coluccio
Construction Company was the low bidder at $76, 737 . The
engineer' s estimate was $96, 300. Parks Administration
recommends award to the low bidder,
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo with bid tabulation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Parks Commit ee 3-0 vote on 9 14 93 and
Alpha Engineers
(Committee, Staff, Ex iner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNE IMPACT: NO X YES
FISCAL/PERSONNEL NOTE: Re ommended Not Recommended
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED• 7 737
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Interur n Trail ro ' ect - Kin Count Bond
Issue and Puget Power do ation of $42 , 000
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: I
Councilmember _ n5� moved, Councilmemb r �' second
to award the Ir erurban Trail Bridge Replacement project to 1
Coluccio Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of J
$76,737.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION: '� ci
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
CITY OF KENT
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
November 1.0, 1993
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Patrice Thorel
PREPARED BY: Helen Wickstrom
SUBJECT: INTERURBAN TRAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BID
Bids were opened on November 9 for the Interurban Trail Bridge
Replacement projects. Eighteen bids were received with Coluccio
Construction Company being low bidder with a bid of $76 , 737 . I
have confirmed with Coluccio Construction that their bid included
all items and they stand behind their low bid which is $19, 563
under the engineer ' s estimate and $10 , 092 . 61 under the next lowest
bidder. It is recommended that they be awarded the bid.
The Parks Committee, at its September 14 meeting, pre-approved
taking this bid item directly to Council following the bid opening
as long as the bid was within budget . They were updated on the bid
results at their November 9 Parks Committee meeting.
The bid results were as follows:
Frank Coluccio Construction Company $ 76,737.00
T & S Enterprises 86,829.61
ARM Construction 88,888.00
Seaboard Construction 98, 076.00
Continental Sports Surfaces Inc. 98,590.00
Structures Inc. 98,700.00
Northwest Contech Inc. 99,800.00
Madden Construction Inc. 110,900.00
Livingston Construction Inc. 111,400.00
Golf Landscaping Inc. 113,800.00
Wespac Construction Inc. 118,295.00
R. E. Bailey Construction Inc . 119,500.00
R. W. Scott Construction Inc. 119,700.00
Virginia Seitz Construction Company Inc. 122,634.00
Gary Merlino Construction Company Inc. 123,250.00
Calloway Ross Inc. 125,900.00
Glacier Construction Company 135,500.00
Blue Fox, Inc. 136,817.00
Engineer' s Estimate 96,300.00
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 �� GOo
� ���
it
THE CITY OF KENT
.J
to
E � ht
h Annual
,
eg
�th etin �J
H all
Ho Me
Town use
and Opelisth
November
Thursday ' the
at Center
senior Act�vity wA�
Kent 600 E. Smith St. - Kent,
c
N HOUSE AND EXHIBIT HOUR
Sched
ule of Events: exhibits prepared
7:00 P m OPE refreshments,view and
s:00 P.M.- (Enjoy of Kent, related agencies
by the nit organizations)
community
MEETING
TOWN HALL Cit board
7..00 P.M. .8:30 P•m• (Meet elected oftimels, a
and commission embers
staff)
INPUT ON IMPORTANT
COMMUNITY ISSUES -transportation,
n lnfrastructur Budgeting Process
�Oowntow Safety, City
common ityTar9et Issues)and Other ortunity to otter
3 `� will have an upmto their city
�t
ci,Y oF� Citizenss and rocess.
suggest ent's Poi'cy-making P
governor S59_3369.
I contact Community Events at g�
,,, ►
For more information v �aonn yd.a�p.
w.✓EKN.d.r Nw.e P[tll�..{
3T Ecti[MW C I
('f(f(ELfd (IU!'N ENCI;
. �'auce y t'EKLsrn,ntlf
ire -(AtPFc Cof/EE P.lt
-
ir
IT GEE•'(tG KLNT T ,W, i jG lcc,Ery
T. tt J4x 665 " --
(.ufZf �
ry,.� ll�wr P.Mes >laerr/oJ
Pa�*NGs'Nry .sk�ifu�
se J
C-us*"'f^7 7 .lip � duo/t;�"'�a.en.,..�r.�fL✓rats � �� pN,crs �'ne�r�G'tl,e�
oP
11 .� ,�PECrMtLEOE�c�J
�7 CcEt>trc�
Kfi.ft fLw.•1.� ( l
e •yv.�.J dEx✓c'-`5 cFiNEiL
L. •CO M..4M/Y �j EyQflnf/�
A ,niw Cann Can 7 �+"'
1)ISMy Yk.n/Y,..,z pouc.Ls' 1- � I<ET /'fit u�•oL a-rimy C&rRu2
ec 11-
U
-27 I ] ✓ufic`c fUK rJ
J�ouuES A^'� Hru -rNE7 1. `
AGEeer tocnr_ /-/ e i 7 EI,fGLU UTi
�J ..%L l-oCum[1�.-r IMALNG I
IT � (y!E-/QO rtCL:rLnN< -7Z^, / f'E4Tcc1
Je
1Y ` I((>`T r.E.r-u�r /k�✓�So� fjo^No J' I -11Fcycu•.>u
CC) .w+ �F1Ec7.ua*mil
�c a� t • wrrrEz r3+-f �
IT
fie. I�EGs.K. S.al " cE�-TTert �I
�i
if
3C �Q+lNlo.S a•.1 f1G ..rG •`ffu�PMEti
C/1 MN^°�E"6.+r fe ca.t...a. .�'-f?£E'f (lEPrlE4ln Fi-f'f EGeG
�1 � � � l�rf-� 11Er'.+..'-r•>E.tr �.$acnz[fs�
L
IT / I�f��fiaffl � v�+ruy�fiCi/((Ls
ac 1 �f
rY � Gar�,....•,..��,nce cerE,e �" _"- Ct'
1'C, 7-9..-e
IT
.2G ..�iLT6C."Crry AAf/c.A'(o� �
. �.!<cf iSSuES Ga�O
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
November 2, 1993
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser, Chair
Leona Orr
Jim White
STAFF PRESENT: Tony McCarthy, Roger Lubovich
Tom Vetsch, May Miller
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle, Darrel Smith,
Carol Grayson
The Meeting was called to order at 4:04 p.m. by Chairperson Houser.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
All claims for the period ending 10/15/93 in the amount of $1,890,923.52 were approved 3-0,
and claims for the period ending 10/29/93 in the amount of $1,352,399.58 were approved 2-1.
WATER ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS - REC01\4MENDATION & PROPOSED
ORDINANCE CHANGES
Tom Vetsch, Customer Services Supervisor, explained that an ordinance has been drafted to
expand the language in the leak adjustment ordinance to include "unexplainable or abnormal
water meter readings and usage". He noted that the new ordinance will give more flexibility,
better customer service, authorization to the Finance Director to approve these extraordinary
adjustments during the year, give the City more control, leave an option to the unsatisfied
customer to take it to the Operations Committee during the year and then have a write-off report
prepared for Council review and approval at the end of the year. Vetsch stated that with the
current leak policy there isn't another avenue to follow and resolve problems which may arise.
Upon White's question, Lubovich clarified that an ordinance would have to be adopted amending
the KCC sections 7.02.300 (D) and 7.02.310 (D). WHITE MOVED approval of the ordinance
amending the Kent City Code. Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0. Acting Finance
Director Miller also noted that under the new ordinance a recommendation to approve the water
adjustments for the Union Pacific Railroad and the U.S. Post Office is requested. WHITE SO
MOVED. Orr seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Houser distributed a copy of a memo she prepared concerning Harrison House rental assistance
on two 1-bedroom units. She explained that she would like this item sent to the Budget
Committee and get the process started because King County Housing Authority has agreed to
put two low-income units at the top of their list if the City agrees to fund a rental assistance
program which pays the full rent on two 1-bedroom units. White noted that the original
resolution was for low-income, the original advertising and bonding was for low-income and yet
there is a $700 cut-off income for the Harrison House. He noted that this is a step, but that the
Council should go back and re-examine the whole thing to see if there is a better way to operate
the senior housing facility. White suggested that the Council look at whether or not to stay with
King County, whether to contract with Renton or Auburn, or the possibility of forming its own
housing authority.
CONTRACT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE REPORT
Acting Finance Director Miller explained that Ordinance No. 3102 was adopted on 4/20/93
which requires contract reports to be prepared and submitted to the Operations Committee every
April and October. She noted that the report in the packet lists the vendors, the description of
the contract, and the department where the contract is being done. She also noted that the list
is being distributed to the different departments so they can let Finance know if those contracts
belong to them and what the terms are for inclusion in the next report. Lubovich noted that the
Attorney's office has been signing off on each contract as to form and sending it on to the
Mayor's office, but that the form which has been used for gathering input for this report will
now be included in the packet before it goes to the Mayor's office for signature to make it easier
as far as the reporting aspect.
MONTHLY REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADDED ITEM - MCCARTHY
McCarthy distributed a copy of the October, 1993, Monthly Report of the Office of
Development Services, noting that a copy of the September report is attached for comparison
and progress. He explained that the department is trying to improve their services and be better
than they were the previous month. Upon Houser's concern regarding applicant delays,
Lubovich explained that they are currently working with the Office of Development Services on
new application forms in which they have drafted a new vesting ordinance, are doing a new
format with all requirements set forth on the application for the permit, and that it will be
centralized in one office to help improve the process.
NOMINEE FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
ADDED ITEM - MCCARTHY
McCarthy introduced Carol Grayson, the Mayor's nominee for municipal court judge. He noted
that the court is scheduled to open in January, 1994, and that a judge and court administrator
need to be on board as soon as possible. He distributed a copy of the nominee's resume,
explained that the Mayor interviewed five out of 140 applicants, that Ms. Grayson will be
available tonight for any questions the Council may have, and that confirmation will be on the
next Council Agenda on November 16, 1993. Ms. Grayson noted that she is excited and that
this is a real opportunity for her. She also noted that the municipal court concept seems to be
a trend with many cities in withdrawing from the District Courts in order to get accountability
and some type of control back into the City.
REMODEL OF THE SOUTH WING OF CITY HALL
ADDED ITEM - MCCARTHY
McCarthy informed the Committee that last Thursday or Friday some asbestos was found in the
south wing remodel project, and that the architect estimates a cost of around $6,000 to remove
it. He explained that $45,000 has been budgeted in the contingency fund, and that authorization
has already been given to remove the asbestos. Upon Doolittle's question regarding the AC unit
and Kent Commons, White noted that the new units are less costly to operate and that the
question is not whether the unit works or not. Houser noted that the possibility of using the old
AC unit for the Kent Commons could be looked into and evaluated.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
Parks Committee Minutes
November 9, 1993
Councilmembers Present: Jim Bennett, Chair; and Jon Johnson.
Staff Present: Tony McCarthy, Laurie Evezich, May Miller, Patrice Thorell ,
Helen Wickstrom, Jack Ball , Cheryl Fraser, Lori Hogan, Jim
McDonald, and Pam Rumer.
Others Present: Pat Curran, Performing Arts Center Task Force; and Mary Reidy,
Project Lighthouse.
1994 CITY ART PLAN BUDGET and 1994-1998 CITY FIVE YEAR ART PLAN
Patrice Thorell introduced Jim McDonald, the City's new Visual Arts Coordinator,
who explained those projects included in the 1994 City Art Plan Budget. The
budget includes funding for downtown murals, artwork collection purchases,
replacement of banners located at the City entrance at Meeker Street, and Green
River Trail artwork.
Highlights of the five year art plan include artwork for the proposed teen center
(1995 and 1996) , mural partnership (1996 and 1998) , and artwork for the proposed
Performing Arts Center (1997) .
Councilmember Johnson moved that the 1994 City Art Plan Budget and the 1994-1998
City Five Year Art Plan be adopted. Councilmember Bennett seconded the motion.
The motion passed 2-0.
PERFORMING ART CENTER TASK FORCE ARCHITECT SELECTION FOR CULTURAL/PERFORMING ARTS
CENTER PRE-PLANNING PROCESS
Patrice Thorell reported that architect interviews were conducted with five
different architectural firms on October 27 by a selection committee comprised
of community members. Bumgardner Architects has been selected to complete Phase
2 of the project, which includes putting together a facility plan, a business
plan, and a funding plan.
Thorell said that a contract will be negotiated in the near future. This phase
of the project is slated for completion in June 1994.
PROJECT LIGHTHOUSE PROGRAM EVALUATION
Cheryl Fraser introduced Mary Reidy as the new Project Lighthouse Director.
Fraser explained that with approval of the City's portion of the 1993 Project
Lighthouse budget, Council asked that an evaluation of the program be conducted
by an independent agency not affiliated with Project Lighthouse.
Dan Bond from Snohomish County Human Services conducted such an evaluation.
Included in his evaluation are comments regarding the program as it exists and
suggestions for improving the program.
Fraser informed the Committee that United Way has agreed to do an evaluation in
the future for a lower fee.
YOUTH/TEEN CENTER UPDATE
Cheryl Fraser reported that Council provided the Youth/Teen Center Steering
Committee with four objectives: to determine a location, programs/activities to
be provided, costs to create and maintain a facility, and possible sources of
funding.
Fraser said the Steering Committee would like to propose a fifth objective, which
is to research the idea of using school district facilities for a teen center
site. Councilmembers Bennett and Johnson consented to the fifth objective.
Fraser reported that architects have looked at the Kent Elementary site and have
held discussions with the school district. Architects will report their findings
to the Steering Committee at their November 15 meeting.
INTERURBAN TRAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BID OPENING RESULTS
Helen Wickstrom reminded the Committee that at its September 14 meeting, Parks
Committee members authorized staff to take bid results for this project directly
to Council if the bids were within budget. A motion to accept the low bid has
been placed on the November 16 City Council agenda.
Wickstrom reported that 18 bids were received, which is a record number for a
Parks Department project. The low bid was received from Frank Coluccio
Construction in the amount of 76,737.00. This is $20,000 below the engineer's
estimate.
Wickstrom said that staff has received excellent cooperation from Puget Power.
The project should be completed by the end of January 1994.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bennett commented that he played golf at Riverbend last weekend and
feels that the greens are in the finest condition since the golf course opened
four years ago. He said that golf maintenance staff are to be commended for
their work.
KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 25, 1993
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Acting Chair Heineman at 7 : 00 pm on October 25, 1993 in the Kent
City Hall, Chambers West.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Edward Heineman, Jr. , Acting Chair
Gwen Dahle
Kenneth Dozier
Albert Haylor
Robert MacIssac
Janette Nuss
Raymond Ward
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT:
Christopher Grant
Kent Morrill, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Matt Jackson, Planner
Kevin O 'Neill, Planner
Laura Evezich, Assistant City Attorney
Ed White, Traffic Engineer
Chris Holden, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 27 1993 MINUTES
MOTION MADE and SECONDED to accept the September 27, 1993 minutes
as presented. MOTION CARRIED.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Mr. Harris informed the Commissioners that a Capital Facilities
Plan meeting is sheduled to held on November 30, 1993 from 5-9 PM.
CPA-93-2 CHESTNUT RIDGE
An amendment to add a newly annexed area of Kent to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The area is bounded by
S. 200th Street on the north, 100th Avenue S. on the east, S. 208th
Street on the south and 92nd Avenue S. on the west. City staff is
recommending that the area be designated as SF 61 Single Family,
1
Planning commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
north of 208th Street and SF 1, Single Family, south of 208th
Street.
Matt Jackson, Planning, showed the newly annexed on the view foil.
The area was annexed on April 6, 1993 by Ordinance #3099 . The
interim zoning for the area is R1-20, Single Family, 20, 000 square
feet minimum lot size. The area is mainly single family residences
with one school, Springbrook Elementary.
Most of the lot sizes can be put into two groups: 8 to 10, 000
square feet and 1 to 12 acres. However, there are some under-
developed parcels in the area as well as significant environmental
constraints. Some slopes in the area range between 3 and 4
percent and others exceed 25 percent. Slopes which are above 15
percent can have significant hazard area development restrictions.
Mr. Jackson pointed out on the view foil the location of the
significant slopes areas.
The Chestnut Ridge area was under the King County Soos Creek Plan
with designations of single family. The King County designation
for the area was Urban and the Soos Creek Plan designated the areas
as single family with a density of four to eight units per acre.
This area was also under the King County Phase 1 designation.
Mr. Jackson commented that the majority of surrounding land use in
the area has been designated as single family. In addition, there
is a golf driving range being constructed in the area.
Mr. Jackson remarked that the Single Family Designated Area Overlay
should be amended to include this annexation area.
There are two alternatives recommended. Alternative 1 is SF 61
single Family Residential, 4 to 6 units per acre north of S. 208th
Street and SF 1, Single Family Residential, one unit per acre for
the large parcel between S . 208th Street and S. 212th Street.
Alternative 2 designates the portion between S. 208th Street and
S. 212th Street and a portion north of S . 208th Street, extending
650 feet east of 92nd Avenue S. , and north 850 feet, as MF 12,
Multifamily Residential, 7 to 12 units per acre. The remaining
area should be designated SF 6 .
Mr. Jackson commented the justification behind the SF 1 designation
is because of the significant slopes in the area as well as the
fact that Garrison Creek is in the area. About 29 acres are
located within this designation.
Chair Heineman asked if the public would like to comment.
2
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
Ron Harmon, 20627 95th Avenue S. , commented that in the area
designated as SF 1, there are very steep slopes. In addition there
are also wetlands in the area.
Gale Harmon, 10627 95th Avenue S. , spoke about the development of
the valley over the years. She felt it was very important to keep
green belt areas. There are several animals and birds located in
this area. She favors having zoning of R1-9 . 6 or one unit per
acre. Ms. Harmon pointed out on the view foil where she resides.
She lives on three-quarters of an acre overlooking the valley.
Bill Scribner, 20424 92nd Avenue S. , commented there are water
problems in the area. He commented he' s lived here for twenty
years. He resides below the Chestnut Ridge area. He stated there
has always been some water seepage in the area but since the hill
has been developed, there have been serious water problems. King
County put in a drain down the hill to help the water problem, but
the water problem became worse. In the past 20 years, two areas
have slid off the hill. One landslide block 92nd Avenue S. for
three days. Mr. Scribner pointed out where he resides on the view
foil. He felt that more development would create more problems.
Mr. Scribner pointed out on the view foil where some bulldozing had
been done. Since that time, the water flooding problem has become
even worse. Mr. Scribner was in favor on Alternative 1. He
submitted some three pictures to the record.
Randal Thomson, 9406 S. 205th Place, pointed out his residence on
the view foil. Mr. Thomson commented that since the Chestnut area
was developed, there have been two instances of flooding under his
house. Last year he redid his drainage system because of water
flooding his garage. Mr. Thomson remarked about water problems in
the areas. He felt there shouldn't be any building allowed on the
hillside because of the steepness of the slopes. Mr. Thomson
talked about exiting the area and the difficulty in getting onto
212th. He mentioned the 208th and 212th intersection is actually
a three-way intersection and if there ' s an accident, which seems to
be about once a week, then all the traffic gets backed up. The
soil in the area is mainly clay.
Edward Schemeta, 9405 S. 205th Place, lives across the street from
Mr. Thomson. He showed his residence on the view foil.
Mr. Schemeta commented the area has been developing and changing
since 1977 when he moved into his residence. He was very pleased
about being informed by the City of what is happening as well as
being able to participate in the hearings and meetings regarding
the area. Mr. Schemeta talked about the development of high
density creating traffic problems. If any development is allowed
3
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
on the hillside, traffic will become really terrible. He didn't
see how anyone could safely enter or exit that area. Mr. Schemeta
remarked that 208th would have to be expanded to be a four-lane
road with a left-turn lane. He mentioned Saar Cemetary and the
loss of a historical site. He is in favor of Alternative 1 but
would really prefer to have the entire area be zoned SF 1.
Jonn Kastien, 20609 94th Avenue S. , pointed out location of
residence on the view foil. Mr. Kastien commented they live on the
edge of the ridge and the slopes are quite steep. He recommends
that someone should come out and look at the area. Mr. Kastien
felt that SF 1, minimally, should extend up through the valley. In
the staff report on page 2 , paragraph 2 , there is a comment about
no wetlands are on the site. Mr. Kastien, however, had a letter
from the King County Conservation District stating there were two
wetlands on the site. Mr. Kastien submitted the letter to the
record.
Norma Kastien, 20609 94th Avenue S. , would like the SF 1
designation extended further and would like to see Alternative 1
approved. Ms. Kastien commented that there are several residences
located along the ridge. She stated the soil consists mainly of
Alderwood soil which is very erodible. She commented she has a
view from her lot. However, she wasn't concerned about the view.
Ms. Kastien was more concerned about the impact of major
development causing a disturbance to the soils and slopes which
would create problems. Their property is about a quarter of an
acre in size.
Mr. Harmon commented that the requests to extend the SF 1
designation would be where the MF 12 designation is being shown on
Alternative 2 .
Howard Woodward, 9623 S. 203rd Street, pointed out location of
property on the view foil . Mr. Woodward is also representing the
Chestnut Ridge Homeowners Association. He pointed out on the view
foil the slopes in the area. He mentioned another development in
the King County area that the driveways are very long and v-sloped
inward to catch the water because the slopes are very severe. The
Homeowners Association prefers the area be designated as shown
under Alternative 1. Mr. Woodward expressed concerns about the
traffic and water problems especially if further development takes
place.
Joel Ross, 1662 Dahlia Lane, Tumwater, WA, representing the
property owner of the 29-acre parcel bounded by 208th and 212th
Street. He pointed out the property on the view foil. Mr. Ross
4
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
commented that because of the extreme slopes of the hillside and
other sensitive areas on the site, the site ' s best developable use
would be to construct cluster housing instead of the single-family
housing. He mentioned that his presentation is focused on the
zoning portion because there is no appropriate zoning available to
develop the property in a low-density manner. He would like to
read into the record a letter he prepared stating the reasons for
the cluster housing zoning. Mr. Ross commented the property
owners do not desire either Comprehensive Plan designation which
would be more fully understood after hearing the letter.
At this point, Mr. Harris succinctly stated that this testimony
should be heard under the zoning portion of the hearing and not the
Comprehensive Plan portion. Mr. Ross retired until time for public
testimony on zoning.
Andrew Fuller, 20628 95th Avenue S. , pointed out the location of
his residence. Mr. Fuller commented that any increase in
development over the larger single-family housing developments
would be unfortunate. Kent already has a large proportion of
multifamily housing and there would have to be a very compelling
reason why more multifamily housing would be constructed in Kent.
Mr. Fuller felt the potential sliding of the hillside if there was
development, and the increase in traffic congestion should
determine that higher density is unacceptable. He understood that
cluster housing is a large number of dwellings are constructed in
one area and then more common yard area is provided. This would
make sense if the steep slopes or other sensitive areas were left
undisturbed. He was in favor of Alternative #1.
Anne MacTavish, 20437 94th Avenue S, pointed out where she resides.
Ms. MacTavish is in favor of Planning staff ' s recommendation for a
Comprehensive plan alternative 1, although her preference would be
for a lessor density. This is mainly because of the steep slopes
in the area. Ms. MacTavish commented that when the Chestnut Ridge
development was constructed, their residence started having
flooding problems. They had to put in a new drainage system that
would carry the water from their front yard to the back yard.
Ms. MacTavish pointed out the steep slopes in the area. She felt
any further activity in this area could possibly cause landslides.
The size of the lots in the their area range from one-half acre to
an acre.
Bruce MacTavish, 20437 94th Avenue S. , Kent, WA 98031, is in favor
of Alternative #1. He felt that the SF 1 area should also be
extended to include the steep hillsides . He had two concerns; one
5
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
was the steepness of the slopes and the other was the limited
access to 208th.
Elaine Fleming, 20541 92nd Avenue S. , pointed out the location of
their property, across 92nd from the Chestnut Ridge development,
and they are also affected by water run-off in the area as well as
mud. In addition, 92nd Avenue S. is not straight and traffic is
quite heavy there. She wanted the least possible density placed on
the property.
Mr. Ross elucidated the reasoning why the property owners he was
representing didn't support either alternative recommended by
staff. This site wouldn't support a development of potentially 203
to 348 residential units. The flat benches on the property would
support the development 60 to 80 of townhouses, triplexes and
fourplexes. This clustered housing type of development would not
impinge on the sensitive areas located on the property.
The public hearing was closed.
A brief discussion followed concerning the surrounding zoning and
the property size around the annexation area. Mr. Jackson
commented that the east side of the annexed area is in King County
and the exact zoning is unknown. He showed on the view foil the
lots that were less one acre. The City would like to avoid,
however, any situation of creating lots which would be
nonconforming. Mr. Jackson stated there is some smaller lot
development taking place in the surrounding area.
There was discussion about the feasibility of deciding the
Comprehensive Plan designation on the property at this time. It
was decided that the recommended zoning portion would be heard
first and then questions from the Commissioners would be heard and
discussion of the feasibility of both plans would be discussed and
a recommendation made.
#AZ-93-1 CHESTNUT RIDGE ANNEXATION AREA INITIAL ZONING
This area, which is approximately 187 acres, is generally bounded
by S. 200th Street to the north, S. 208th Street to the south, 92nd
Avenue S. to the west, and 100th Avenue S. to the east (see
attached maps) . Subsequent to the annexation of the area by the
City, the entire area was zoned R1-20 (Single-Family Residential) ,
pursuant to Section 15 . 03 . 020 (E) (2) of the Kent Zoning Code. The
purpose of this process is to establish initial zoning for the
annexation area, as outlined in Section 15 . 09 . 055 of the Zoning
Code.
6
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
The public hearing for AZ-93-1 is opened.
Kevin O'Neill, Planning Department, focused on the alternative
zoning recommendations and the rationale behind the
recommendations. Mr. O'Neill explained the Planning Department has
several areas in the City and nearby listed on a Hazardous Area Map
and even though this area was not in the City at the time the map
was done, the area is shown on this map. Several hazardous areas
are depicted. Development would be restricted on those parcels
due to restrictive regulations. Mr. O'Neill commented that
environmental constraints are considered when property is being
developed.
Mr. O 'Neill commented the Kent Zoning Code does not currently allow
clustered development. He commented the previous King County
zoning on the site is RS-7200, one lot per 7, 200 square feet.
Another area was designated as RS-9600, one lot per 9 , 600 square
feet, which would be a density of four units per acre. Another
area was zoned Growth Reserve, which is a holding zone, one lot per
five (5) acres until the end of 1994 , at which time the lots would
revert to RS-5000 . Mr. O 'Neill explained that in single family
zoned areas, King County allows two types of development: Planned
Unit Developments and "cluster development" . King County in
determining the density of Cluster development would look at the
gross density of the parcel. For example, if the site was twelve
acre size and zoned RS-9600 zoning, under a Cluster development,
approximately 48 units could be developed on the site. However,
clustering means not every lot would have to be 9, 600 square feet.
It would be possible to make some of the lots smaller as long as
the overall density wasn't exceeded. The Chestnut Ridge area is
somewhat of a cluster development because when it was platted, the
King County zoning designation was RS-9600 but some of the lot
sizes in that area are less than 9, 600 square feet. The Kent
Zoning Code does not allow either of those two types of development
to occur. Mr. O'Neill commented that 9 , 600 square feet equates to
approximately one-quarter of an acre. There are three zoning
alternatives recommended by staff and the community. However, the
Planning Commission can recommend any of the three or a combination
of the three or whatever it determines.
Alternative 1 would recommend RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning
for the area south of 208th, which is one unit per acre. This
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
SF 1. For one area to the north, the recommendation is R1-9 . 6
which would be comparable with King County zoning of RS-9600. For
the remaining properties, the recommendation is for R1-7. 2 , Single
Family Residential (minimum lot size of 7 , 200 square feet) .
7
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
Alternative 2 recommends R1-121 Single Family Residential, minimum
lot size of 12 , 000 square feet which would allow about three units
per acre for the area south of 208th. For the area north of 208th,
the area is recommended to be zoned R1-7 . 2 , Single Family
Residential.
Alternative 3 is very comparable to the Comprehensive Plan
Alternative 2 . There are three recommended zoning designations:
MRD, Duplex Multifamily Residential, for the area south of 208th as
well as a portion to the north; R1-7 . 21 Single Family Residential
for the area south of 202nd; and R1-5 . 0 , Single Family Residential
(minimum lot size of 5, 000 square feet) for the area to the north
of 202nd.
Staff is recommending Alternative 1. This would be consistent with
previous staff recommendations of Comprehensive Plan, Alternative
1. The rationale behind this recommendation is that the land is
heavily environmentally constrained with stream corridors, ravines
and steep slopes. Thus, this recommendations allows for the lowest
single-family residential density available under the Kent
regulations.
Mr. O'Neill pointed out that if the Commission recommends that a
lower Comprehensive Plan designation for the area north of 208th,
then the zoning designation should be the same. For example, any
area designated SF 1 on the Comprehensive Plan, it should be zoned
RA, because that zoning designation would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Haylor asked if the topography was different for the
area to the north of 202nd since both King County and the Planning
Department under Alternative 3 recommends a lower density that the
rest of the area.
Mr. O'Neill replied that area does not seem to contain any
environmentally sensitive areas. He explained that under the Soos
Creek Plan, any undeveloped or "underdeveloped" parcels of land
that were close to existing City limits were given higher density
zoning designations.
Mr. Harmon read a statement about the concerns about this area.
Mr. Harmon commented that the area should be designated as single
family zoning.
Ms. Harmon expressed concern about the access to the property that
is below hers. There is only one way in and out, and that is off
of 208th, onto a cul-de-sac. That property should either stay as
8
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
a green belt or if it must be developed, zoned for one unit per
acre.
Robert Servoss, 9420 S. 207th Place, commented he had moved there
because of the uniqueness and privacy of the neighborhood. He
would like that preserved. His lot is about one-third to one-
fourth acre in size.
Several people who spoke during the comprehensive Plan portion
spoke again concerning the appropriateness of less density based on
the problems with traffic, water, and the steepness of slopes.
Judy Shemeta, 9405 S. 205th Place, supported the previous
arguments. She felt the least possible density should be
designated for the slope area.
Ervin Fleming, 20541 92nd Avenue S . , commented he felt that the
area should be zoned for half acre lots with single dwellings and
cluster development should not be allowed.
Discussion ensued about parks in the area. There are no parks in
the area.
Mr. Ross read and submitted a letter into the record. The owner
intends on developing the property as lower density owner-occupied
townhomes. One portion of the letter mentioned that because of the
slopes, riparian corridor, and limited access, it appears that only
one-third of the site is suitable for development. Approximately
two-thirds of the site would be left in the natural state.
Mr. Ross commented that approximately 60-80 units of townhomes
could reasonably be developed on the site. These would be
constructed in different configurations but each would be
approximately 1400 square feet in size and have two plus parking
spaces per dwelling. This would density equals about 2 . 1 to 2 . 8
units per acre of the 29 acre property. This is the type of
density they are requesting and not the higher densities of the MRG
or MRD zoning. Mr. Ross requested that a zoning classification of
R1-12 be designated for this property. The intent is not to
develop the property with 12 , 000 square foot lots, however. It is
felt that only a clustered type of development would be appropriate
for this site. Further, because of the site constraints, the RA
designation would effectively deny the owners any reasonable use of
the property. There would need to be soil engineering survey and
soil analysis done. In addition, more open space would be provided
with the clustering type of development.
9
Planning Commission
Minutes
October 25, 1993
Commissioner Haylor commented that when you're talking about
clustering townhouses, it still means some type of multifamily
dwellings.
The public hearing was closed at 10 : 20 PM.
A discussion ensued concerning continuing the meeting in order for
the Commissioners to consider the information presented at the
hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council.
MOTION WAS MADE and SECONDED to adjourn the hearing and continue
the meeting to November 8 , 1993 at 7 : 00 PM. MOTION CARRIED.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja es P. Har is, secretary
10
CITY OF
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
October 19 , 1993 4 : 00 PM
Committee Members Present City Attorney' s Office
Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich
Jon Johnson
Jim Bennett
Planning Staff Other City Staff
Lin Ball Tony McCarthy
Jim Harris
Rachel Johnston Other Guests
Margaret Porter
Fred Satterstrom Ron Nelson
John Finke
HUD SECTION 108 (J. Harris)
Planning Director Harris introduced Ron Nelson who informed the
Committee the status of the unfinished hotel which lies on the south
side of S. 212th Street and across from the Boeing company.
Ron Nelson expressed this is an information item only to discuss ideas
how this hotel could be finished and sold as indicated in the agenda
memo. Ron introduced John Finke, the northwest branch manager of the
National Development Council, which is a nonprofit organization which
specializes in loan packaging.
Mr. Finke' s company is contracted by King County and is 25 years old
who exclusively works with government in financing housing and economic
development projects. John presented an overview of the HUD Section
108 program as indicated in the memo. The HUD Section 108 program is
a growing HUD tool and is an under utilized section of the Block Grant
Act, which allows cities to borrow through a HUD guaranteed bond issue
of funds. These funds can be used for three (3) specific activities:
1) acquisition of real property that is not to be used for the
general conduct of government;
2) housing rehab; and
3) economic development where the economic development is one of
the national objectives.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 19 , 1993
PAGE 2
A city has available five (5) times their annual Block Grant with a 20
year pay back plan. As an example, the City of Tacoma did not want to
see their downtown Sheraton hotel foreclosed so John Finke worked with
them to arrange a HUD Section 108 . For a City to borrow Section 108
funds, there is a requirement that a city (or county) must be willing
to pledge its future Block Grant dollars to HUD as a loan loss
guarantee. That means over the course of the borrowing, if a city used
it for economic development by re-lending to a private entity, if that
entity failed to make one of the annual payments, HUD would take that
payment out of the County' s block grant; consequently, the County would
ask this to come out of the City' s share of their Block Grant. John
advised to only use the HUD Section 108 on good deals where the risk is
minimum and the deal is important. Mr. Finke stated that HUD is in the
process of putting together their own internal loan loss reserve to
either lessen or eliminate this requirement, which will not be in place
for three or four months.
According to the current laws, Mr. Harris expressed concern about the
risk of losing the Kent' s Block Grant program of about $300, 000 a year
for 20 years if there was a default. Also, the City of Kent' s
Community Block Grant goals would need to be reviewed if the HUD
Section 108 program would be pursued. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Finke
appreciated being able to come and discuss this information with the
Committee and they will come back to the Committee when or if there is
a more concrete proposal for discussion.
SEPA CODE AMENDMENTS (J. Harris)
Planning Director Harris explained the proposed amendments regarding
the State Environmental Policy Act (KCC 11 . 03 . 410) . Mr. Harris
discussed his memo to the Planning Committee which recommends
amendments to the SEPA ordinance as follows :
Section 11. 03 . 410 Public notice
A. Whenever the city issues a determination of nonsignificance under
WAC 197-11-340 (2) , a determination of significance under WAC 197-
11-360 (3) , an addendum to any existing environmental document or
any existing environmental document as defined in section
11. 03 . 320, the city shall give notice as follows:
1. If public notice is required for a nonexempt action, the
notice shall state whether a determination of significance or
determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination
of nonsignificance has been issued and that comments are due
within fourteen (14) days. Notice shall be given as follows:
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1993
PAGE 3
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. Notifying all parties of record any individual or group
which has appeared at a public hearing or submitted
comments on the proposal which is the subject of the
determination.
Bennett MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve the
aforementioned four amendments of the SEPA Code and forward to the City
Council on November 2 , 1993 . Motion carried.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Satterstrom presented stated reported on two action
items that needed the Committee ' s approval. First, the Committee
agreed to set up a Council Workshop on November 30, 1993 between 5 : 00
p.m. to 9 : 00 p.m. regarding the Capital Facilities Plan. The Henderson
& Young consultants will provide information regarding inventory,
projected revenue that the City has, the current levels of service, and
what the City's needs are. Chair Orr mentioned she would bring this up
under reports at the Council meeting at the October 19 , 1993 Council
meeting.
The City Council authorized the Planning Department in July to proceed
ahead with a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Department did
this. Nine responses came back with $200, 000 the highest bid and the
lowest bid around $35, 000, the other bids congregated in the middle.
The Planning Department plans to interview the people with bids in the
middle range. Bennett MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to authorize
the Planning Department to proceed ahead with the interviews to try to
identify a cost figure, put this item on the next Budget Committee 's
Agenda of November 8 , and forward this item to the City Council on
November 16, 1993 . Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS:
SOUTH KING COUNTY DRUG & ALCOHOL CENTER (L Ball)
Lin Ball explained that the City received a letter from Philip
Showstead, Executive Director of the South King County Drug and Alcohol
Recovery Centers, expressing his concern that South County is not
getting its fair share of the drug and alcohol treatment funding.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 1993
PAGE 4
Staff met with Mr. Showstead and the Health Department and found that
the Public Health . Department performs an in-depth review of all
applications and involves a citizen review board in making funding
decisions. Staff also learned that South King County received more
ADATSA funds than any other area of the county and almost double the
amount of funding of any other area.
A review of the information received from Mr. Showstead and King County
raised the following concerns:
1. There is no needs assessment available for aiding in making
funding decisions.
2 . There is no South County representation on the King County
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Administrative Board.
3 . South County police departments have difficulty in obtaining bed
spaces at the County Detoxification Center.
In order to address these concerns, Council President, Judy Woods, is
planning to write a letter to the County recommending that they look
into the three areas mentioned above
Tony McCarthy raised the question of whether the Regional Justice
Center in Kent have anything to do with detox and make it easier for
South King County to have access to any of these king of programs. Lin
appreciated the question and she had not heard this as a component. he
will check into this and also speak with Alana Mclalwain who is working
on the Regional Justice Center project.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4 : 55 p.m.
PC01019 .MIN
PUBLIC WORKS MINUTES
OCTOBER 20, 1993
PRESENT: JIM WHITE TOM BRUBAKER
PAUL MANN ROBYN BARTELT
JIM BENNETT JERRY HARDABECK
DON WICKSTROM STEVE CAPUTO
TONY McCARTHY MR & MRS RUST
Recycling Yard Waste Contract
Wickstrom stated this is a carry-over from the last Public Works
meeting and he referred to his memorandum indicating what the
financial impact would be on the Utility Tax on garbage, if we
accept Kent Disposal ' s proposal. Or, he said, we could absorb it
in the general fund provided Council cuts the equivalent expense
from the proposed budget. Wickstrom noted that Kent Disposal has
submitted a formal protest on the RFP claiming Waste Management did
not comply with the Request for Proposal . Wickstrom stated that
the Committee may want to consider that, or they may want to recall
the proposals. Wickstrom said that another firm has expressed
interest in submitting a proposal on a three-tray toter.
White said that in reviewing the information he noted one firm is
proposing a 90 gallon commingle toter with 20 gallon glass
container and the other firm is proposing a three bin separated
container. He asked what had been written in the RFP. White said
it seems as though we have two different firms submitting two
different ways of handling this. White said, if we go with the 90
gallon container as stated in the RFP, than that means we will have
to raise our Utility Tax. He went on to say that he felt if we
award the bid to the three bin separated containers, when that was
not in the RFP, we could have a legal problem.
Brubaker stated that he feels there is an ambiguity in the RFP.
Brubaker explained that an RFP is different from a Request for Bid
in that it doesn't require a specific response. Brubaker said this
RFP does request 90 gallon containers, but reading further the RFP
states . . . . "description of the collection receptacle proposed for
the recyclables" . Brubaker said that it is understandable that a
company bidding on the document could think that they had to
furnish 90 gallon containers. Brubaker stated that he doesn't
think we are legally exposed.
1
Wickstrom said that Kent Disposal has indicated they would grant us
another extension and if that were the case, we could go out for
another RFP clearing up any ambiguities. White said that we will
be passing a large cost on to our citizens and he would like to see
it bid both ways.
Bennett agreed with White in rewriting the RFP, based on what the
original intent was and what we have now.
In response to White, Wickstrom said the ordinance will make it
illegal to put yard waste in the garbage. In response to White' s
question on billing, Wickstrom said that we could bill for
recycling separately from the yard waste program. He said the
customers have a program now for which they are paying for
indirectly however, a significant portion thereof is being
subsidized from the industrial community based on the fact that
they make up the bulk of the City' s garbage service. Wickstrom
said that the residential customers are feeling they are getting a
free service and we want to continue the high support for recycling
we're presently experiencing. He said we are recommending that we
continue subsidizing the recycling program but, bill for the yard
waste program. Since the yard waste service is not mandatory, the
customer will have an option of composting, which would not cost
them anything.
Jerry Hardabeck, General Manager of Waste Management Rainier,
stated that they did read the proposal and noted that it did state
the 96 gallon cart. He said they called the City and said they
found another service to be more successful and in some cases a
little less expensive and asked to propose their program, which
currently services about 60, 000 residential units outside the City
of Seattle. Hardabeck said this is the most well used program for
collecting curbside recycling. Hardabeck stated that Waste
Management services the City of Renton and also unincorporated King
County. Hardabeck stated that the present hauler services the City
of Kent and unincorporated King County as well. He further said
that Waste Management rate in King County is $3 . 21 per home where
they are providing source separated curb side recycling with three
bins and lid. Waste Management proposed to the City of Kent to do
the same service for $2 . 55. Hardabeck stated that the City's
present hauler provides a commingle system, (the 96 gallon system)
for $1.99 and that same service out in their unincorporated King
County area is $3 . 21. Hardabeck said that he feels the question
that needs to be asked of the City' s present hauler is, why is
their proposed rate, ($4 .98) to service the densely populated area
of the City, so much higher than their rate ($3 . 21) to service the
rather scattered area of unincorporated King County.
White said that he feels we should go back and clean up the RFP and
get bids both ways.
2
Brubaker said that the City has received a written protest from
Steve Caputo at Kent Disposal claiming that the Waste Management
bid is not responsive. He also said he had received a letter from
an attorney representing Kent Disposal asserting that the other bid
was not responsive and the City had a legal duty to create the bid .
in a fair forum and essentially their assertion is that the bid
should go to Kent Disposal. Brubaker stated that he does not agree
with that legal analysis however, he wanted the Committee to be
made aware of that. Brubaker clarified with the Committee that
they wish to reject both bids received and set the bid with one
alternative being the mixed 96 gallon toter and another alternative
being the stacker and a third alternative being any other system
that anyone would like to propose that would achieve the service
needs. Brubaker said the RFP will include a statement indicating
that this is a proposal only and there is flexibility in the
response.
This was agreeable to both parties .
Committee unanimously agreed to reject the bids from Kent Disposal
and Waste Management Rainier.
Downtown Infrastructure
No comment on this item.
Street Humps on Carnaby Way
White asked what the process is in placing street humps. Wickstrom
explained that we have a neighborhood traffic control program and
we have an internal process whereby a study is done after staff
meets with the citizens.
Meeting adjourned at 6 : 10 P.M.
3
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 3, 1993
PRESENT: JIM WHITE GARY GILL
JIM BENNETT ED WHITE
PAUL MANN ROBYN BARTELT
TONY McCARTHY RAUL RAMOS
DON WICKSTROM STEVE CAPUTO
TOM BRUBAKER MARK BUSCHER
277th Corridor
Wickstrom stated that at the October 27th King County
Transportation Committee meeting, they passed out of Committee to
full Council, an ordinance favorable 2 to 1, which establishes the
road right of way for both 277th and a portion of 114th. Wickstrom
said that they added on conditions to this Ordinance, which we must
meet. Wickstrom said that essentially we are amenable with all the
conditions and as part of the ordinance, there will be an
interlocal agreement which we must execute. The agreement would be
a reiteration of the terms and conditions of the ordinance.
Wickstrom requested authorization be given to the Mayor to sign
that interlocal agreement so we can present a package which would
become a part of the County ' s ordinance . Wickstrom said he feels
it would appear better at the King County Council level . Wickstrom
stated that within the conditions, we need to show the County that
we have a financial plan for paying for the road, a contingency
plan if we can 't pay for the road and, we need to acquire adequate
right of way to construct a five lane facility. Wickstrom said
that at design level, we are to submit to the Public Works
Department, for review by the County Council , a report on the
option of designating one eastbound and one westbound lane of the
proposed five lane facility for HOV.
Wickstrom explained that there was some concern about the west
termini of the road and the County wants assurance that it will
correlate with their project. They have incorporated additional
studies in terms of the valley portion between West Valley Highway
and Auburn Way North and have directed their Public Works
Department to incorporate that into their EIS process on their
southeast corridor project. Wickstrom also stated that the County
is concerned about the commuter rail .
1
Mann asked if, in the interlocal agreement with King County, does
this identify who will be responsible for the link up with their
connection with SR 18 . Wickstrom responded that this is the
County' s responsibility. Brubaker stated that we would, however,
work with the County to assure that the end of our project is
compatible with this.
Further discussion followed regarding the three lane strip of road
at Schillder' s Dairy Farm. Wickstrom said that particular part is
in King County. Brubaker said that the agreement states that we
will cooperate with the County as it goes thru its EIS process and
develops an interlocal with Auburn.
Brubaker further stated that when we litigated the termini, whether
or not it was an appropriate spot to end the road at Auburn Way
North & Kent Kangley was one of the central focuses of the trial
and the judge did say that it was a logical terminus for the road.
Brubaker said that one of the things reviewed was the fact that not
everybody is headed straight west when they come down the hill . He
explained that it ' s easy to see this as a big highway that suddenly
comes down into a two lane road but actually there are thirteen
lanes there (5 to the north, 5 to the south and 3 to the west) .
Brubaker said that from the traffic studies that we did, he feels
that the intersection will be able to handle that level of traffic.
White asked if there might be a rail station at 277th. Wickstrom
stated that more than likely the rail station will be in the CBD.
He said that if we include a rail station, we would get into a
change of land use plan which would not to fit in with the Growth
Management plan. Wickstrom said that we will be working with Metro
and King County in establishing where the potential rail stations
will be. Based on Council interest in developing the CBD, the CBD
is a highly likely location. White stated that he would want a
rail stop in the CBD but not major parking structures in the CBD.
Wickstrom said that there are two lines involved, Union Pacific or
Burlington Northern and Council will be deciding what is the
highest priority for rail station locations in Kent. Brubaker said
that the County Transportation Committee staff raised that issue
and was concerned about the creation of a parking facility at the
intersection near the rail stations and they did discuss it.
Brubaker said that they had come to the conclusion that it was
premature because nobody really knows what focus this will take .
Wickstrom said that is why it was put back in the County ' s EIS
because their ' s is a much longer approach enabling those issues to
be resolved and thereby they will know whether an over-crossing is
appropriate and where the rail stations are. Brubaker said it was
the opinion of County staff and Kent that under the Growth
Management Act we have a tendency to diffuse the downtown urban
growth centers and wouldn ' t fit appropriately in the rural and
agricultural areas . White said he does not want us to rule out any
possibility. Wickstrom said we are just putting that decision into
2
the longer range County ' s plan.
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the Mayor sign the
Interlocal Agreement with King County as identified in the proposed
King County Road Establishment Ordinance for the 277th Corridor
project.
Sidewalk Repair Work
Wickstrom indicated on CBD sidewalk map locations where sidewalks
had been replaced either through our City crews or thru our Public
Works contracts. Wickstrom also explained that some of the
sidewalks were paid for under the various road projects or utility
projects. There was no further discussion on this.
King County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan
Mark Buscher with King County Solid Waste Division presented an
overview of the Final 1992 County Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Plan which basically effects solid waste management in
the unincorporated areas of King County and also suburban cities
for the next several years . At this time, Buscher handed out a
briefing paper which outlined the major recommendations contained
in the 1992 Plan and explained the differences between it and the
adopted 1989 Plan.
Buscher explained that the cities and counties have 120 days from
the time the document is issued to adopt the plan. Buscher said
that this plan was endorsed as a final plan by resolution by the
Suburban Cities Association in June .
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend adoption of the King
County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan.
240th/108th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom said that Committee had previously authorized the
transfer of funds from a signal now being built by Target at 260th
and 104th and we had indicated that we would form an LID with the
balance. Wickstrom explained that we had the public meeting and
the neighbors know what their assessments are and we have a
concurrence for at least 40% which would be the minimum necessary
to legally form an LID. In response to White, Wickstrom said that
we are in design stage now for the signal and it should be
installed in 1994 .
Committee unanimously agreed to recommend proceeding with the
formation of the LID.
Miscellaneous Watermain Rebuilds
Wickstrom stated that this was a project awarded to Briggs
Construction for the reconstruction of watermains and is completed.
3
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Central Avenue & 259th Traffic Signal
Wickstrom stated that this project was awarded to Service Electric
Co. and is now complete.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
South 196th Street Bridge Removal at Mill Creek
Wickstrom stated that this was the bridge serving the Western
Processing site however because it was hazardous we removed it.
Committee unanimously recommended that the project be accepted as
complete.
Washington Avenue Short Plat Utilities - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
The Lakes Division 3 - Bill of Sale
Committee unanimously recommended the bill of sale be accepted and
bonds released after the one year maintenance period.
Sewer Extension at the School on 108th __
Bennett asked why this was extended across . Wickstrom stated that
it is in the Council ' s adopted policy, both in the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and Construction Standards , that when property
needs to obtain sewer service it must extend it to its farthest
corner from the sewer, so that it could be extended by the next
property when there are other properties to be serviced. In this
case, there were other properties to be serviced. Wickstrom said
that ' s why we had it extended up to 108th.
Meeting adjourned at 6 : 15 p.m.
4