Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/21/1995 Citytof Ken . Meetin Cit Council g v Agenda CITY OF ti .r 1 Mayor Jim White Council Members Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Jon Johnson E Tim Clark Paul Mann Christi Houser Leona Orr November 21 , 1995 Office of the City Clerk E G6 A' If r M YRn �8 CITY OF EMT SUMMARY AGENDA v)/ _ KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING A 1 ( November 21 1995 5 i1 Q Council Chambers l + L� O 7 :0 0 p.m. 1 �1 MAYOR• Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: r Judy Woods, President Jim Bennett Tim Clark Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Proclamation - Paul Mann Month B. Chamber of Commerce Presentation C. Regional Justice Center Update 2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan pendments CPA-95-1 and Initial Zoning AZ-95-3 - Ordi nces 3 . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes B. Approval of Bills C. Residential Solid Waste. Self Haul Charges, Meridian Annexation Area -k.Ordinance 3 2 5 3 Acces.agry Housing -Z-Ofting Code Amendment ZCA-95-3 - Ordinance . 4 E. MI-6 Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-10 - `O-rdinance., 3 2- F. Comprehensive Plan Implementaticn,_Zoning Map Amendment, Phase 1, East Hill CPA-95-1 -COrdinance- 3 2 .5-5 G. Surplus Vehicles H. S. 196th Street Corridor - UPRR Crossing - Grant - Establish Budget I. Metro Grant - Establish Budget J. Asbestos Removal Project - Accept as Complete f K. Russell Road Park Asphalt Repair Project - Accept as 1 Complete L. Building Demolition - Accept as Complete M. James Street Traffic Safety Issue N . ',` 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. Metro Sewer Rate Increase - Or4inance '{3%l B. Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2 C. West Hill Plaza Rezone RZ795-2 D. School Impact Fee - 0,rdi nc,er. Interlocal Agreement, and Resolution E. Transfer of Parks and Open Space in Meridian Annexation Area - Resolution I t4 t4ei F. Single Family Residential Development Standards Zoning VA Code Amendment ZC4n-9-5-8, 5. 60c'� None �}• vtu24.�oY', 0-r8 6. CONTI UED COMMUNICATIONS 7. REPORTS 8. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION - Property Acquisition 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. -. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more Information. For TDD relay service call 1.800-635-9993 or the City of Kent(206)854-6587. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time, make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly heard. A) Proclamation - Paul Mann Month B) Chamber of Commerce Presentation C) Regional Justice Center Update Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21 1995 Category Public Hearings 1. T: MERIDIAN E ANNEXATION TIHENSIVE Z PLAN MNDMENTCPA-95-1 AND INITIAL ZONING A5-3 - ORDINANCES 2 . SUHXMY STATEMENT: On September 25 and 26, 1995, the Planning Commission held public hearings on both the comprehen- sive plan and zoning map amendments for the Meridian annexation area. Following their deliberations on October 2, 1995, the Commission forwarded their recommendation to the City Council. Tonight's meeting is the second of two public hearings pursuant to state law. The Council's first hearing was held October 17, 1995. The Council is asked to adopt two ordinances; one for the Comprehensive Plan amendment #CPA-95-1 and one for the initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation area #AZ-95-3 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to the City Council dated N,'-- , 1995; October 17, 1995 memo to City Council tiff. fitters attached; September 19, 1995 staff repo ing Commission; Planning Commission minutes `� 1995; and two ordinances 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission l/,I (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission. "� 6 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT: Nc l " 6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $ ° u SOURCE OF FUNDS: OPEN HEARING: PUBLIC INPUT• CLOSE HEARING: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Cou�cilmember seconds 1. to adopt Ordinance No. for the Comprehensive Plan amendment #CPA-95-1. 2 . to adopt Ordinance No. fo' the initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation area #AZ-95 3 . i DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 2A CITY OF J Q\� IT CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor MEMORANDUM November 21, 1995 MEMO TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR. AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS On October 17, 1995, the City Council conducted the first of two public hearings on #CPA- 95-1 and #AZ-95-3, Meridian Annexation Area comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments. The second City Council hearing will be held on November 21. At the October 17 hearing, several property owners testified on the Planning Commission's recommended comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area. Also, several letters have been submitted to the City Council regarding these issues. Eight of these letters were part of the Council packet for the October 17 meeting, while other written exhibits were submitted both at the meeting and since the meeting. This memorandum will summarize the issues that have been raised to date, and include a staff analysis and recommendation. It should be noted that some of the testimony received at the October 17 meeting, and in written correspondence, supports the Planning Commission recommendation. This memorandum will only analyze those issues which either need to be further clarified, or where persons testified in support of an issue which was not consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. All of these issues relate to the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan maps. The issues will be identified by specific map sites. Area 1: 25840 135th Lane S.E.,Lake Meridian Cabins (Lewis). Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. V, KI vF -F;- Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (4CPA-95-1 & 9AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 2 Discussion: Lake Meridian Cabins property is located at the northeast end of Lake Meridian. The property is developed with nineteen residences, including a house near the south and west property lines, and eighteen small cottages located near the north and west property lines. The King County Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the property is four to twelve dwelling units per acre. The County zoning designation is R-4 Residential (four dwelling units per acre). Four dwellings per acre is consistent with County policy to base densities on land characteristics. Lands which contain or which are in close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the north shore of Lake Meridian and the Soos Creek Corridor, received a maximum density recommendation of four homes per acre. The Planning Commission recommendation is for the Lake Meridian Cabins is a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF=6 ( Single Family Residential, six units per acre) and a zoning designation of RI 9.6 (Single Family Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size. The zero lot line option is currently available under Kent Zoning Code regulations for a site area of five acres or larger. The Kent Zoning Code does not contain provisions for 10 dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The general policy of the City is to avoid creating additional multifamily-zoned property unless the property in question is already developed with multifamily dwellings. Area 2: Properties at southwest corner of SE 240th Street and 120th Avenue SE (Morford, Sharp) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-6 and R1-7.2 to SF-8 and Rl- 5.0? Discussion: The property owners own two parcels in this area which are currently zoned R6 in King County, a zoning designation which allows 6 units per acre with no minimum lot size. The property owners are asking for a Kent zoning designation of R1-5.0, reasoning that the proposed R1-7.2 zoning does not allow an overall density of 6 units per acre, since each lot must be at least 7,200 square feet and that density is currently not calculated in the city based on the overall size of the parcel. However, the Council is currently considering amendments to the single-family development standards which would allow smaller lot sizes and zoning densities to be calculated based on the overall size Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (4CPA-95-1 & 9AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 3 of the property. This proposed amendment, which is part of the City's effort to implement the Comprehensive Plan, has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council Planning Committee, and will be considered by the full Council on November 21. Area 3: Wetland/drainage parcel located east of 128th Avenue SE and north of Kent-Kanglev Road Issue: Should this area by designated as Open Space on the Comprehensive Plan and zoned RA instead of SF-8 and R1-5.0 (Webb) Discussion: This property lies just northwest of the Lake Meridian Plaza shopping center. The parcel is approximately 4.72 acres in size and is owned by King County. A wetland and drainage facility with associated streams covers the majority of the site. At the October 17, 1995 City Council public hearing, George Webb gave testimony requesting this property be designated as Open Space on the Comprehensive Plan and zoned RA, Residential Agricultural which has a one acre minimum lot size requirement. The RA zoning district is the least dense in the city. In the development of the Comprehensive Plan, all areas designated as Open Space are publicly owned. These areas include parks such as the Soos Creek Trail, areas around Clark Lake, and other City and County owned land. A Comprehensive Plan Designation of Open Space for this property would be consistent with this policy. RA zoning would be consistent with the zoning given to other Open Space designated property. Area 4: Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) Issue: Should this area be changed from Neighborhood Community Commercial to General Commercial? Discussion; The Shady Park grocery is located at 27848 152nd Avenue SE, at the northeast corner of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 280th Street. The site contains a grocery store and an auto repair use. The owner testified at the October 17 hearing that the grocery store has been in existence since 1920, and that the auto repair use Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (4CPA-95-1 & nAZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 4 has been operating since 1940. This being the case, both uses are likely legal and nonconforming, since the site is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in King County (one dwelling unit per 5 acres). The general area surrounding the site is zoned and developed as very low density single-family. The proposed NCC zoning will bring the grocery store into conformance. The property owner seeks GC zoning so that the existing auto repair use would also be conforming. GC is the most intensive, auto-oriented commercial zoning district in the city. The legal, non-conforming status of the auto repair use on the site will continue if the site is zoned NCC use upon annexation into the City, meaning that the uses may continue to operate on the site. Area 5: 12525 SE 248th Street (Koji) Issue: Should this property be zoned R1-7.2 instead of the recommended R1-9.6? Response: This site is located at 12525 SE 248th Street, just east of 124th Ave SE. It is proposed for a Comprehensive Plan designation of SF-6, single family residential with a six unit per acre maximum density, and R1-9.6 zoning. Staff received a letter on October 3, 1995 from Herbert Noji requesting a reconsideration of this property for.R1-7.2 zoning, and also took testimony at the October 17, 1995,_public hearing requesting the same. This site has a King County zoning designation of R4, residential with a four units per acre maximum density. The recommended R1-9.6 zoning designation would allow approximately 4.5 units per acre which is consistent with previous zoning. It is also consistent with established developments in the vicinity of the property. It should be noted that the proposed SF-6 Comprehensive Plan designation would allow a zoning of R1-7.2. Map Site 6: Kent-Kangley Commercial (Houston/Katai/Walton/Wilson) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning to "square off" boundaries near Kent-Kangley Road/154th Ave SE? Discussim The Planning Commission has recommended that existing King County commercial zoning be converted to City commercial zoning (i.e., CC - Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (#CPA-95-1 & #AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 5 Community Commercial) in the Kent-Kangley Road/154th Ave SE area; no additional non-commercial land was added in this area. The area recommended by the Commission for commercial zoning may be accessed directly from Kent- Kangley Road. If one or more residential lots to the south were rezoned to Commercial, it could potentially result in a situation where commercial uses could only be accessed from 154th Avenue SE, a residential street. In light of this possibility, the Planning Commission did not recommend designating additional parcels for commercial zoning. (It should also be noted that property owners in this area are split on the issue of commercial re-zoning. If all affected property owners were to concur, an application for plan amendment and rezone could be made in the future. At that time, the issue of access, as well as all other factors, could better be evaluated in light of their i Map Site 7: Northwest corner of the Kent Kangley and 124th Avenue SE intersection (Tom Sinkula). Issue: Request for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations to allow commercial use. Discussion Comprehensive Plan goals and policies recommend encouraging infill of new commercial development within existing commercially designated areas, rather than new areas. to maintain and enhance existing business districts, to allow businesses to benefit from proximity to one another, and avoid creating additional traffic congestion at intersections on busy arterials. Map Site 8: Northeast corner of 144th Avenue SE and SE 288th Street (Kirby, Forner) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-1 and RA to SF-6 and R1-7.2? Discussion: These properties are located at the southeastern portion of the annexation area, at the northeastern corner of SE 288th Street and 144th Avenue SE. The property is zoned Urban Reserve, 1 dwelling unit per five acres. King County staff has proposed that this property be zoned R6 as part of the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study. The property owners are requesting a similar designation in Kent, which would be RI-7.2. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (4CPA-95-1 & 4AZ-95-3) November 21, 1995 Page 6 The proposed zoning for the area north of these properties is R1-12. This recommendation was based on the idea of allowing higher densities than the current zoning designations in King County allow, while providing something of a transitional zoning designation between the R1-7.2 zoning south of SE. 272nd Street and the more rural areas along SE 288th Street. Also, these areas which are proposed for R1-12 are presently in the service areas of Water District 111 and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The properties in question were recently annexed into the Water District 111 service area, while the properties along the west side of 144th Avenue SE to the north of SE 288th Street presently are not. Therefore, a zoning density of greater than RA may be appropriate for these properties. Attached are ordinances for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and initial zoning for the Meridian area. The exhibits currently attached to the ordinances reflect the Planning Commission's recommendations. After the public hearing, should the City Council wish to adopt the ordinances but make changes to the Planning Commission's respective recommendations, these changes will be reflected on the exhibits. Planning staff will be available at the November 21 meeting to answer questions about the recommended Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the Meridian area, as well as the information presented in this memorandum and attachments. KOH/mp:a:merccres.mem Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner CITY of )Lt!2 LS - CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Jim White, Mayor dFTp�c^",C.'a MEMORANDUM October 17, 1995 TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3-- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Attached is the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning for the Meridian annexation area. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the plan and zoning for the Meridian area on September 25 and September 26, 1995, and made their recommendation on October 2, 1995 (see attached minutes). At the public hearings, the Planning Commission received testimony on and considered three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoning map for the area. These alternatives are outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 19, which is attached. After considering the public testimony and asking questions of staff, the Planning Commission is recommending a Land Use Plan Map and zoning map.which most closely resembles Alternative 3 in the staff report, which was the staff proposal. The changes made to Alternative 3 by the Planning Commission were minor, and involved two changes along 152nd Avenue SE (one from R1-12 to NCC, the other from R1-12 to R1-7.2), one change along Kent- Kangley Road from R1-72 to O, and one change along SE 124th Street from R1-9.6 to R1-7.2. The Planning Commission received a great deal of public testimony during the hearings, and this testimony was analyzed by staff in a memorandum dated October 2, 1995, which is attached. Several letters were received by the Planning Department between the Planning Commission hearing on September 26 and the Planning Commission's deliberation on October 2. Because the public hearing was closed on September 26, the Planning Commission chose not to consider these letters during their deliberations. However, they directed staff to enter the letters into the record and forward them to the City Council. These letters are attached, and are summarized below: 22 5895/TELEPHONE ('061859-7700)FAX q Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 2 Letter 1: Letter from several parties, dated September 28, 1995 Comment: Request a zoning designation of RA for a wetland owned by King County near the intersection of 128th Avenue SE and SE 268th Street. The area is currently proposed to be zoned R1-5.0. Letter 2: Two letters from Frances Houston, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Expressed concern about proposed commercial zoning along SE 272nd Street, east of 152nd Avenue SE. Letter 3: Letter from Ed Katai, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 4: Letter from David Zehr, dated September 29, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Letter 5: Letter from David and Amy Walton, dated October 2, 1995 Comment: Request for CC zoning on 154th Avenue SE, south of SE 272nd Avenue.. Letter 6: Letter from Tom Sinkula, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Request for commercial zonin at the intersection of 124th Avenue SE and Kent- 0angley Road. The area is currently proposed to be zoned R1-7.2. Letter 7: Letter from Kenneth Kirby, dated September 5, 1995 Comment: Request for R6 (R1-7.2) zoning near the intersection of 144th Avenue SE and SE 288th Street. This area is proposed to be designated RA. Letter 8: Letter from Cal and Betty Wilson, dated September 27, 1995 Comment: Supports staff-recommended commercial zoning at intersection of SE 272nd Street and 152nd Avenue SE, and requests additional commercial zoning in this area. Planning Commission Recommendation for Meridian Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment October 12, 1995 Page 3 i These letters should be considered as part of the public record, along with other testimony which will be received by the City Council during your hearings on the plan and zoning designations-for the Meridian area. By City ordinance, the City Council must hold two hearings on the proposed zoning, which also includes consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. The first hearing is scheduled for October 17, 1995, and the second hearing is scheduled for November 21, 1995, since by State law the hearings must be at least 30 days apart. Planning Department staff will be available at the October 17 hearing to further explain the recommended plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area. JPH/cw:merancc.mem Attachments cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner m 3 � m rl M LIl 111 (3) a) J r , � 35 3Atl n19i1 35 3Atl N195 v s s 5 3Atl Dn251 � S QHZS O l S F F F O O � l6 X000 � � mws �nryi0 1% t -, U 3Atl X19hi Z % a T' Ut m \3) H _ {\Y O Z z L rZ Z m � r5 S w M1 S AV 1 ^�l N i 3Ab Nlhhl O 7 F m w m m m a Fj w U Z O F Ov kC m Z eIYVnJ N C\2 ^ F O 0 OE., 35 3Atl X3 Dn1 w y VI V1 V of AC 919[r a' q Z MN WU w OCR CQ0 m J ram, 1f'!L,C).--I N tl h��yl I ( I I I QUxa U z x is 3Ab Intl Hsi r ° T UI 3Atl X aci 'S Atl NLL 1 Ain PPNf`' C N 3S 3AY H.LT'El h \� 3s 3wn Xa021 ` 1` oaa �De n � U S Y HL9TT IIQ f" AV 1 3S 3 w1hilc'� m 'C 3S 3Ab II O F F w 1 y S 3.1Y .LZT I v w ra m m � N w 3S 3Ab 91601 ;i 35 3Atl N1601 38 3Atl H.L90T w AV NI ���� 3S 3Atl HY30I �� H M u) � ai U// m 9� CA U It r !V bla 5� Q W P^' N r] m �5 C H W 35 iAtl M199I 3S lntl M195 Y L•7mm � e e W O 00 Ps3s Ab ONES[ S 3A QN2S U m U z I �r z N19b1 z m m W m i wFo � JU 9 TO 5. a 5V jp W S j I',^1 rTA M S 3An Nib%[ 1 W m 93 ( O zU � G+\y \m F d N O O F 3S 3Atl HIM O a O zO x "D p w o 10 s 3Atl Nlacl /�\) per.. O U z F m o9 .a S 5 N V i 1'%'.t. to U WO �MCOW G G nn 1 T , ^ z I i I Ip" a _ 3s 3nu lbcl V W OU 11MUM .4:2:2� .r CD s AV x �T, A a pV � r „3S 3AV ASfi2T 0 3s 3Ab N1aZl � z T aoo DEIo 41 35 3Atl N1911 ❑N SLAY H 9 T E- rn A H,bll 3s 3 HIbIld F35 3Atl 11 F J-1 h F S 3.'1Y IZTT r z W Y m GO `T, M F h � � ( N 3S 3Atl x1601 3S 3Atl M1601 $$ �d Fi IGOT r'{ pl � ,Atl tll � Vl _•,. ���� as ana xitoT �� CITY OF 1L\AM CITY OF KENT V PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor MEMORANDUM October 2, 1995 MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS The following is a summary of concerns and questions which were raised at the public hearings on September 25 and September 26. The first part of the memorandum summarizes issues which are of a general nature,and do not relate to specific sites. The second part of the memorandum considers issues relating to specific sites on the proposed zoning maps. For each of these issues, staff has prepared a response and recommendation for the Planning Commission's review during the Commission's deliberations on the Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments on October 2. It should be noted that several persons who spoke during the public hearings on September 25 and September 26 spoke in favor of the staff proposal. Staff has not responded to this testimony, since the rationale for the staff proposal is already included in the September 19 staff report to the Commission. This memorandum will respond to those issues which either need to be further clarified, or where persons testified in support of an issue which was not consistent with the staff proposal. A. GENERAL ISSUES Issue 1: Animals in Residential Zones - WilI annexation to the City of Kent effect residents ability to keep animals? Discussion: Many residents of the Meridian annexation area have expressed concern about the . City of Kent policies and regulations for keeping animals in residential zones. Kent's regulations are very basic compared to those of King County. The King County Zoning Code provides number limits and confinement standards for small and large animals related to property size, standards for aviary and beehives, kennels, and 21011h AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASH INGTOX 9SO3_'-5895/TELEPHONE C061359-3�00/FAX#S59-)7 i4 Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 2 catteries,and property line setback requirements for livestock buildings. It provides livestock density regulations, and provisions for livestock-farm management plans for pasture management,watering,wetland, and stream management, confinement area , and waste management. The only Kent zoning code reference to animals is Section 15.08.070 which states: Animals (excluding household pets such as cats and dogs), especially horses, cows, sheep and goats, shall not be permitted in residential districts on lots smaller than twenty thousand square feet." Beyond the Zoning Code regulation,the Kent Municipal Code provides for regulation of noise, and animal nuisances, such as failure to confine animals properly, vicious animals, and contagious diseases. The City at this time does not plan to revise the zoning code provisions for animals. In the future, and as population growth occurs,the City will respond as necessary to maintain compatibility between land uses,including the keeping of animals on residential property. Issue 2: Issue: Nonconforming Uses (Evans) Discussion Mr. Evans was concerned about the status of Lake Meridian Village which is a condominium complex located in an area recommended for single family residential use. Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use in the recommended zone, however, because the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status,the Lake Meridian Village is a legal use.. The exception states: "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." Lake Meridian Village was established prior to 1984, and therefore qualifies for the exemption.. Other Meridian residents and property owners have inquired about nonconformance provisions in the Kent Zoning Code. The following is a general comparison of the City of Kent and King County regulations: Nonconformance is provided for in the Kent zoning code in much the same manner as the King County zoning code with some significant differences, including the residential exception quoted above. In each code,the nonconformance provisions do not relieve a property owner from compliance with Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Nor do the nonconformance provisions relieve a property owner from conformance with other provisions of the zoning code beyond the specific . nonconformance being addressed in particular situation. Uses, structures, lots and signs which were lawfully established in Kent prior to June 20, 1973, or which were lawfully established prior to the effective date of the King County Zoning Code and rendered nonconforming by annexation are considered legal but non-conforming to Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Page 3 the present codes and standards. Uses, structures and site improvements which were not established in compliance with the zoning code use regulations and development standards in force at the time of establishment are not considered nonconforming,but are illegal and subject to code enforcement. In King County, nonconforming structures may be repaired or reconstructed if they are not expanded and the building permit for reconstruction or repair is submitted within twelve months of damage or destruction. In Kent, in the event of natural disasters which damage the nonconforming structure more than 50% of the market value,the structure may not be restored or reconstructed except according to specific criteria as approved by the Planning Director. King County regulations provide for re-establishment of a discontinued nonconforming use if the use is re-established within 12 months, but Kent regulations do not allow a non-conforming use to be resumed after six months of abandonment. Subject to certain conditions and criteria, expansions of nonconforming uses may be authorized in both King County and Kent by the conditional use permit process. For information regarding specific nonconforming uses or structures, the public should contact the Planning Department. -• Issue 3: Sensitive Area Development Regulations Discussion: The City of Kent uses several tools to regulate development within environmentally sensitive areas. Section 15.08.220 thru 15.08.224 of the Kent Zoning Code is intended to "regulate the location and density of development based on known physical constraints, and to preserve or enhance water quality in the city's watercourses.". This section of the code provides regulations for development on steep slopes, lakes, minor and major creeks, and seismic hazard areas. The Kent Wetlands Management Code (Section 11.05 of the Kent City Code) is intended to "protect the public health, safety, and welfare by preserving, protecting, and restoring wetlands through the regulation of development and other activities within them and wetland buffers so that nuisances or threats to safety are not created, and natural wetland functions and values are not degraded..." Finally, the Kent Shoreline Master Program regulates development within 200 feet of the shorelines of statewide significance (Lake Meridian, Green River). "The Shoreline Management Act (Ch.90.58 RCW) provides for the management and protection of the state's shoreline resources by planning for reasonable and appropriate uses." Using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS), hazard areas, creeks, and wetlands have been mapped within the city limits. This includes topographic contour lines at five foot intervals. The City currently has information on creeks Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 4 and topography for most of the Meridian area. However, wetlands and hazard areas have not yet been delineated. The City is currently working with King County to acquire additional information on Meridian sensitive areas. The Kent Public Works Department will be working with their counterparts at the County to insure a smooth transition of standards between the two jurisdictions. The Water Quality division of the Public Works Department administers the City's wetland and stormwater regulations. The Planning Department monitors development in specified hazard areas, including lakes and creeks. B. MAPPING ISSUES Map Site 1: Kent Kangley Commercial (Widen er/Ormiston/Huston/Burp ee/Wils on) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kent Kangley Road/154th Avenue SE? Staff Recommendation: No change Discussion: Owners of two properties testified that they would like to change their proposed zoning from R1-12.0 to CC, Community Commercial. In addition, a suggestion was made to "square off' the revised commercial zoning bounce to include two other properties in the area; the owner of one of these parcels objected to the revised boundary. The existing King County zoning in this area is Urban Reserve, 1 DU per acre. (This area is being proposed by King County for rezoning to R6 - 6 DU per acre.) The proposed zoning by staff is R1-12.0 which allows approximately 3-3 1/2 units per acre. At this time,the only access to these properties is from the south via 154th Avenue SE which is through a residential area. Staff does not recommend converting single family zoned land to commercial in this area. Map Site 2: 25840 135th Lane SE, Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis). Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning. Staff Recommendation: Retain SF 6 Comprehensive Plan recommendation, and R19.6 zoning designation, as recommended by staff in Alternative 3. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 5 Discussion: Lake Meridian Cabins property is located at the northeast end of Lake Meridian. The property is developed with nineteen residences,including a house near the south an west property lines, and eighteen small cottages located near the north and west property lines. The King County Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the property is four to twelve dwelling units per acre. The County zoning designation is R-4 Residential (four dwelling units per acre). Four dwellings per acre is consistent with County policy to base densities on land characteristics. Lands which contain or which are in close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, such as the north shore of Lake Meridian and the Soos Creek Corridor, received a maximum density recommendation of four homes per acre. The City of Kent Alternative 3, the staff-recommended alternative for the Lake Meridian Cabins recommends a Comprehensive designation of SF-6 (Single Family Residential, six units per acre) and a zoning designation of Rl 9.6 (Single Family Residential, 9600 square foot minimum lot size. The zero lot line option is currently available under Kent Zoning Code regulations for a site area of five acres or larger. The Kent Zoning Code does not contain provisions for 10 dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The general policy of the City is to avoid creating additional multifamily-zoned property unless the property in question is already developed with multifamily dwellings. Considering the location of the Meridian Cabins property, adjacent to the shores of Lake Meridian, within a large general area of Rl 9.6 recommended zoning; and considering general City policies regarding the creation of additional multifamily property, staff recommends retaining the staff-recommended Alternative 3 Comprehensive plan and zoning designations of six dwellings per acre and a 9600 square foot maximum lot size. Map Site 3: Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) Issue: Should this area be changed from single family residential to commercial? Staff Recommendation: Remain single-family residential. Discussion: The Shady Park grocery is located at 27848 152nd Avenue SE, at the northeast comer of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 280th Street. The site contains a grocery store and an auto repair use. The owner testified at the September 26 hearing that the Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 6 grocery store has been in existence since 1920, and that the auto repair use has been operating since 1940. This being the case, both uses are likely legal and nonconforming, since the site is currently zoned as Urban Reserve in King County (one dwelling unit per 5 acres). The general area surrounding the site is zoned and developed as very low density single-family. The legal, non-conforming status of the uses on the site will continue if the site is zoned for single-family use upon annexation into the City,meaning that the uses may continue to operate on the site. Designating the site as commercial would allow an expanded number of commercial uses on the site if the ownership were to change, and would create a commercial zoning designation in the middle of a low density single-family area. Furthermore, auto repair is not a permitted use in the NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) zone, meaning that making this use conforming would require a CC (Community Commercial) or GC (General Commercial) zoning designation. Map Site 4: 28040 152nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issue: Should this area be changed from SF-3 and R1-12 to SF-6 and R1-7.2? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-3 and RI-12 Discussion: This property currently has a farm use with some retail sales also being undertaken. The property is zoned Urban Reserve, 1 dwelling unit per five acres. King County staff has proposed, as part of the Soos Creek Urban Reserve study. The owner is requesting a similar designation in Kent,which would be R1-7.2. The staff proposal shows this area designated as SF-3 and R1-12,respectively. This recommendation was based on the idea of allowing higher densities than the current zoning designations in King County allow, while providing something of a transitional zoning designation between the R1-7.2 zoning south of SE 272nd Street and the RA areas along SE 288th Street. Also, the analysis of household capacity and targets for the overall area shows that a density of R1-7.2 in this largely undeveloped area would not be necessary to meet the projected targets for the area. However, after additional research, it appears that the area could be served adequately with water and sewer facilities at an R1-7.2 zoning density, and there are , . no major environmental constraints in this general area. Therefore, staff would not oppose a designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 for this area if the Commission decides•to make this change. If the plan and zoning designations are amended,the boundaries -• of the amended area should be a larger area than just the property in question. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 Page 7 Map Site 5: 26626 132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow a nursery as a principally permitted use? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and RI-7.2 Discussion: The owner of the property operates a nursery, which has been in existence for approximately 12 years. The site is currently zoned R6,Residential 6 units per acre. The nursery is apparently legal and nonconforming at the current time, and the proposed designation of R1-7.2 would preserve that status upon annexation into the City,meaning that the nursery could continue in operation. The zoning designations in the City which would allow a nursery as a permitted use are either agricultural zones (such as Al and RA) or commercial zones (such as NCC or CC), and these designations do not seem appropriate for this area, which is developed for the most part with single-family residential development. Map Site 6: 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) Issue: Should this property be designated for office use, instead of single- family residential? Staff Recommendation: Retain single family designation The owner gave testimony regarding his property located at 12633 SE 270th Street which covers approximately 16.5 acres of land. The owner requested professional office zoning due to his property's location adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road and environmental constraints on a large portion of the site. Staff has recommended R1-7.2 zoning for this property. A large wetland area and streams are located on most of the subject property. According to the owner, a small portion of the site adjacent to Kent-Kangley Road is higher than the rest of the property, and would make a suitable building site for offices. Staff has good information regarding streams, wetlands, and topography within the existing city limits, but detailed wetland information is not yet available in the Meridian area. Information that the City currently has does show streams on the property and shows a bench of higher elevation along the northeast portion of the site. However, field investigations, usually including a wetland delineation and mitigation plan, are required of all projects locating on a lot with wetlands, or impacting nearby wetlands. Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 8 At this time, staff is recommending that the proposed R1-7.2 zoning be retained until that time additional information pertaining to wetland boundaries, type, and buffers can be provided and reviewed. Staff recognizes the limitations to developing a single family subdivision on the property, but does not feel extending Office zoning, with the necessary commercial Comprehensive Plan designation, would be desirable along the entire frontage of this property. If in the future it can be shown that a portion of the property is suitable for intense development, the owner will be able to apply for a Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendment based on this information. Map Site 7: Clark Lake (Lake, Mills Goldberg, Grajewski) Issue: Concern about the future of the property by King County for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake. Discussion: The Kent Comprehensive Plan,like the King Comprehensive County Plan, assigns high priority to the acquisition and maintenance of both active and passive recreation sites. It provides for incorporation of unique ecological features and resources into the park system to protect wildlife habitat and preserve sensitive aquatic areas. The open space adjacent to Clark Lake was acquired as implementation of the King County Open Space Plan. The City of Kent plans to maintain the space as a passive park, in accordance with the original intent of the purchase. At this time, the Kent Parks Department does not have a specific plan for development of the park, but use of the open space will include picnic areas, lake access, and trails. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan provides for increasing natural areas and open space linkages around Clark Lake and other open space areas, but there are no immediate plans to acquire additional property near Clark Lake. Map Site 8: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue: Should the designation of the property be revised to RI-7.2 from R1-9.6? Staff Recommendation: Revise the recommended zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property within the RI 7.2 zone. Discussion: A review of the King County Critical Areas maps and a site visit revealed no significant reason for the lower density designation on Mr. Kuehlthau's property. The property is uneven and hilly and contains what appears to be an intermittent Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission 4CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Page 9 drainage channel, but the Class 2 stream indicated on the sensitive areas maps is located on the east side of 124th Avenue SE, and crosses to the west side of 124th Avenue north of the Kuehlthau property. Since there are no significant environmental constraints, and the area in question is located adjacent to Rl 7.2-recommended property along the west and south property lines, staff recommends that the boundary line between the RI 9.6 and RI 7.2 zones be revised as shown on the attached map. Map Site 9: East Side of 116th Avenue SE/S of St 240th Street (Richardson) Issue: Request that approximately 1.4 acres be rezoned to MRM to allow senior housing Staff Recommendation: Retain 111-7.2 Discussion: • The property owner in this case requests that the proposed zoning for approximately 1.4 acres be changed from R1-7.2 to MRM,Medium density Multifamily to permit senior housing/retirement housing to be built. The property is currently zoned R6 (6 DU per acre)in King County. The staff has proposed R1-7.2 zoning to be consistent with the existing County zoning. Also, this general area was the'subj ect of much discussion during the review of the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. While the Ranniger parcel to the north was given a Neighborhood Services designation to acknowledge an existing business office,the remainder of the area was designated for single family residential. In addition, if the proposal is to construct retirement housing for senior citizens,this use is a conditional use in the Rl zone and may be authorized by conditional use permit. A rezone to multifamily is not necessary. Therefore, staff does not recommend a change in proposed zoning. Map Site 10: Property located in southwest corner of annexation area (Pawlowski) Issue: Request to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-20 Discussion: The property owner-favors low density,single family residential zoning which would be consistent with the current Urban Reserve (i DU per 5 acres) zoning of King Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 10 County. The proposed City zoning is R1-20 (1 DU per 1/2 acre). The City of Kent does not have a zoning classification equivalent to that of the County; the RA zone (1 unit per acre) is the least density residential zone in the City. The area where this parcel is located was proposed for R1-20 zoning because it is contiguous with the Ramstead annexation area where the City recently applied Rl-20 zoning. Map Site 11: 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue: Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses? Staff Recommendation: Keep designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 Discussion: This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The property is currently zoned R6, Residential 6 units per acre. There are some small scale commercial and office uses located at the comer of SE 240th and 116th Avenue SE; otherwise the prevalent development pattern in the area is single-family residential. During consideration of the Comprehensive Plan,the Planning Commission and City Council considered a proposal to change the land use designation along the west side of 116th Avenue SE south of SE 240th Street to commercial. The Council chose to keep this area designated for single-family development. The staff proposed land use designation of SF-6 and R1-7.2 is consistent with this earlier decision, is consistent with the existing County plan and zoning designations, and is consistent with the land use pattern of the area. Map Site 12: Multifamily Zoning of undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) Issue: Request to retain existing County multifamily zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Staff Recommendation: Retain R1-5.0 Discussion: By letter dated 8-28-95, the property owner(Reid) of four parcels located adjacent to the Lake Meridian Shopping Center at Kent Kangley Road/132nd Avenue SE requests that these parcels retain multifamily zoning. The four parcels are currently Kent Morrill, Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Page 11 zoned R24 (24 units per acre)in King County,with a small portion of the site zoned R48 (48 units per acre). The staff proposed zoning map indicates R1-5.0, single family residential, 8 units per acre, with a portion of one parcel proposed for CC, Community Commercial zoning. The site is currently undeveloped. Portions of the site (east and northern sides) are low and not well drained. Cottonwood trees cover much of the higher portions of the site. Access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Ave SE which intersects at an angle with Kent Kangley Road. One of the land use planning objectives for the Meridian annexation area, as expressed through City Council resolution#1420, is to retain and protect its single family residential character. Zoning this site for high density single family use (such as the proposed Ri-5.0) should better protect such neighborhood character than high density multifamily zoning (such as R24 and R48). Staff will be prepared at the October 2 meeting to make presentations on the new issues analyzed, and answer questions from the Planning Commission on the issues previously discussed. If you have any questions prior to the meeting,please call Fred Satterstrom or Kevin O'Neill at 859-3390. Attachment cc: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin ONeill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner rz- M 1z O � 5 Jar Iasi �! p p R JJ M= a e O W O k Atl 51 s 3nv axzs 02 axo u r� F j c• E Q r{(� � 3AY N D%t x aD .Jr 6 "ti w R r ❑ e r'•' JAY YAJeI n U Y co u J• f � o Cv m � c � c e k K E• x JAY wtotlt (r11yY t• gg V �r O " R L 4 � O R O O Y 6 R 07 O � 4 ¢ � Ag n C�2 r M M C r r E 0. y J O 'Ri w IS i ^as aAY HSi2T " HIM U lJl_JV 000 t © C� x JAY M1Y Dn El E. C " Ml E" x AY tt N E• � � N N N s anv azrr cv --� d Y(yp, °j 3s aAY HS80r x JAYNIppt ]OF as snr aaioT (�j�� PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 CITY OF CITY OF Z,Q\Lt!2 � CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM September 19, 1995 TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: FRED SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPOSED MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING, #CPA-95-1 AND #AZ-95-3 Introduction In August 1995, the City Council approved the annexation of the area known as the Meridian Annexation into the City of Kent. This action by the City Council was the culmination of a long process undertaken by a group of citizens in the Lake Meridian area, and represents the largest annexation by petition ever completed in the State of Washington. The Meridian annexation area encompasses approximately 5.27 square miles (or 3,373 acres), and extends east from the existing city limits at 116th Avenue SE to Big Soos Creek. The northern boundary of the annexation area is SE 240th Street, while the southern boundary is SE 288th Street (see vicinity map). The annexation area encompasses the southeastern portion of the City's Potential Annexation Area, which is designated in the City's Comprehensive PIan. The Meridian annexation area is scheduled to become part of the City of Kent on January 1, 1996. As part of the City's effort to have services in operation for the area by January 1, the City has undertaken a pre-annexation zoning process. In order to meet this timeline, public hearings on zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be held in September by the Planning Commission. Following the Planning Commission hearings and a recommendation by the Commission, two hearings will be held by the City Council. By state law, these hearings must be held 30 days apart from one another. Therefore, the first Council hearing will be in mid-October, while the second hearing will be in mid-November. The Council must adopt an ordinance by the end of November in order for the zoning to be in effect by January 1. The City of Kent adopted its Comprehensive Plan under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in April, 1995. As mentioned above, the plan included a potential annexation area (PAA) for the city. The plan also included a Land Use Plan Map in the Land Use Element, which designated land uses for the entire PAA. Therefore, the Land Use Plan Map 1 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 includes land use designations for the Meridian annexation area. The GMA requires that all development regulations adopted by a jurisdiction must implement, and be consistent with, the comprehensive plan(RCW 36.70A.120). This means that the zoning for the Meridian annexation area must be consistent with the Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan. While it is anticipated that the zoning being proposed (and ultimately adopted) for the area will be generally consistent with the Land Use Plan Map, it will be necessary to make some amendments, and also necessary to update the land use designations so that they are consistent with the designations for the rest of the City. Therefore, this project includes an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, as well as an amendment to the zoning map. Both the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments will be considered concurrently, since they must be consistent with one another. This report will outline background information on the Meridian annexation area, including a discussion of the existing King County comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the area, and how they compare to Kent's respective plan and zoning designations. The report will then outline three alternatives for both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and the City's zoning map for the Planning Commission's consideration. It should be emphasized that the Planning Commission and City Council will be asked to review and adopt both an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations for the annexation area. Background The comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Meridian annexation area have changed twice in the past five years. In 1991, the King County Council adopted the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning, which encompassed the entire Soos Creek Community Planning Area, and included the Meridian annexation area. The zoning which was adopted at the time of the Soos Creek Plan was distinguished by, among other things, the creation of growth reserve areas. These growth reserve areas, which allowed either 1 unit per 2.5 acres or 1 unit per 5 acres, were designed to phase growth throughout the area. Some of the growth reserve areas were assigned underlying densities, which became effective on December 31, 1994. In December, 1994, the County Council adopted the King County Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The County also adopted new zoning designations at the same time that the plan was adopted, and the new zoning went into effect in February, 1995. The new zoning was most notable for designating residential areas based on density, as opposed to uses. These current County zoning designations are described in greater detail later in the report. 2 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 When the County adopted their comprehensive plan, housing and employment targets were established for each community planning area and for the County as a whole, just as they were established for Kent in the City's comprehensive plan. The housing target for the portion of the Soos Creek area located within the urban growth area ranged from 8,600 to 9,600 households. The Meridian annexation area represents a significant portion of the urban land in the Soos Creek area. Staff has analyzed the Soos Creek household targets designated to each Small Analysis Zone (SAZ) by King County. It appears that the target for the Meridian area would fall within the range of 1,700 to 2,000 households in the next twenty years. Staff feels that more coordination needs to be done with King County and the other cities located in the Soos Creek area on distribution of targets. This is supported by LU-8 of the City's plan, which states: The City of Kent adopts a 20 year housing target of 7,500 new dwelling units within the existing city limits. Coordinate with King County through an interlocal agreement on housing targets in the unincorporated area with Kent's Potential Annexation Area. This interlocal agreement has not yet been completed. It the interim, however, it appears that a target range of 1,700 to 2,000 new households in the Meridian annexation area is reasonable. It should be noted that ultimately a new housing target will be adopted by the city, to account for other recent annexations, and to be more consistent with the ranges listed in the Countywide Planning Policies. Staff has also analyzed the existing County zoning with regard to building capacity. Using data provided by the County for both vacant and underdeveloped land, it appears that adequate zoning capacity currently exists to support a target of 1,700 to 2,000 units. However, the "cushion" shrinks substantially at the higher end of the range for existing zoning. Therefore, while all three zoning alternatives presented in the report would provide capacity to meet this interim target, Alternative 2 and 3 would provide more of a cushion to ensure that this target could be achieved. Existing Land Uses The existing land use pattern in the Meridian Annexation Area is typical of most suburban neighborhoods. The predominate existing land use is detached single family residential. However, most uses, excluding those of an industrial nature, are represented. The most intense and dense land uses are clustered around two nodes on Kent-Kangley Road. The intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 132nd Ave SE includes two multi-tenant commercial centers with adjacent multifamily residential development. The largest multifamily complex in this area, 3 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #{CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 the Springwood apartments, contains 350 units in 41 separate structures. The commercial uses include a supermarket, restaurants,pub and tavern, clothing stores, and other services. The area around the intersection of Kent-Kangley Road and 152nd Ave SE includes existing commercial uses and single family,multifamily,and mobile home park housing. The Lake Meridian apartments contain 175 units, and the Cascade Villa Mobile Home Park has 130 units. Tne commercial uses in this area are smaller than those at the node located at 132nd Ave SE and are of a personal service/retail nature. Numerous single family residential subdivisions are within the annexation area. Lot sizes in these subdivisions are similar to those within subdivisions inside the existing city limits with.a few exceptions. In some cases, subdivisions developed under county regulations, which allow lot averaging and clustering, may have lot sizes smaller than those in a city subdivision within a ns have been given credit for land set aside for open comparable zoning district. These subdivisio space tracts or public road dedication. The City is currently proposing similar single family residential development standards. The overall density in these areas is still held to a maximum underlying density established for each zoning district. Dispersed among the subdivisions are many large tracts of land. Several of these parcels are used for large farms including livestock grazing/exercising areas. Other large tracks of land are simply vacant or occupied by a single residence and accessory buildings. In many cases these large parcels are surrounded by developed single family subdivisions. These large vacant and underdeveloped parcels of land greatly contribute to what people perceive as rural character within this urban designated environment. There are several existing nonconforming uses located in the Meridian Annexation Area. These uses _ are mainly of a small retail and service variety. Several of these uses are located along Kent- Kangley Road and 144th Ave SE. Section 15.0S.100 of the Kent Zoning Code outlines the Cirv's regulations pertaining to nonconforming development. This section provides protection to uses, lly established pursuant to a county resolution in structures, lots, or signs which have been lawfu effect at the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming. Generally, a use which was legal and/or legally established under the applicable county regulations,will continue to have a reasonable opportunity to continue its operations. This will be true regardless of what the new City zoning is. This protection is not offered to uses which were not lawfully established or expanded in King County. Other potential nonconforming uses at the time of annexation are Planned Unit Developments(PUD) previously located in single family zoning districts within the county. These developments,which 4 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 contain attached and multiple dwelling units, are currently not allowed in City's single family zoning districts, but are likely to continue with single family zoning upon annexation. Description of Existing King County Zoning The existing King County zoning is predominantly residential. Within the annexation area, all properties north of Lake Meridian are classified R-4, or four dwelling units per acre. Most residential properties south of Lake Meridian are classified R-6, or six dwelling units per acre. Areas of higher residential density are found adjacent to two commercial activity centers, Kent Highlands center,zoned Community Business (CB), and Lake Meridian center, zoned Neighborhood Business (NB); both are located adjacent to SE 272nd Street. Residential parcels adjacent to the Lake Meridian center are designated for 12, 24, and 48 units per acre. Residential areas adjacent to the Kent Highlands centers are zoned for densities of 18 and 24 units per acre. An area south and west of the Kent Highlands center is designated R-4, or 4 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the annexation area contains five areas which are zoned Urban Reserve, one dwelling unit per 5 acres. Urban Reserve zoning is found in the following locations: (1) around Clark Lake, extending south to SE 256th Street, with a narrow extension to SE 259th Street; (2)North of the Kent Highlands commercial activity center, extending from approximately SE 263rd Street south to approximately SE 268th, between 128th and 132nd Avenues SE; (3) between Kent Kangley Road and SE 272nd Street, from 118th Avenue SE to 132nd Avenue SE; (4) from SE 276th Street to SE 280th Street. between 104th Avenue SE and 120th Avenue SE; (5) between 141st to 156th Avenues SE, extending from approximately SE 275th,280th and 272nd Streets south to SE 288th Street and State Route 18. As mentioned in the background section of this report, the Urban Reserve zoning designation is a planning strategy which the County used in the 1991 Soos Creek Plan and Area Zoning, and throughout the County, to phase urban growth. The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) recommends lifting all Urban Reserve zoning because it is considered inconsistent with the KCCP-recommended capital improvement strategy for phasing growth. Urban residential zoning is recommended, but not yet adopted in Soos Creek. The recommended densities for the Urban Reserves within the Meridian Annexation Area, in the same order as the location descriptions in the previous paragraph, are as follows: (1) R-4-P and R-6-P, four and six dwelling units per acre; (2) R-8-P, eight dwelling units per acre; (3) R-4-P, four dwelling units per acre; (4) R-4-P; four dwelling units per acre; (5) R-6-P, six dwelling units per acre. The County has cited several reasons for these proposed increased densities, including the fact that lands within the Urban Growth Area(UGA) are required by the County Wide Planning Policies to be characterized by urban development, and the fact that most lands surrounding the Urban Reserve-zoned lands are zoned R4-P and R-6-P. In addition, urban level services are available to, or planned for, the Urban 5 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Reserve parcels. In some cases,however,the urban reserve areas contain environmentally sensitive lands which will not develop to maximum permitted densities. Comparison of King County and Kent Zoning Designations A list of existing County zoning designations assigned to the Meridian Annexation Area, and the most closely corresponding City of Kent zoning designations is attached to this report (see Key to Zoning Districts). Some characteristics of the Kent zoning alternatives proposed for the Meridian Annexation Area are comparable to County zoning districts, and other characteristics are N'e different. The King County Neighborhood Business (NB) and Community Business (CB) zones compare generally to the Kent Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) and Community Commercial zones. The King County residential zones generally correspond to Kent Residential zones with the following differences: 1. Residential districts in Kent are separately distinguished as single family and multi- family zones. King County residential zoning is inclusive of detached single family and attached and "stacked" multifamily dwelling units. 2. The maximum number of detached single family dwellings which may be developed on a parcel of land in Kent is determined by the overall area divided b a minimum lot size specified for each zone. The number of attached or stacked dwelling units which may be located on multi-family-zoned property is determined by the overall area divided by a minimum area allotted for each unit proposed. In each case, streets and utilities are subtracted from the overall gross area. In contrast, The King County zoning code bases the determination of the maximum number of dwelling units to be developed on a specific property on the Comprehensive Plan recommended density. Regardless of the amount of land required for streets gad utilities, the maximum number of lots is permitted. No minimum lot size is specified. 3. The King County Zoning Code contains provisions for residential density bonuses, based on open space preservation or other public benefits. The Kent Zoning Code has no provisions for residential density bonuses. 4. The P suffix attached to designations such as R-4-P on the King County Maps which refer to the proposed zoning for the Growth Reserve areas, indicates a zoning overlay which provides for property-specific development standards to address individual properties or specifically defined geographic areas that are not adequately 6 KEY TO ZONING DISTRICTS (Each zone is listed opposite the most similar zone in the other jurisdiction) -,�itv of Kent King Countv RA Residential Agricultural R-1 Urban Residential 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre R1-20 Single Family Residential NA 2 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-12 Single Family Residential NA 3 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-9.6 Single Family Residential R-4 Urban Residential 4 Dwelling Units per Acre 4 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-7.2 Single Family Residential R-6 Urban Residential 6 Dwelling Units per Acre 6 Dwelling Units per Acre R1-5.0 Single Family Residential R-8 Urban Residential 8 Dwelling Units Per Acre 8 Dwelling Units per Acre '4RD Duplex Multifamily Residential R-12 Urban Residential Approximately 10 Dwelling Units 12 Dwelling Units per Acre Per Acre MRG Garden Density Multifamily Residential R-18 Urban Residential 16 Dwelling Units per Acre 18 Dwelling Units per Acre MRM Medium Density Multifamily Residential R-24 Urban Residential 23 Dwelling Units per Acre 24 Dwelling Units per Acre MRH High Density Multifamily Residential R-48 Urban Residential 40 Dwelling Units per Acre 48 Dwelling Units per Acre CC Community Commercial CB Community Business NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial NB Neighborhood Business O Professional and Office O Office NA UR Urban Reserve 0.2 Dwelling Units'per Acre )r the purposes of this chart, "Dwelling Units" refers to principal dwelling units. Accessory dwelling units and cluster housing are not addressed in this definition chart. zd.cht Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 addressed by general minimum requirements. There is no similar overlay in the Kent Zoning Code. 5. Since Kent is an urban area,the Kent Zoning Code does not contain large lot zoning designations for natural resource lands, such as RA 5,Rural Area, one dwelling unit per 5 acres.. The Residential Agricultural or RA zone, one dwelling unit per acre, is the designation used in the Kent zoning alternatives to assign the lowest available residential density. Environmental Characteristics The Meridian Annexation Area is located on Kent's East Hill (aka, Soos Creek) plateau and can be generally characterized as rolling terrain. Elevations are approximately between 400 and 600 feet above sea level. There are several significant environmental features in the area including Lake Meridian, Clark Lake, Soos Creek and its tributaries, wetlands, and significant trees and habitat areas. The Kent Zoning Code and other City regulations provide protection to and guide development in sensitive areas. Lake Meridian is a shoreline of statewide significance, and development within 200 feet of its ordinary high water mark and/or associated wetlands is governed by the Shoreline Management Act(Ch.90.58 RCW)and the City of Kent Shoreline Master Program. Staff has mapped hazard areas, wetlands, streams, and lakes within the city using its Geographic Information System (GIS). Some information pertaining to the Meridian area is currently available, but it is not as extensive as what is available within the existing city limits. The City is planning to update its database during the fall and winter to include all relevant topographical and environmental data. The City is also working with King County to exchange data where compatible. In some instances, King County and City of Kent development standards differ within sensitive areas. Buffers, setbacks, and impervious surface standards vary between jurisdictions. The City is discussing with the County appropriate measures for coordinating standards insuring a smooth transition between jurisdictions. Public Participation - Meridian Open House To get input on zoning issues from Meridian area residents, an Open House was held at Meridian Elementary School on August 24, 1995. Over 200 persons attended the open house and of these, 125 persons filled out survey questionnaires covering land use planning and related issues. Of those who filled out the questionnaire, the vast majority were long-term residents (> 10 years residency) who lived or owned property in the Meridian area. Survey responda.nts mentioned 7 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 "rural atmosphere" and 'open space" as the two most important factors for living in the Meridian area. In terms of zoning issues, preservation of single family residential neighborhoods was the most important, with preservation of open space and the management of traffic congestion also receiving a high number of responses. Survey respondants were asked about their opinions of County zoning policy. Over 80% of respondants indicated dissatisfaction with County zoning. Follow-up questions indicated that respondants felt County zoning allowed too much residential density and did not adequately protect neighborhoods. Four zoning alternatives were highlighted at the meeting and survey respondants were asked to identify their preference. Zoning Alternative 1 simply converted existing County zoning to the most comparable City zoning classification. In this alternative, existing urban reserve zoning was given a City zoning of RA (the lowest density City classification). Zoning Alternative 2 was similar to Alternative 1 except in the urban reserve areas. In these areas, residential zoning densities reflected the zoning recommendations which were proposed for each urban reserve area by King County staff. Zoning Alternative 3 retained existing zoning densities for much of the developed area of Meridian, but lowered the permitted density for many undeveloped properties. In this alternative, all undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a small lot, single family designation. Zoning Alternative 4 allowed higher densities than Alternative 3 particularly in single family areas. Also, existing undeveloped multi-family zoned parcels were given a comparable City zoning classification. Based on the survey results, Zoning Alternative 1 was the preferred alternative (with 47 votes). Alternative 4 (with 20 votes) was the second most preferred alternative. Alternative 2 received 15 votes and Alternative 3 received 11. Ironically, while over 80% of survey respondants were dissatisfied with existing County zoning policy, over half of respondants preferred the alternative which was most like the existing County zoning pattern. Description of Zoning Alternatives As mentioned above, staff prepared four zoning alternatives for review at the August 24 open house. After reviewing the survey results, staff narrowed the number of alternatives to three for purpose of this report. The first two alternatives analyzed here were presented at the open house (numbered at that time as Alternative 1 and Alternative 4, respectively). Alternative 1 was included because it represents the existing zoning pattern in the area, and was the alternative which received the most votes in the survey. Alternative 4 (now labelled as Alternative 2) was included because it represented a clear distinction from Alternative 1, reflects much of what is i 8 i' I Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 currently being proposed for the urban reserve areas by King County staff, and was the alternative which received the second-highest number of votes in the survey. The third alternative was developed to reflect some characteristics of all four alternatives which were prepared for the open house, and to attempt to respond to the results of the survey. Maps for each zoning alternative are attached. Zoning Map - Alternative 1 Alternative 1 shows what the zoning in the Meridian annexation area would be if existing King County zoning was converted to the most comparable Kent zoning designations. In this alternative, each parcel in the area is zoned based on the Kent zoning designation which most closely approximates the parcel's current King County zoning designation. For example, if a parcel is currently zoned R6 (6 dwelling units per acre), it is shown as R1-7.2, which is the Kent zoning designation which allows roughly the same density. The exception is the area presently designated as Urban Reserve zoning in King County. These areas are currently zoned for 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the county. Kent does not have any zoning district which requires equivalent density. The zoning district in Kent with the lowest residential density is the RA (Residential Agriculture) district, which allows 1 dwelling unit per acre. Therefore, the existing Urban Reserve areas are designated RA in this alternative. Zoning Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would generally allow higher densities than would Alternative 1. For example, many of the areas currently zoned R4, and shown as R1-9.6 (single-family residential, 9,600 square foot minimum lot size) in the other two zoning alternatives, are shown as R1-7.2 (single-family residential, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size). This in many cases reflects the fact that many of the existing lots in these areas are less than 9,600 square feet. The parcels which are currently zoned for multi-family residential uses are designated as multi-family in this alternative, although in some cases at lower densities than current King County zoning allows (as shown in Alternative 1). The urban reserve areas are for the most part zoned the same as is currently being proposed by King County staff as part of the Soos Creek urban reserve zoning study(typically either R1-9.6 or R1-7.2), while the areas presently zoned RI are shown as R1-9.6, which would allow higher densities (approximately 4.5 units per acre, as opposed to i unit per acre). 9 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Zoning Map -Alternative 3 The third alternative represents something of a midpoint between the first two alternatives in terms of residential densities. Some areas are designated for very low-density development, although not to the extent that is shown in Alternative 1. The proposed RA zoning is generally located near environmentally sensitive areas (Clark Lake and Big Soos Creek), and are distinguished by land owned by public entities (King County or the State of Washington). The area along SE 288th Street is designated RA due to the large number of existing agricultural uses in this general area. Otherwise, the urban reserve areas are designated for slightly higher densities, although in some cases not as much as is shown in Alternative 2. In terms of the commercial multi-family nodes at 132nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road and at 152nd Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road, much of the existing multi-family-zoned land which is vacant or distinguished by some other use is zoned either commercial or high-density single-family. This is done in order to create a more consistent zoning pattern in these areas than presently exists, and to be consistent with the City's policies regarding multi-family development reflected in past actions (such as the 1989 Housing Study) and the Comprehensive Plan. Description of Land Use Plan Man Alternatives There have been three land use plan map alternatives prepared, in conjunction with the three zoning alternatives. Each land use plan alternative is designed to be consistent with its accompanying zoning alternative (for example, Zoning Alternative 1 would implement Land Use Plan Alternative 1, etc.). None of the land use map alternatives represents a radical departure from the existing Land Use Plan Map in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The main difference between these proposed alternatives and the existing plan map is that the existing plan map uses the County's land use designations, based on the policy direction provided by the City Council at the time the plan was adopted. The proposed alternatives use the same Iand use designations as are used in the existing city limits. These designations go into slightly more detail in terms of residential densities than do the County's designations. However, the overall land use pattern ' represented in these alternatives does not differ substantially from either the City's or the Countys existing plan. The three land use plan map alternatives have some things in common. In each, much of the developed single-family areas are designated SF-6, which could be implemented by either RI-9.6 or R1-7.2 zoning. Also, each alternative designates public facilities and publicly-owned open space areas. These areas will be zoned similarly to other properties, since the City does not have a "public" zoning district, so the zoning map will not reflect the location of public lands; however, the land use plan map will. 10 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Maps for each alternative are attached. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 1 This alternative is generally consistent with the County's land use plan, although the land use designations in the City are different than they are in the County. Much of the area would be designated SF-1, which would be implemented by the RA zoning designations shown on Zoning Alternative 1. The developed single-family neighborhoods are designated SF-6, as they will be in all three plan alternatives. The land use designations around the commercial nodes are a mix of commercial and multi-family residential, as reflected in the existing King County plan and zoning map. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is most distinguished from Alternative 1 by the lack of property designated as SF-1. Almost every area distinguished by single-family residential development is designated as SF-6, with the exception of two areas near the shopping center at 132nd and Kent-Kangley Road, which are designated as SF-8. Otherwise, this alternative is fairly similar to Alternative 1, with regard to the commercial and multi-family areas. Land Use Plan Map - Alternative 3 Alternative 3 presents the widest variety of single-family residential densities, with areas being designated SF-1, SF-3, SF-6, and SF-8. This alternative also has less land designated for multi- family development than the other alternatives, while it has more land designated for commercial development, since it designates some existing multi-family land as commercial. Also, unlike the other alternatives, the existing mobile home parks are designated as mobile home park on the plan map, as opposed to multi-family residential. nalvsis of Zoning and Land Use Plan Map Alternatives While Alternative 1 for both zoning and land use plan maps reflects the existing designations in King County, these existing policies are in a state of flux due to the policies in the King County Comprehensive Plan regarding the urban reserve areas. As stated previously, the County's plan calls for the elimination of urban reserve zoning, and this policy is currently being implemented in the County. The densities which are being recommended by County staff for the urban reserve areas, which are generally reflected in Alternative 2, are being guided by policies in the County's . plan regarding densities in the urban growth area. Among these policies are the following: - 11 F� J1 .� H Ma9Gl ZZ F-t , P:4 . E L wI O �►� g 3A Q a6. `r^✓ � I I6 ., WcHas C-0 In AWN M !+ C m `Y Cam. n l�,•/1 TI lV W C w m o 5 C ; J.O IDII tt\�_ 1rT «E-l � wa ` ,.v.Intl t�lli' VL o u Emi _!I r � �2 -L:Ab ullCl • ^ it ^� ?qlJAI a .a a �/F N M \ ul ( \�)I AO III Ck GV ri 35 3 .L Zl is,Ad ulOLlSL I 3S AY H.L9II ` rJ ai �� GaA"`��I Jc r.ull I tii i� J JSiAe.. tl F' 1 N S 3-1Y IH1<'I i h Q� +JA I nl ]L Jq +tlO: x J.e.Isol F { 35 3AY H1901 - � J J 3S 3AY f1140[ �� w I x IL qq 9 S p m 5 ;. it I as a.. aszs: z y In zz ZR_^v_ n { Im- it inoiQ �CCL.JI i y 3a AV H1yII' � al p, o-1�3.1V fuz:I 35 3.1tl 14180I _I �1601 zi MI�� 3S 3AV JUVOI F-717-7I ^I ji �--------�� U J V ,na 0 J� '> 3.\Y CN2Sl 3n wlBnl � �� vs. f"Y w 771p � , y p C U K X m C m O C'—+ � m S x .7 m EF N N m = 0 v a k �{ oc°9 „z„ mn r7s7 pc°iz ci ^J� u II �( is 3ne lnu i? ^d OU U][/] �J.rAv vc l +. l• l �1 1I .V re �� 1 m I I�I' ��//� 'f il^ 3f 3A.ulOtl � NY i I .� ` I� i is in.,lB�� s nl � I��I u �+I as ..v xieic O h F l :tl n+u 6,1 wl `rylJ CO �I N y 3S 3Atl H1801 �ni�� 3S 3Av 111h01 a•e ^ f aAe M{ v W gS a � 6 II �`S 3A d 'cS z,�{ Z X 3ne w1p11 35 O w N O n O N V ri n o .'i Z �O ��6 0 � I F � �n � ` o _ F GOO (. U +- e{nnl i5 A..{e.11 c' S r� " r U F W D35Dok F ,. = M X ys O C41 wnmm `m on � zu � is , i,el {ncl nI .1K0 �WA � go co � n3SS JAT H132t be II3S AT H1911 13 is I 'IL— In -1 3S :3AV 11180[ --=� 1p n••aal I� 39 3AV HtbSI oZ o VI PC ,...., p., a �a = 1 r Y� Ou i ve c.asl II L 3A QSZS. w M U �� Co t/SJz N1 F "il I o = ° t�q v 6 0 P L C k1 0 a Q Y 0 ` IL En c— V _ C_ tl � �>fla J2t � � �I (Il 1L� Ll � ate. IF 3S AV H1911 ci a� °Lj 3AV HSZI i co N n +�17 ,J NI 1 �n�� 3S 3AV H1401 z �. El O IL ol `-, 16 /�/� II IL9 3A W > > GV A 5 377 _ 0 0 G C CJX OG Gm G4 G Gm G< O < 'm p Y A N -4 uo .i Z Y 5 O ' I • ne ►.n. �� C o 0o Yz c ;i ]nv,.sc: a' W 6mmm � moSa � � r • p� � ,a+",P a y5 U �� �v N 3S 3AY HIt2t f/ _ .....is ,.. 74 3S ' 0001. 3:1t Hlyll v 11 y, s y d"1V HJ.'c f T Of I� +' T 34 3 J i AY H190[ „ xy ! Ni✓ � � •.of J 35 3nv ltt but f I(�1 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 King County shall seek to achieve through future planning efforts over the next twenty years, an average zoning density of at least seven to eight homes per acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types. A lower density zone may be used to recognize existing subdivisions with little or no opportunity for infiil or redevelopment. (Policy U-502, King County Comprehensive Plan) The City's Comprehensive Plan also contains policy language pertaining to residential density patterns. The plan outlines the following general policy: Provide in the land use plan adequate land and densities to accommodate both city and county housing targets with the Potential Annexation Area. Average net residential densities throughout the Potential Annexation Area should be at least four units per acre in order to adequately support urban services. (Policy LU-8.1) This policy, while encouraging single-family infill at urban densities, provides somewhat more flexibility in terms of plan densities throughout the City's PAA, particularly given that the plan contains areas for high density residential development in the downtown area and mixed use areas on the Valley Floor. In addition to the above policy, the City Council established policy guidelines for the Meridian annexation area prior to adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In January, 1995, the Council passed a resolution (Resolution No. 1420) which stated the following: It shall be the policy of the Kent City Council to retain the Meridian annexation area's predominantly single family residential character upon annexation into the City of Kent. As provided in the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan, the area will be planned and zoned for predominantly single family residential use, except in the commercial nodes at the intersections of Kent KangIey Road with 132nd Avenue SE and 152nd Avenue SE, together with existing or vested multifamily uses, all of which are currently indicated on the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation After review of these policies, as well as review of the survey results of the questionnaires collected at the August 24 open house, staff feels that Alternative 3 for both the land use plan map and zoning map should be the recommended alternative. 12 Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning, #CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 September 19, 1995 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Land Use Plan Map Alternative 3 as an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. 2. Recommend to the City Council adoption of Zoning Alternative 3 as an amendment to the City's Official Zoning Map, to go into effect on January 1, 1996. cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Linda Phillips, Planner _. 13 LETTER #I 4AZ-95-3 September 28, 1995 CPA-95-1 Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager RECEIVED City of Kent Planning Department 0 C T 0 2 1995 . 220 S. Fourth Ave. CITY OF KENT Kent, Wa 98632 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Planning Commission Public Hearing, September 25, 1995. Please accept the following input for incorporation by your staff and by the members of the Kent Planning Commission into the subject zoning: Our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Hearing. Specifically, we are concerned about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stormwater Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St and east of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Soos Creek 87". The southwest comer of the wetland as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stormwater storage and flood control. An earth dam or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stormwater facility will be turned over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trails, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and maintained by the County with citizen involvment. The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Altemative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single family, 5,000 nun. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the remaining Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should be one unit per acre. The zoning for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA(one unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (Open Space) and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistent with other areas shown on Alternative 3 (ie; the Clark Lake area). We bcheve that preservation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwater Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! -�(cioZb O �a a , wPr 95031 [���r r L,)A 9s'v3 / Ile A9JI /27y�'X --_ SE / 7 l - T, k/,a L112Jes � E — �- r, tic lA US( k2 ---;> 9 00 j J e '1 1 . cy 3 Ke-0 T l)}. (Wdq / l 4� 6 Subject: Meadian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands- September 28, 1995 SS- 27V L Avg 27 `` /I-L/e- S� v L �Ao / ' � fLY cp� Z/L C', 12:-4r` V-�vP S' 2(gL(V4 (I--1l AQFSr 14P P� I /M r� L)6- C Z�-437 I7-7` Ave'- A WA y$D3! �4 GG3 - SE - 7 1Z "j` v� vJA GLaLC� A -C! 1 , -) f-i OA . a36.3 i Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 ZL '47 11 -7 k-V�' si= SF p W P 6 � 3 ^ _ S-ZZ•/.Z M. 3nv O=Zrt 64'OZ C! •-M( ..~..-......- l..aL .q .I 5- .... Ln^ n 1 i j ` 1 i o IL W Zil- r L Z` I L y F y P{ :� I � J r.♦ R.�.s u�u - � N b vyy •_ twgaq � - �— I � V\ a O= _• . y 0. � .''• hfl90`bZ6Ole�-06018;dS OF t, a 39 3nY HL iiL!./ •r-i.�yi✓�. [. s_ S•c. ,fJr•- �• �r' ] t. Iw 35 3nv HI LLI lyi .r�... o' � P-..= o t �� � I a- n Z N'_It:�•. _ •�� r.. 1 ♦ s t w ".� J% � � I mod' ., ._ ". , _•� '1 1 (CONTINUED) September28, 1995 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 Fred Satterstr mi, Plamring Manager City of Kent Planning Department 220 S. Fourth Ave. Kent, Wa 98032 Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning-Meridian Meadows Wetlands Reference: Staff Proposed Alternative 3 presented at the Kent Plrng Commission Public Hearing September 25, 1995. Please accept the following'input for incorporation by your staff and by the members of the Kent Planning Commission into the subject zoning: Our concern is with the preservation and maintenance of existing wetland areas. This concern was expressed at the Referenced Healing. Specifically, we are concerned about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and Stormwatcr Storage Pond located north of S.E. 268th St. and cast of 128th Ave. S.E. (See attached map). This Wetland is identified in the King County Wetland Inventory as "Soon Creek 87". The southwest comer of the wetland as well as the stream which provides the major inflow to the wetland have been improved by King County to provide stomwater storage and flood control. An earth dam or berm has been constructed to provide a storage pond with a control gate on the outflow. The dam and control gate along with approximately half of the wetlands are on property owned by King County(Property Tax Account No. 282205-9312)which is about 4.7 acres. It is assumed that title and control of this Wetlands and Stormwater facility will be tamed Over to the City of Kent as part of the Annexation. As shown on the attached map, King County fenced and is maintaining the entire Wetlands. Trails, benches, interpretive signs, plants and trees have been installed and maintained by the County with citizen iiivohment. The Wetlands are used by various groups and individuals for recreation and education. The proposed Alternative 3 shows the area that includes the wetlands as R1-5.0 (single family, 5,000 min. lot) on the zoning map and as SF-8 (eight units per acre) on the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that the property owned by King County should be designated as open space and that the ring Wetlands area along with the adjacent property should be one unit per acre. The zoning for this area on the Zoning Map should be changed from R1-5.0 to RA(one unit per acre). The Comprehensive Plan should be changed to show the King County owned property as OS Subject: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning -Meridian Meadows Wetlands - September 28, 1995 (open Space) and the remaining area as SF-1 (one unit per acre). This would also be consistent with other areas shown on Alternative 3 (Le; the Clark Lake area). We befiove that preservation and maintenance of this Wetlands and Stormwater Facility is critical and must be identified and recognized in this initial Zoning activity. Please incorporate these changes into the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans. Thank you for your consideration! / GAO 9f1 W��O Tr 1 ecc0. 6. l ra(a �4fG3 (7 i AJ a il! JY cl N G- -Z/ - yg �7re S -4. - �SPtiY nf8-°3 � �iD�iS m zel /�C/P-i✓ l2 $ S�- S �. JCcS �F 1So31 ,� �/y�0- 4�S1�/146�p S.1; �g Ltx Subject: Meridian Amiexation Area Zoning-Meridian Mews wetlands- September 28, 1995 O W rl 2 'I • 3 S•Z Z•tF.M. BS AV ON I i I n I C\j . f' CQ i o Lij L I 3 I I C �- C.r � Y�F �` ••srr I r.rr.�,v ml'.. Y 1`\l _ . ! / , //J . 1 I 1 . ICJ�� � � f .I ••Q� � ?�-� X`O n.N-.R t0.1 N „• V ! - 3� e _ � qi I F---- -- - 0 .I .., n s• � ^ ; , ,` - �'\ �' vy _ Ill/\\\ \ . ` o i;fL9011Z6019 -06019C d57x cn 3S 7AV'N1 GZI./ ...>s:..,1 , /,? , , i I S.• LLJ ot 17 Z xi '; r' o {' 1• 35 3nv HI LZI U LJ 14 ER2 4CPA-95-1 October 2, 1995 L_ City of Kent Planning Commission 220 4th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 RE: Meridian Annexation Area Zoning Houston Property (Tax Ac. # 352205-9162-03) Dear Commission Members: The notice we received from the City of Kent regarding the initial zoning on my property showed it proposed for single family residential. At. the September 26th public hearing I testified that I wished to retain my property in single family zoning. I have lived in this house for 18 years and in the immediate neighborhood for 48 years. I stated that my desire is to .continue to live on my property. At the September 26th meeting I also heard my neighbors stating that they want to be zoned commercial. Because of this I have done some further thinking about my property. If the zoning is adopted as proposed in Alternative 1 by the Planning Department, I continue in my desire to stay zoned as single family. But if the Planning Commission decides to zone the properties adjacent to me as commercial, then I would also want to be zoned commercial. It would no longer be desirable for me to continue to live on my property if I am surrounded on three sides by commercial zoning. Thank you for your consideration of my request. If you have questions please call me or my grandaughter, Roxanne, at 631-0873. Sincerely, Frances Houston 15304 S.E. 273rd Pl. Kent, WA 98042 cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Services Manager LETTER #4 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 29 September 1995 Kent Planning Commission c/o Kent Planning Department RE: Lake Meridian Area Annexation Dear Planning Commission Members: My name is David Zerr and I reside at 20619 Southeast 276th Street in Kent and own a commercial property, "Zerr's Feed" located- at 15323 Southeast 272nd Street in Kent. I'm writing to let you know that my wife and I are pleased that you are proposing to zone our property CC(community commercial) . Your're proposed zoning will allow a slightly more flexibility than the previous Neighborhood Business Zoning that was in place when we were in King County. It has come to my attention that several of my neighbors are proponents Of "up zoning" their properties to this same zoning that you are giving me. It is my opinion that this (timing) of your zoning of this area would be a good time to correct the irregular pattern of zoned property that existed under the county on this prime corner property(s) .Please take this fact into consideration as you deliberate your recommendations to the city council. Sincerely, David L. Zerr 0 R CE11/ED SEP Z 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT L.L l Lh #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 Ze� -- - - - -= - UCEIVED OCT o 2 1995 - CITY OF KENT F'tAt�iVING DEPARTMENT OIT0 2 1005 CITY �F K=SIT 1r1Nr.r.0 nn,nl=i1T ('.I.r VFY�Tt I min n vv` 220 4th Ave C Kent, WA. 99032 Vuuucl i, Inn< RE:Meridian Annexation Area L omn_A TT T OT. ♦ H ncnnn . n nn♦ Houston Properly liax tic. a 35«u5-91624-v�' TIr r('�;cc;nn T%,f r`n1rTc: Due to nuther inrormation 1 received this morn,no about my taxes 1 would iiKe this letter su`omiLLCU wi`in my iirSi uii8. V A .....•S' an+L.e'r... A n..o......... Fri T 1A 1......o..0 J.r,F..-..... ,i:.......,..� 'F AW1J111122 iV ulv 1aA Akn.JJV2J V12 1 WV1tiu"V 2V1Llsvi ljtAy 1Vt lltJ' JV111Vi 11L)Wttl.t\ 11 TnV nrnr�rtlr,:vavc in on rnmmte .W Thic Irvn111d rnncP my itvrc frrvm fiR dQ in S 1771 FS r-�r--v -• o- .-� _. That would be a increase of g853.49. Being on a fixed income hn afraid 1 would be forced to sell. t.. ._ -..-. .....,..a]_.._ _L,.-.. C__1 G__ ._ ....// _. !n 1 nO�rf 11 YOU tits"vc ally quaJUVLLJ FLcaJc uzi Litz w cau Luc U1 Lily 6.tnuuunl v11LC1 ac u.31-Vo r.�P. �innPrPiv trances nous on 1 C7AA r3AU Ire+ u�P oQn t� CC: James Y. e-iwmc,YlanIllnS�Director 1'iGll JditGLJLL VLl,I La"LU* L V1i:GJ 1VLt1173�G1 LETTER #3 #AZ-95-3 2q ,G�s 4CPA-95-1 Y P-v v-\ SeYlt� r � �Cll`11'1E�, Ve rtfi, wa . ci �G-Y K.a-4-O i cv 1 �?w��, a� ► . o a ct�e p atrc� ► Qj 4 _ hCwe ce w Reds Cc l �ti� c yr� I t vs c�le d i L/v - 5 ccu - c�eJ Cc�,-,twvs, c I CLl Q�Yeec� 1�Q,�1 IJ C.o c c s t 1/�' t� �c� C� �✓�II, t -, Vl ,v-c . C- C 6wync,rc icL� ZQ611 r'iC� . f uu area �n�. V�,�-{�<<.f n S- �4�`� " ` _('���' C!✓1 �'fn�t.�. 1nI c7�-f-c�, �.e-- c`' l,o J i C cif 30 h►�� l�� � Gc,l� r�uJ � C C�?��tre, d���e�� Cvv\e`r . W 1--U� � 16 , RECEIVED " a� SEP 2 9 1995 CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT LETTER #6 4tAZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 �LU 2 1 James Harris Tom Sinkula Planning Dept. 1928 So. 289th I reetPLANNING UL:'APTNI.<<:—City of Kent Federal Way, [Tv of UN' 220 4th Ave. So. Phone: 839-4394 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Date: 9-27-95 Dear James: I have been out of town and have been unable to attend the public meetings regarding the Meridian Annexation Areas 1 and 2. For several years I have owned the vacant lot at the NW corner of Kent- Kangley and 124th Ave. SE. Attached is a map showing the property highlighted in yellow, and two pictures showing the property on 11-21-91. Even 4 years ago the lot was full of parked cars and was no longer adequate for residential use. Also enclosed are previous letters to King County dated 3-4-88, 1-17-91, and 9-4-91; all regarding requests and substantiation to upgrade the current zoning to a more realistic use. When the Dept. of Transportation widened SR516 to 4 lanes, they constructed a commercial road approach on my property. They assumed that business or commercial was the only use of the property. I agree with the Dept. of Transportation. Due to the high traffic count, noise, and air pollution, the property is no loner suitable for residential use. There are several businesses in the immediate area, including East Hill Radiator, Bergsma Realty, and Budz Home Heating. As outlined in the enclosed -letter to King Co. on 3-4-88, I feel that my property meets all the requirements for BN zoning as required in the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Plateau Communities plan. The commercial services at 132nd Ave. SE are already overloaded. I feel that my property should be rezoned in order to provide a personal service facility that would meet the everyday needs of the neighborhood. Please sunoort BN zoning for my property. Sincerely, Tom Sinkula Tom Sinkula 1928 South 289th Federal Way, WA 98003 March 4, 1988 - Sue Enger project Manager King County Planning & Community Development 707 Smith Tower Bldg 506 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Sue: - I recently called regarding the update of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan and am now submitting my letter of request per your instructions. I own the property at the NW quadrant of SR 516 (Kent-Kangley Road) and 124th Ave. S.E. and wish to petition the Planning Department to change the zoning to B-N, neighborhood business. Following are several supporting reasons why this change would be in conformance with requirements of the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Soos Creek Community Plan. 1.) Business centers should be located at the intersection of major transportation arteries. SR 516 is the highest volume East-West-corridor in the Soos Creek Plateau, while 124th Ave S.E. is a major arterial leading directly south to the Green River Community College. In the 1979 Soos Creek Plan, the traffic counts- shown on the Do Nothing Transportation System show this intersection to have t2he highest traffic count of any intersection East of the Benson Highway (SR 515) , even higher than SR 516 at 116th, 132nd, 164th, or Wax Road. This intersection is centered in the area of the most rapid growth and will continue to be an important neighborhood focal point. 2.) For many years there have been many established businesses in the I rea from 116th Ave.S.E. to 132nd Ave.S.E. Some of these businesses are: Short Stop Market at 117th S.E. East Hill Radiator at 120th S.E. Bergsma. Realty at 123rd S.E. Budz Home Heating at 124th S.E. Draeger Land & Homes at 128th S.E. Saddles & Equipment at 129th S.E. E-Z Eating Cafe at 130th S.E. March 4, 1988 Although this area is rapidly developing it is better to place the businesses at the major intersections first, with managed growth concepts applied to the areas between. The property I own is presently vacant land and would be the most suitable of the four corners on which to furnish neighborhood services. Budz Some Heating is presently on the S.E. corner of 124th, but this property is much lower and would be more difficult to develop. 3. ) As required by Cl-412, the following developments are already existing: a.Paved streets, sidewalks b.Storm drainage control, including curbs, gutters, and stormwater retention facilities c.Public water d.Sanitary sewers e.Controlled Traffic Access - There is an existing signal and left turn lanes at 124th Parking and Landscaping will be installed with the improvements. Also, there is an existing commercial road approach on SR 516 and I have enclosed a copy of the permit from the Dept. Of Transportation. This was approved on 4-11-86. 4. ) According to the population density there should be more neighborhood services provided in this area. Currently to obtain services you would have to travel 12 miles to the West, 3 miles to the North, 1 mile to the East, and 3 miles to the South. The added driving distance contributes to traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and wasting of our natural resources. Cl- 04 states that neighborhood centers should be located approximately one to three miles apart and serve a density of 8,000 to 15,000 persons. Neighborhood services at the intersection of 124th Ave.S.E. world reduce the current traffic congestion at SR 516 and SR 515 (Berson Highway) which is currently operating at level of service E (over capacity). 5.) The rapid development along the SR 516 corridor has increased the noise and air pollution considerably and this area is no longer suitable for residential use. 6.) As required by C1-109, this land has a natural capacity for development and is free from environmental constraints involving floodplains , wetlands, steepslopes, landslides, coal mines, erosion, and aquifer recharge areas. March 4, 1988 7.) The intersection of 124th Ave.Spag. and SR 516 adjoins he areas of highest growth as shown on a 185 of the 1979 eek Plateau Communities Plan. 8.) This proposal meets all guidelines for Neighborhood Centers as listed under Cl-401 thru Cl-412 in the King County Comprehensive Plan. Also, this proposal meets all guidelines for development of retail and commercial uses listed under paragraphs 1 through 9 on pages 12 and 13 of the existing Soos Creek Plateau area zoning plan. This proposal also is in compliance with the existing County Policies listed on page 86 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan and the Development Guidelines listed on pages 94 through 97 of the Soos Creek Plateau Communities Plan. I have enclosed a proposed site plan and a copy of the permit for the commercial road approach on SR 516. In summary, I feel that my proposal is in compliance with all existing policies and request that the zoning be changed to Neighborhood Business. Please call me at the following numbers iftheere is any m ore information that You may require. Also, p my g list. 764 - 4108 days 839 - 4394 evenings Respectfully, Tom Sinkula WE SVJ4 S�tox 28-Twp 22N —R. S, E�.wM . F N •E _ 13l '+ t s v✓ 979 V rl Aj I 1 �Q Q 4-11 y Z.LA or- l\ 0 iih= I , I � u+. E�4 I �I IN I� i 16r eo t 3Z0 01' To-c al 1174 "I'hi, plat i, for your aid in luratinK Your land with reference to streets and other parcels. While this plat is Lclic%ed to he ronrrt. the Company a.<umrs nu lial,ility for any luss occurring by rraann of reliance thereon." SAFECO SAFECO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Tom SinkLll a 1928 So . 289th Federal Way , WA 96003 .Jan . 17 , 1991 Sue Enger Project Manager �i,b Second Ave . , Suite 707 E,eattle , WA 98104 I was unable to attend your recent workshops so please accept my written commemts . Enclosed is my previous letter to you dated 3-4-e8 , in which I listed several supporting reasons why my property at the NW quadrant of SR516 and 124th Ave . S .E . should be rezoned to a more compatible use . My supporting data met all the guidelines in the King County Comprehensive Flan , as well as those in the existing Soos Creek: Plateau Communities Plan . I had discussed my particular property with Ned Conroy on several occasions , .and when talking to Ned on both 4- b-S' and 1i>-3u-89 he told me my property would be zoned professional office or multi-family . i 'feel my property still meets all the desireable qualifications for Neighborhood Business and should be changed to that type of zoning . There are other businesses in the immediate area , and due to the noise and traffic my property is no longer desireable for residential use . Respectful ly , Tom Sinkula T_•m E:n�iul �. v S G __:'t r OU1te /,:17 r•eauested by your l etter dated o/Ic5 I I the notarized regUest form and E. Urrent assessor - mEvp s-nowinq my property OUtl ined lri ram Kas ,IU9= Out to look at the property On 9!3l9i _-+._•re were four cars parked on the lot with For Sale sign _n =nem, . Tnis has been going on for several years and me Iv?. i=. becominQ Unsightly and an eyesore . .. 1 - _B( t%Eit This I Gt can be Cl Ec.r._p UO an.o pl_lt to c _cLter. use it is zoned Bel and c_in provide shoppinS and =_E2rvlce facil ities to ervE the everyday needs 0- t-I_ neigrlLJr•ncod . -"T=.0 fled .:or yOUr U=_e are my pr.ey2oUs lE-�te"_ 04 at r'fC `: 1 -, In m':' March 4 , 1988 letter I listed hoar jT,- crcnQBai tne BN zoning met all the appl ic_._)l e g_lidel in=:_- ir; - r`-r= County Comprehensive F''la.r and the SooE Zree�' F l a.n . Resppect�Ul1V -tom Sin1:ul tit, 4rn.r � 4 � .! `rah. yV _ ��'�•''15+,t...j y.yam •� >» r.` r __ .mow _ ,�i.,� Y'" ,r"c� .�� 3•y ./ j - - V '_r-1.� _ra _ - Ems.!•. `�^.r..i��c.+;:. '�.. -.��'C"�Y�. _ -_ � 4' AMM r: ._yam LETTER #7 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 5 , 1995 Planning Department City of Kent 220 4th Avenue, South Kent, Washington 98032-5895 RE : MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA Dear Sir or Madam: Unfortunately , I was unable to attend _your Open F.ouse on August 24 , 1995 . I should like to use this opportunity, therefore, as the tax- paying owner for 39 years of' a 9 . 43 acre tract in the Meridian Area, ' 34-22-05 , to request that this area be zoned by -the City of Kent for Residential use , with 6 lots allotted per acre , as recently proposed by King County, Carol Lumb , Community Planner, King County Environmental Division. I should greatly appreciate your serious consideration of this request. Thank you very much . Sincerely , Kenneth G. Kir3y 1110 Wagon Wheel Rd Lawrence , KS 66049-3538 KGK:bak cc : Mayor Jim White RECEIVED S E P 2 8 1995 CITY OF KENT RLANNiNG DEFAnTiv'jE-�lT LETTER #8 #AZ-95-3 #CPA-95-1 September 27, 1995 Planning Commission City of Kent We, Cal and Betty Wilson, owners of the property on the SE corner and NW corner of SE. 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington, are in the process of building a new Chevron Gas Station and Convenience store on the SE Corner of 272nd and 152nd SE, Kent, Washington. Our original store and station opened in 1954. We resided at 15030 SE. 272nd Kent, Washington until 1980. We wish to express we are in full agreement with the parties that expressed their desire to enlarge the CC - Community Commercial area in the Meridian Annexation Area Zoning - Alternative 1 and squaring off the entire area. This would allow for a well planned retail area to benefit all, the property owners, the community and reduce traffic congestion. Zoning the entire area at this time seems only right. Zoning the area does not necessarily mean a person has to-move. We have known the entire Houston Family for 40 years. They have been our customers, our neighbors - they are our friends. We join the majority of the property owners in requesting this zoning. RECEIVED Sincerely, SEP 2 7 1995 CITY OF KENT Cal & Betty Wilson FLRNNiNG CE:ARTMENT CITY OF �LC2 L .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Jim White, Mayor Public Hearing October 2, 1995 The continuation of the September 26 1995, meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:00 PM on October 2, 1995 in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Janette Nuss Robert MacIsaac Mike Pattison PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier, excused Edward Heineman, Jr., excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Brad Hazeltine, Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 25 AND 26. 1995. MINUTES Commissioner Pattison MOVED and Commissioner Dahle SECONDED to accept the minutes for September 25 and 26 as written. Commissioner Nuss and Commissioner MacIsaac abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS NONE. COMMUNICATIONS NONE. 1 "01ih AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 9ROi2-i49i TELEPHONE i'06i5i9-1300/FAX Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director, Jim Harris, announced the Meridian Annexation Open Houses scheduled for Wednesday,November 15 at the Soos Creek Fire Station and Thursday,November 16, at Martin Sortun Elementary from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 P.M. Commissioner Nuss announced that Mr. Chris Vance will be holding a meeting to discuss the proposed amendments for the King County Comprehensive Plan. The meeting will be held at the Kentwood High School located at 25800 - 164th SE from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The public is encouraged to attend. MERIDIAN ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING (Deliberations) 9CPA-95-1 and #AZ-95-3 (Fred Satterstrom) Mr. Fred Satterstrom, City of Kent Planning Manager, outlined the staff report. The report is separated into two sections. Part one is an overview of general questions raised during public testimony. The second part addresses the individual "mapping" issues one by one. Mr. Satterstrom submitted eight letters to the Planning Commission for record. The letters were received by the Planning Department after the close of the public hearings. 1. Meridian Meadows Wetlands - Petition 2. Frances Houston dated October 2. 3. Mr. Ed Katai received September 29 4. Mr. David Zerr dated September 29 referring to Zerr's Feed. 5. Daniel and Amy Walton received October 2. 6. Tom Sinkula regarding property at Kent Kangley and 124th Ave SE. 7. Kenneth Kirby dated September 5 and received September 28. 8. Cal and Betty Wilson dated September 27. Most of these letters support the staff proposed Alternative 3. However,some of these letters do deal with new issues. Mr. Satterstrom offered two suggestions before the Planning Commission on how to deal with these"new" letters. The first alternative would be to continue the deliberations to a later date to analyze the new issues. Secondly, these individuals will have two more opportunities for these issues to go before the City Council in open public hearing. The Planning Department will assure that these issues would be brought before the City Council. Mr. Satterstrom reminded the public that the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. The 2 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and 9AZ--95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Planning Commission will be analyzing the issues that came up during the public hearings, deliberating on those issues, and attempting to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed continuing the deliberations and making a recommendation without even considering the letters submitted by the public. Staff Presentation Ms. Linda Phillips,Planner, addressed the issue of animal regulations. The King County regulations cover a broad range of animal uses and businesses throughout the county. These regulations are complex. Kent's zoning regulations regarding animals are very basic. Kent's code says that if you live on a lot that is 20,000 square foot or more, you may keep animals other than household pets. There are, however, in the municipal codes, regulations that address animal nuisances, confinement of animals,vicious animals, and animal diseases. These codes allow complaints to be heard. At this point if there are problems with animals on a lot, the Planning Department hears the complaint, investigates, researches, and follows-up the same as any other code enforcement complaint. The City is not considering changing the animal regulations at this time. However, as growth occurs, if there becomes a problem with compatibility between lots,there would likely be a review of the current animal regulations and some changes would be made. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the grandfathering issue that was discussed at the previous public hearing. -Ms. Phillips reassured the Planning Commission that the City of Kent regulations are not as stringent as King County regulations. Therefore, the question of grandfathering would not arise. Keeping animals for a business use is not addressed in the City of Kent code and would be grandfathered as a non-conforming use. Chair Morrill questioned if Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Ms. Phillips confirmed that Kent's animal regulations are more lenient than those of King County. Commissioner Maclsaac questioned the City's involvement in neighbor complaints regarding animals. Ms.Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the City would investigate complaints from neighbors as regulated under the municipal codes. Commissioner Nuss asked for further clarification of the municipal codes regarding odors especially concerning dairy cows. Ms. Phillips explained that animal nuisance cases are judged on a case by case basis and what is appropriate for the situation. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 mCPA-95-I and,".AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Ms. Phillips discussed issues regarding nonconforming uses. The Lake Meridian Village would be an illegal use under the current recommended zone. However, the Kent zoning code contains a residential exception to nonconforming use status. The exception states "Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district and in existence as of January 1, 1984, shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use." According to this exception Lake Meridian Village is a legal use Chair Morrill questioned the status of the other two Lake Meridian Condominiums. Ms. Phillips explained to the Planning Commission that she did not have that information at this time but she would find out if they would also fall under this exception clause. Commissioner Stringham questioned if the City was planning to move the 1984 date forward to a more recent date. Ms. Phillips informed the Planning Commission that the Planning Department does not have a recommendation to change the date at this time_ Ms. Phillips continued to explain the significant difference between King County's and Kent's nonconformance regulations. King County does allow nonconforming properties to be totally restored if the restoration is done within one year. Kent has a provision that if the nonconforming property is destroyed up to 50% of the value; it can not be restored except with special permission from the Planning Director. Commissioner Dahle asked for clarification regarding the time frame for restoration. Ms. Phillips explained that the time limit is based on the date the permit is applied for and there is no time limit for construction although the City would require reasonable progress. Mr. Satterstrom discussed the issues relating to sensitive area development regulations. The zoning code is set up to regulate the hazardous areas in the City, primarily the steep slope areas. The Wetlands regulations are administered by the Water Quality Section of the Public Works Department. The Wetland regulations of King County and Kent are very similar. The buffer areas are similar in certain circumstances and the definition of wetlands is similar. The primary difference between the County and the City regulations is the City uses the 1987 manual for wetland identification where the county uses the 1989 manual. The Shoreline Management Program regulates any development within 200 feet of a shoreline. Development within 200 feet of Lake Meridian would be regulated by the Shoreline Management Act. Commissioner MacIsaac asked if Clark Lake was included in the Shoreline Management Act. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that Clark Lake is not regulated under the Shoreline Management act because it is not 20 acres. The Shoreline Management act regulates natural bodies of water greater than 20 acres. 4 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Mapping Issues: Mao Site l: Kent Kangley Commercial (Widener/Ormiston/HoustonBumeeAVilson) Issue: Should additional parcels be designated for commercial zoning in the area of Kent Kanggel}_ Road and 154th Avenue SE9 Mr. Wilson and Mr. Widener requested the Planning Commission to consider zoning their proper community commercial. Neither property front on Kent Kangley. Therefore, the staff recommends no change to the original proposed zoning. Commissioner Pattison requested Mr. Satterstrom to point out the cemetery next to the properties in question. Commissioner Stringham asked about the two letters from Ms. Houston that were entered into record. Mr. Harris clarified that Ms. Houston supports the staff proposed recommendation. As indicated in Ms. Houston's letter, she would only like to be considered for the commercial zoning if the properties surrounding her's are zoned commercial. Commissioner Dahle asked if there would be a traffic problem with the cul-de-sac set up as a fire truck turn around if we zoned the properties commercial. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that there would be provisions for a turn around for a fire truck regardless of the zoning. Mr. Satterstrom indicated the problem would be access to the properties. At present they are accessed from SE 275th Place. Commissioner Stringham asked for what could the property owners do if they wanted commercial zoning later. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the property owners could get together and present a zoning request to the City based on the integration of the three or more parcels. The plan would need to internalize the access off of Kent Kangley. Map Site 2: 25840 135th Lane SE Lake Meridian Cabins (Marie Lewis) Issue: Request for zoning to allow ten dwelling units per acre with zero lot line options for site planning_ Ms. Phillips explained that the City code does not contain provisions for ten dwellings per acre, except in multi-family residential zones. The City policy is to avoid creating additional multi-family zoned property, therefore, the staff recommends the original proposed zoning of R1-9.6. Map Site 93: Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair at 27848 152nd Avenue SE (Spencer) 5 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and'MZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Issue• Should this area be changed from single family residential to commercial? Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, explained the staffs recommendation to stay with the original proposed R1-7.2 density. The businesses could continue as a legal and nonconforming use. Chair Morrill questioned if the businesses could continue if they burned down. Mr. O'Neill explained that if the property was destroyed beyond 50%,the new use would have to convert to the existing zoning. This is true of any legal nonconforming use under the City's current regulations. Commissioner Stringham asked if this was also true of King County zoning. Mr. O'Neill stated that King County allows for reconstruction within 12 months of damage or destruction. Commissioner Dahle verified from Mr. ONeill that if the property is destroyed more that 50% they can not rebuild. Map Site 94. 28040 152nd Avenue SE (Jones) Issue: Should this area be changed from R1-12 to R1-7.2? Staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-12. The general zoning surrounding this property is proposed for R1-7.2. Mr. ONeill explained the reasoning behind the staff recommendation is that this area is still beyond the developed area. Mr. ONeill did explain that this property could be adequately served with water and sewer at a R1-7.2 density. Commissioner Stringham clarified that if this property stayed with King County it would have received zoning of six unit per acre (R1-7.2). Mr. O'Neill explained that King County staff has proposed six units per acre for that property,however, it has not been approved by the King County Council at this time. Map Site 5. 26626 132nd Avenue SE (Pearson) Issue Should the zoning be changed from the staff recommended R1-7 2 to a zoning designation which would allow a nursery as a.principally permitted use. The only zoning that would accommodate the owners request would be either agriculture or commercial zoning. The staff is again recommending the original proposal of R1-7.2. The nursery would be able to continue as a legal nonconforming use. Commissioner Stringham clarified the location of the property. 6 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and*!AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Map Site 6: 12633 SE 270th Street (Conti) Issue: Should this property be designated for office use instead of single family residential? This is a large parcel currently zoned urban reserve. The proposed zoning in the staff report is RI- 7.2. The owner has proposed an office zoning for the frontage of the property. The staff is recommending the original proposal of R1-7.2. Commissioner MacIsaac asked for clarification of use of some adjacent property. Mr. O'Neill pointed out the residential uses now located between the Conti property and the proposed commercial zone. Map Site 97: Clark Lake (Lake Mills-Goldberg Grajewski) Issue: Concern about the future of the property bought by King County for the purpose of preserving open space adjacent to Clark Lake Ms. Phillips explained that this property will be managed by the City of Kent. At this time the City does not have any plans to acquire any more property there. The Kent Comprehensive Plan has a strong recommendation for establishing linkages and increasing natural areas. The Kent Comprehensive Plan does have goals and policies for protecting ecologically sensitive areas. The Parks Department will be the managing department for this property. The Parks Department does not have a specific plan in mind in now, but they believe it will be used similar to what King County had planned (passive use - picnic tables, lake access, and trails). Chair Morrill commented that the City of Kent's Park Department's is very good in taking into consideration the wishes of the people in the area. Map Site #8: 25261 124th Avenue SE (Kuehlthau) Issue: Should the designation of the property be revised to Rl-7 2 from RI-9 6? The staff recommends a change in the zoning boundary to incorporate his property in the R1-7.2 zoning. Map Site 9: East Side of 116th Avenue SE/South of SE 240th Street (Richardson) Issue: Request that approximately 1 4 acres be rezoned to MRM to allow senior housing 7 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area Z 4CPA-95-1 and MZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 The owner of this property requests a consideration for MRM zoning to permit senior housing. The staff pointed out at the previous public hearing that a retirement home is a conditional use in anv residential zoning districts in the City. A rezone to multifamily is not necessary. Commissioner Stringham asked for a definition of retirement housing. Mr. Satterstrom explained that as long as you were providing a living environment for senior residents it would be considered senior housing. Commissioner Stringham interpreted the zoning code to include on-site care in order to go in as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Stringham asked for a clarification of this. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the staff would further clarify this issue. Man Site 10 Property located in the southwest corner of annexation area(Pawlowski) Issue• Request to change proposed zoning to less dense single family residential zoning. The owner requested zoning classification equivalent to that of the current King County zoning. The staff recommended the original proposed zoning of R1-20. Map Site 11. 24436 116th Avenue SE (Bushey) Issue: Should the zoning be than ed from the staff recommended R1-7.2 to a zoning designation which would allow commercial uses. This property is located on 116th Avenue SE, across the street from the City's East Hill Police/Fire Training Center. The land use pattern in the area is predominately single family. The staff recommends the properties to stay with the original zoning of R1-7.2. Man Site 127 Multi family zoning for an undeveloped site near Lake Meridian Shopping Center (Reid letter) Issue Request to retain existing County multi-family zoning on undeveloped parcels located north and east of Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Mr. Satterstrom explained there appears to be some developmental limitations on the property. The access to the site is limited due to the narrow width of 129th Avenue SE. The resolution that was passed by the City Council said to protect the single family area. The staff recommended the originally proposed zoning of R1-5.0 and some community commercial zoning. Commissioner Stringham asked what is the current King County zoning. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the current zoning is R24 which is equivalent to the MRM zoning. 8 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 mCPA-95-1 and 9AZ--95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Epperly addressed the Keary property that was not mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom clarified to the Planning Commission that the property owners that supported the staff proposed alternative 3 were not addressed in the October 2 staff report. Deliberations Chair Morrill stated that he would like to make the letters submitted earlier by the staff a party of record,however, not consider the letters as part of the deliberations. The letters would be sent to the City Council with an explanation that they were received after the Planning Commission had closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nuss strongly opposed sending the letters forward. Commissioner Nuss felt the . letters were important to the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Planning Commission should take the time to review these letters. Commissioner Nuss does not believe the Planning Commission should pass the "buck." Commissioner Nuss urged the Planning Commission to wait until after the letters can be considered before making a recommendation to the City Council so as not to "inconvenience" the public. Commissioner Pattison explained that the Planning Commission operate under clearly defined rules and therefore, should stick to those rules and accept the letters as part of the record but not delay the deliberations because of their tardiness in essence. Commissioner Dahle reminded the Commission that there were individuals who requested to speak tonight. Since the Commission closed the public hearing and won't allow the public to speak. Commissioner Dahle does not believe the letters should be allowed or considered. Dahle agrees that the letters should be a part the of record. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that there are two more public hearings that will occur before the City Council. The public will have those opportunities to make their wishes known. Commissioner Stringham agreed that the process has to be cut off at some point. Commissioner Nuss agrees that the process should be adhered to. Nuss does not think the hearing should be continually reopened, however, the public was aware that the deliberations were tonight and the letters were sent before this meeting. Commissioner Nuss believes that any letters received up to this point should be taken into consideration. Nuss feels the Planning Commission should be more caring and concerned with the people. 9 Meridion Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and 9,AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED that the Planning Commission accept the eight letters that were received after the public hearing was closed and made a part of public record. Since the Planning Commission did not have time to take these letters into consideration, these letters should be forwarded to the City Council to be reviewed by staff and a recommendation given to the council. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac AMENDED the motion to specifically mention the Kenneth G. Kirby letter dated September 5, 1995. Commissioner Dahle accepted the amendment. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner Nuss against the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if staff considered the need for more commercial nodes. Planning Director, James Harris, explained that this is not the opportunity to review a general Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 1 (Widener/Ormiston/Houston/Burpee/Wilson) Kent Kangley commercial. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that if King County had zoned the area commercial he would of opposed the down zoning of these properties. Chair Morrill agrees with Commissioner Stringham. Chair Morrill continued that if Wilson, Widener, and Ormiston went as one unit they probably would not have any problems getting a zoning change. Commissioner MacIsaac pointed out that because of the current access commercial does not make since, therefore, he feels that the Planning Commission should consider Ms. Houston's wishes to remain single family zoning. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to approve the staff recommendation for no change on map site 2.the Lake Meridian Cabins. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner MacIsaac OPPOSED. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for no change on map site 3, Shady Park Grocery and Auto Repair. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that this business has been in existence a long time and the owner would lose the business in the event that it burns down. Commissioner Stringham questioned the possibility of neighborhood community commercial. Commissioner Epperly mentioned that she had the same question. Senior Planner,Kevin ONeill,informed the Planning Commission that there is a possibility of NCC. The Comprehensive Plan land use map would have to be changed to commercial in order to accommodate the NCC zoning. The NCC designation would accommodate the grocery store, -.. 10 illeridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 mCPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 however, it would not accommodate the auto repair. Auto repair is not a permitted use in NCC zoning designation. The auto repair would continue to be legal and nonconforming in NCC. The only designation that would accommodate both the grocery store and the auto repair would be general commercial. Commissioner Stringham asked for clarification that under NCC zoning one of the businesses would be legal and conforming and the other would still be legal and nonconforming. The owner would be 50% better off with the NCC zoning. Mr. O'Neill agreed. Commissioner Dahle voiced her disapproval with the NCC zoning. Commissioner Stringham emphasized the possibility of his business burning down and with the residential zoning the owner could not rebuild. Commissioner Epperly voiced her concern with taking away a livelihood. The motion to approve the staff recommendation FAILED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dahle, Nuss, and Pattison. Nay - Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and MacIsaac. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Shady Grocery parcel NCC zoning. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Mr. O'Neill clarified that the motion would include making the Comprehensive Plan designation commercial. Commissioner Stringham accepted the clarification. The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea- Commissioners Epperly, Morrill, Stringham, and MacIsaac. Nay - Commissioners Dahle,Nuss, and Pattison. Commissioner Pattison MOVED to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioner Stringham questioned the reasonable expectation of the property owner to expect six units per acre. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned the lower designation in the area of discussion. Motion FAILED. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to designate the Jones'parcel (map site 4) R1-7.2 on the zoning map and SF6 on the Comprehensive Plan map as requested by the property owner. Motion was SECONDED by Commissioner MacIsaac. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Nuss abstained. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to keep SF6 and R1-7.2 designation for map site 5 (Pearson). Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned if this property is the area where citizens had expressed a concern for wetlands preservation. Mr. ONeill informed the Planning Commission that it is in the vicinity, however,the 11 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 9CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 property does not include the wetlands in question. Commissioner Stringham also questioned if RA zoning accommodate nurseries as a primary use. Mr. O'Neill explained that although RA would make the nursery conforming, it would create less opportunity,in the future to develop the property. Commissioner MacIsaac discussed the issue of zoning the nursery NCC. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Stringham OPPOSED the motion. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to approve the staff recommendation to retain the single family designation for the map site 6 (Conti). Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss questioned the split between an office designation and the wetlands. �Conti's proposal for office zoning makes a lot of Commissioner Stringham commented that Mr sense. Mr. Conti.offered to donate the wetland which would act as a buffer between the office zoning that would be on Kent Kangley and the residential area behind it. Motion FAILED unanimously. Commissioner Russ Stringham MOVED on map site 6 (Conti) to adopt commercial for Comprehensive Plan designation and professional office for the zoning designation along the entire site as it fronts Kent Kangley Road. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea- Commissioners Stringham,Epperly,Dahle,Morrill, and MacIsaac. Nay - Commissioners Nuss and Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to revise the zoning boundary to include the Kuehlthau property. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Dahle recommended that the City purchase the property surrounding Clark Lake (map site 8). Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept staff recommendation of map site 9 (Richardson)to retain R1-7.2 zoning. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss commented that the owner should have clarified the type of senior housing he was requesting zoning for at the time of the public hearing. Motion CARRIED unanimously. 12 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 ,CPA-95-1 and 9AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 1995 Commissioner Dahle MOVED to retain the R1-20 zoning as originally proposed by the staff for map site 10 (Pawlowski). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Epperly. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept the staff recommendation for map site 11 (Bushey) to keep the SF6 and R1-7.2 designations. Commissioner Pattison SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Stringham questioned the staff whether there is a current business at this location. Mr. O'Neill informed the Planning Commission that in going out to the location there does not seem to be a business at that location just residential. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Pattison MOVED to accept the staff recommendation to retain the R1-5.0 zoning on map site 12 (Reid letter). The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Pattison. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with down-sizing the property's density. Commissioner Epperly asked for the approximate size of the property. Mr. Satterstrom informed the Planning Commission that the parcels total about ten acres. Motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea- Commissioners Dahle,Epperly,Nuss,Morrill,and Pattison. Nay- Commissioners Stringham and MacIsaac. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept the Comprehensive Plan and zoning Alternative 3 with the changes to map site 1 through 12 as indicated above. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss emphasized her content for disregarding the letters presented to the committee. Motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to adjourn the hearing. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, J P. Hams JH/tb:c:\PCMIN 10.2 13 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 2 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the. City of Kent, Washington, regarding amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Meridian Annexation Area. WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act as Chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA), requiring jurisdictions throughout the State of Washington, to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (2), the GMA states that each Comprehensive Land Use Plan shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the city upon adoption; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 (2) each jurisdiction is required under the GMA to establish procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the City Council no more frequently than once a year; that all proposals shall be considered by the City Council concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained; and that the City may adopt amendments or revisions to the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 1995 the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3237 establishing procedures for amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3241, relating to the annexation into the City of Kent of the area known as the Meridian Annexation Area, and that this area would become part of the City of Kent on January 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Kent Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations for the Meridian Annexation Area on the plan's Land Use Plan Map; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3241 the City's Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Meridian area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36.70A.120 the GMA requires that the City enact development regulations which are consistent with and implement its comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning map amendments for the Meridian area are consistent, the Kent City Council adopted Resolution No. 1445 on September 20, 1995, which declared an emergency to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment for the Meridian Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 25 and 26, 1995 to take public testimony on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map in the comprehensive plan for the Meridian annexation area; and 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered various Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map alternatives and public testimony during its public hearings, and following its deliberations on October 3, 1995, made a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the recommendation of the Planning Commission: the first hearing was held on October 17, 1995 and the second hearing was held on November 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and adopted an amendment to the Land Use Plan Map in the Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Meridian Annexation Area, and that the amended land use designations for the Meridian area are illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential,environmental impact, and that on September 25, 1995 the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the comprehensive plan amendments later adopted by the City Council on November 21, 1995; NOW THEREFORE, Section 1. The Land Use Plan Map in the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan for the area known as the Meridian annexation area is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. 3 Section 2. The City Council finds that the amendment outlined in Exhibit A meets the criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment as outlined in Section 12.02.050 of the Kent City Code. Section 3. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this Chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 PUBLISHED day of 1995. 4 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK merancp.ord 5 H i M �J \ Ln AI ���.�V CBfCF ...... L�F! c h �l Tr14 ¢ 39 3Ab N1951 'S 3S 3Ab N195 \ U r X FF��11 s m e m w O O$ z 3s nb axzst S 3A QHZ9 � co q I _ H T(1 a 3A N19Tt Z F d �O zx = F I 6M F" UmGmm y P4 E , Q � 2 � 0 w �3 a ', c � c i S nb 91 .L ;F 3An N, NI f Z 1S H cJ`i ~ m <q � w T� y F m p 0 E.. 35 3Atl HI MN y Z w Z O F U rl. W .S m I y z6 O Z Z „ V a p W O N S 3Atl N1BF1 trT /� z O O U z O f N W ��- J SI N U7 L w V hf1•!y o� vwi mcn vi Q co S AV Ml N1921 ull Ymi p r V{ 'S Atl N11 t r \ ESE A N 35 3Atl x1021 A a ❑De '� N � �� 35 inn x19c ❑„ w �A v 1119TI �L^—J 0 a ya s is ; Nltll '� a xl 3S AV it o'z I ! S 3hV SZTT W n I V1 M1 co ry �" to �4 M II � y 35 3Atl N1fi01 IS intl N1601 �$ 3AV H.L80T • ,nn xl of . 1 1 3S 3AV H.L-,OS IL�I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to zoning and land use, to implement initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area. WHEREAS, on August 15, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3241, annexing into the City of Kent, the area known as the Meridian Annexation Area, as of January 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the annexation area is comprised of approximately 5.27 square miles, or 3,373 acres, and extends east from the existing city limits at 116th Avenue SE to Big Soos Creek, while the northern boundary is SE 240th Street and the southern boundary is SE 288th Street; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3241 the City's Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Meridian area, as outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on September 25 and 26, 1995 to take public testimony on amendments to the zoning map for the Meridian annexation area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered various zoning alternatives and public testimony during its public hearings, and on October 3, 1995, recommended approval of a zoning alternative to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the recommendation of the Planning Commission: the first hearing was held on October 17, 1995 and the second hearing was held on November 21, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and on November 21, 1995 adopted initial zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area, and that the initial-zoning is illustrated in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and that on September 25, 1995 the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the initial zoning designations later adopted by the City Council on November 21, 1995; NOW THEREFORE, Section 1. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.09.055 and the laws of the State of Washington, the initial zoning for the area known as the Meridian annexation area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit A. Section 2. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this Chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 2 Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 PUBLISHED day of _' 1995. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) meranzon.ord BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 3 O w �- -+ u 31 3Ab i95t" � II 35 3ntl x195, zK � I 3s 3Atl exz 1 O 2 _ s S 2AT aNZS \ 3Atl NlBfil C N rn Q� U. m - C S 3Atl 1M1M1I 3S 3" N1nM1l V it m 2 m 2 S yy C .m. C ❑ f h 3 u < \v� C%2 I( 35 3ntl N10M11 �i11 y U V U V U L ❑ 0 = m � U .b.'4 33 3Atl H10E1 m Z Z Z Z Z ❑ � m V O .�.V � ���{{{!!!///JJJ F� O R N % m In m ❑ U a OU Z w ^(� u W CCU N � VUz - aS 3An IbEl �I Fe, �j �+ a caaa�x��z��rJo - o N S 3Atl Ni " B 3Atl ult O f „pvC 5 3S 3Atl H102I III I 3SqL u I I sFf xisrt � � ry � 1 u" = I �� 3S i Nltlll � ra L�_l 35 iAb I1 I N I „ln xl r11 3S IAV x.LZ:I FII h711�/I Ll I� 35 iAtl N1601 — r 3S iAb NI601 UUUI uy 35 3AV-HS80T ^„^,A�PNI — ryI I aS 3ne x.L30i CONSENT CALENDAR 3 . City Council Action: Jy� Councilmember moves, Councilmembe ��%' � 0A seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through e proved, jV" 's Discussion L tfl'� X . w u Action �a,a�'"_� ^� / 3A. Approval of Minutes. Approval of the minutes of the regular council meeting of November 7, 1995, with the following correction to Item 3B: Check numbers 206785-207018 Should read 206785-207108 3B. Approval of Bills. Approval of payment of the bills received through October 31 and paid on October 31, 1995. The Operations Committee for November 8, 1995, was cancelled. Council authorized payment by signing check summary. Approval of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/31/95 161206-161705 $11907,565.75 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 16 through October 31 and paid on November 3, 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 11/3/95 Checks 207109-207445 $ 259,615. 08 Advices 28715-29122 $ 504 , 302 . 12 $ 763 ,917.20 Council Agenda Item No. 3 A-B Kent, Washington November 7 , 1995 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers Bennett, Clark, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, Operations Director/ Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich, Planning Director Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, and Parks Director Hodgson. Approximately 45 people were at the meeting. PUBLIC Employee of the Month. Mayor White announced COMMUNICATIONS that Sgt. Brian Jones of the Kent Police Department has been selected as Employee of the Month for November. The Mayor noted that Sgt. Jones is the Traffic Sergeant and Emergency Response Team leader and is an exceptional employee who gives 110% to every task he under- takes. Police Chief Crawford explained that Jones has been in charge of the Traffic Enforcement Unit for eight years, and that the unit has written 80, 000 citations. The Chief noted that Sgt. Jones and his unit are very polite, kind and helpful and stated that Sgt. Jones is a respected employee. Human Services Month. Mayor White read a pro- clamation noting that the City has taken a leadership role in addressing human service needs, and that the City Council has established that 1% of the General Revenue budget from the previous year will be used for funding human service needs in the next year. He proclaimed the month of November 1995 as Human Services Month and urged all citizens to support its observance. The proclamation was presented to Mel Tate, who thanked the Mayor and Council for their support of human services. Tate then introduced representatives from fifteen human services providers. Peg Mazen, Children' s Home Society, thanked the Mayor and Council for their support on behalf of all the agencies, and commended the Human Services Commission. National Bible Week. The Mayor read a proclama- tion noting that for fifty-five years women and men of all faiths have banded together in the Laymen' s National Bible Association to sponsor National Bible Week as a time to remind their fellow Americans of the Bible' s unique place in American life. He declared the week of November 19-26, 1995 , as National Bible Week in the City of Kent and encouraged those who so choose to participate in its observance. 1 November 7 , 1995 PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointees. Mayor White COMMUNICATIONS introduced Charlene Shaw and Leigha Connor, his appointees to the Kent Arts Commission. CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR M be approved. Item 3N regarding a council absence was removed from the agenda. Orr seconded and the motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3A) Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of October 17 , 1995 . STREET (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F) VACATION 71st Avenue Street Vacation - Transfer of Funds and ordinance. AUTHORIZATION to deposit approxi- mately $8, 900 acquired from the 71st Avenue Street Vacation into School Sidewalks Project Funds rather than into the Street Operating Budget and approval of Ordinance No. 3246 imple- menting the street vacation, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. SOLID WASTE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D) King County Solid Waste Management Agreement Addendum. AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Addendum to the King County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management and adoption of Resolution No. 1447 concurring with this action, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. This addendum formally recognizes the County Councils interjurisdictional Regional Policy Committee as the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum. PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) - Downtown Street Trees - Transfer of Funds. APPROVAL to transfer approximately $57 , 000 from funds within the East Valley Highway (192nd - 180th) project fund (R68) to the Sidewalk Fund (R33) to cover this expense, as recommended by the Public Works Committee. A significant additional expense has been incurred in the removal and replacement of approximately 34 street trees in the Downtown Sidewalk Replacement project. 2 November 7 , 1995 PUBLIC WORKS (BIDS - ITEM 5A) 1996-1998 Street Sweeping Service The bid opening for this project was held on October 31 with only one responsive bid received. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by Action Services Corporation of Bremerton in the amount of $12 , 495. 47, or $149, 945 . 64 per year. The project consists of street sweeping residential, industrial and downtown core areas within the City limits including the Meridian Annexation Area. MANN MOVED that the 1996-1998 Street Sweeping Contract be awarded to Action Services Corporation for the bid amount of $12, 495 . 47 per month. Houser seconded and the motion carried. REZONE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M) West Hill Plaza Rezone RZ-95-2 . AUTHORIZATION to set November 21, 1995, as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s recom- mendation of approval for a rezone application (RZ-95-2) by Harmit S. Lamba. The property is located at 24606 - 24700 Military Road S. ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G) AMENDMENTS Accessory Housing - Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-3 . APPROVAL of the Zoning Code Amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission and Planning Committee relative to accessory housing, (ZCA-95-3) , and direction to the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. The Planning Commission sent their recommendation on Accessory Housing Regulations to the City Council on October 3 , 1995 . The Council had some concerns and sent this item to the Planning Committee on October 17 , 1995. The Committee addressed all of the concerns and is returning this to Council to consider a zoning code amendment allowing accessory housing in Kent as outlined in the draft Accessory Housing Regulations. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D) M1-C Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-10 The City has received an application by M. Durkan for a proposed amendment to the M1-C Zoning District in order to allow drive-through type eating esta- blishments, which are presently disallowed in 3 November 7 , 1995 ZONING CODE this district. The application requested a AMENDMENTS reduction in the minimum lot size requirement. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this request. ORR MOVED to approve the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission of an amendment to the M1-C Zoning District, in order to allow drive-through type eating establishments as identified in the staff report, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Bennett seconded and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E) PLAN Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment Phase I - East Hill CPZ-95-1. The Planning Commission has recommended potential zoning map changes for nine areas on East Hill, as identified in the staff report. Planning Manager Satterstrom explained that the Growth Management Act requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map be consistent with one another. He noted that staff has determined where inconsistencies exist. He explained that, because there were several of them, they were divided into two phases, the first being on East Hill and the second on West Hill and the Valley Floor. He noted that the proposed changes on East Hill went to the Planning Commission in July, a public hearing was held and the recom- mendations are outlined in the staff report. He pointed out that Sites 4 and 5 are recommended for multiple family, and that those sites contain already built multiple family projects. He said the zoning in one case goes from duplex to a higher density, and the other goes from single family to multi-family, but that it simply recog- nizes existing projects. ORR MOVED to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment CPA-95-1 (Phase I - East Hill) regard- ing zoning map changes for nine areas on East Hill, as identified in the staff report, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. Woods seconded and the motion carried. ORR MOVED that a letter received to- night from Sally Nelson be made a part of the record. Woods seconded and the motion carried. 4 November 7 , 1995 PLATS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B) (REMOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR) Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2 . Councilmember Orr requested that this item be removed from the agenda, since there is still controversy regarding the street. She requested that the item go back to the Public Works Committee. There was no objection and it was so ordered. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C) Kingstone Final Plat FSU-94-11. This date has been set to consider the Kingstone Final Plat. The plat is located between SE 271st and SE 268th, and between 114th Avenue SE and 117th Avenue SE, in the recently annexed East Hill/ Ramstead Annexation area. The plat is 21. 34 acres in size. The Preliminary Plat was approved by King County (S90P0045) and upon annexation to the City, the final plat fell under Kent' s jurisdiction. ORR MOVED to approve staff' s recommendation of approval for the Kingstone Final Plat with conditions according to King County Ordinance No. 10341 and File No. 590P0045 , and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. Houser seconded and the motion carried. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B) Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through October 16 and paid on October 16, 1995, after auditing by the Operations Committee on October 25, 1995. Approyal of checks issued for vouchers: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/16/95 160657-161205 $3 , 544, 378 . 99 Approval of checks issued for payroll for October 1 through October 15, 1995, and paid on October 20, 1995: Date Check Numbers Amount 10/20/95 Checks 206785-207018 $ 261, 830 . 23 Advices 28312-28714 523 , 743 . 37 $ 785, 573 . 60 5 November 7 , 1995 FINANCE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A) LID 346 Bond Sale. At their October 25, 1995 meeting, the Operations Committee recommended adoption of a Bond Ordinance and authorization for the Mayor to sign a purchase contract in the amount of $518, 162 for LID 346 bonds. The bond proceeds will be used to provide long-term financing for still to be completed capital improvements, which consists of constructing sidewalks, street lighting and minor sewer improvements on South 212th Street between SR 167 and the Green River. The final assessment roll for the LID has been adopted and the 30-day prepayment period has elapsed. Lehman Brothers will purchase bonds at a 2 percent discount from the City resulting in a gross underwriting spread of $20 per thousand dollar bond. This results in an average coupon of 5. 00 percent and an assess- ment to property owners of 5. 50 percent. Finance Division Director Miller introduced Dick King of Lehman Brothers. King stated that they were able to achieve the lowest rate for assess- ments in the last twenty years. He noted for the Mayor that the City's bond rating is Al from Moody' s and A+ from Standard & Poor's, and explained that LID bonds are sold without the benefit of a rating. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Bond Ordinance No. 3249 authorizing the Mayor to sign a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers for LID 346 bonds. Houser seconded and the motion carried. BUDGET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A) 1996 Comprehensive Budget. The August 1st public hearing on the 1996 Budget was continued to this date. The Budget was discussed at the October 25th Operations Committee meeting, where the Committee recommended 3-0 to adopt the pro- posed Mayor's balanced budget. The 1996 Compre- hensive Budget totals $88, 447, 576, of which $41, 598, 451 comprises the General Fund. The first full year of the Meridian Annexation budget is included where revenues and expenditures are listed separately. This conservative hold-the- line budget is balanced without relying on new taxes or fees except the planned drainage utility increase and the annual pass-through of the Metro 6 November 7 , 1995 BUDGET sewer rate increase. Financial stability is improved by providing an increase of $672, 642 to Fund Balance Reserve, for an all time high of $2 , 447, 259 . Finance Division Director Miller reviewed revenue sources, noting that there is approximately $38, 000, 000 in the General Fund, 75% of which is from taxes. She noted that the other 25% goes into the capital budget. Miller noted that $84, 000, 000 in new construction was added to the rolls, and $110, 000 for annexations including the Ramstead, Jones/Hobbs, and Beck annexations. She added that $5, 229, 000 is generated from utility tax, and that some gambling tax was received. She said that the remainder of the funding is from shared revenue from Fire District 37, parks and plan check fees, fines, and miscellaneous revenue primarily from interest. She noted that the budget has been balanced without increasing taxes. Miller noted that there is extra funding in the Capital Improvement Plan, for a total fund balance of $3 , 000, 000 which could be used for government operations. She pointed out that there are uncertainties such as Referendum 48 and the residential street utility tax and urged the Council to adopt the budget tonight, knowing that corrections will have to be made early in 1996 . She thanked the Mayor, Council and staff for their support and cooperation. Mayor White declared the public hearing open. There were no comments from the audience. WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3244 approving the 1996 Comprehen- sive Budget. Orr seconded and the motion carried. TAX LEVY (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B) 1996 Property Tag Levi►. This date has been set for a public hearing on the 1996 Property Tax Levy. At their October 25th meeting, the Operations Committee recommended approval of the 1996 Tax Levy Ordinance for the General Fund and 7 November 7 , 1995 TAX LEVY for the voted debt issues. Per RCW 84 . 52 . 010, tax shall be levied in specific dollar amounts. Official assessed valuation information is still pending from King County. Finance Division Director Miller noted that there is a 6% statutory lid, and because the City is part of the library district, the cap is 3 . 10 mills or $13 , 000, 000 . She noted that the amount in the proposed ordinance is $11,522 , 799 . Miller said that the City is well within the levy and she is .confident in recommending adoption of the tax levy ordinance at this time. She noted that changes can be made at a later date. The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the motion carried. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Ordinance No. 3245 fixing the property tax levy for 1996. Woods seconded and the motion carried. APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C) Arts Commission Appointment and Reappointment. CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's appointment of Charlene Shaw to serve as a member of the Kent Arts Commission. Ms. Shaw is a long time Kent resident and has been employed by King County for 20 years, currently working for Jail Planning. She is a volunteer with Hospice in Seattle and was also involved as a volunteer with the Pediatric Interim Care Center. In her spare time she enjoys collecting doll house miniatures. Ms. Shaw will replace Bill Erb, whose term expired. Her new term will continue to 10/31/99 . CONFIRMATION of the Mayor's reappointment of Leigha Conner to continue serving as a member of the Arts Commission. Ms. Connor's new term will continue to 10/31/99 . POLICE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F-1) (ADDED ITEM) Police Presence - Cambridge Area. Bennett introduced Sue Pascowitz who has lived in the Cambridge East area for over twenty years. She stated that young people in the neighborhood have been causing trouble by speeding, using foul language and intimidating residents. She added 8 November 7 , 1995 POLICE that cars have been vandalized and asked that the curfew be enforced. The Mayor asked Ms. Pascowitz to speak with Police Sgt. Sweeney, and noted that there will be two additional police officers for West Hill next year. (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F-3) (ADDED ITEM) Vandalism at Eastbrook Flower Garden. Bennett noted that the sign at the Eastbrook Flower Garden on 6th Avenue and Meeker has been van- dalized and asked that it be repaired. Mayor White stated that it will be taken care of. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H) RECREATION Riverbend Golf Complex Field Improvements Project. ACCEPTANCE as complete of the Field Improvements Project at the Riverbend Golf Complex, and release retainage to Golf Landscaping upon receipt of state releases. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I) Riverbend Golf Complex Fees. ACCEPTANCE of new golf fees as proposed by the Golf Advisory Board for the Riverbend Golf Complex. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J) Asbestos Removal. ACCEPTANCE as complete of the asbestos removal from the Parks house located at 8121 South 259th Street, and release of retainage to F. S. & G. S. Services upon receipt of state releases. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K) Parks and Recreation Code Amendments. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3247 amending Chapter 4 . 01 of the Kent City Code relating to "Parks and Recreation" changing penalties for violations of certain provisions from misdemeanors to civil infractions and further repealing certain provisions relating to boating and watercraft, which provisions have been incorporated into a new boating regulation code adopted concurrently with this ordinance. (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L) Boating Regulations Code. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3248 establishing a new chapter to the Kent City Code entitled "Boating Regulations" relating to boating on lakes within the City of Kent. 9 November 7, 1995 PARKS & (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4F-2) RECREATION (ADDED ITEM) Vandalism at Paaoda. Bennett noted that the pagoda on Railroad Avenue and Smith Street has been vandalized, and commended Jim Dorrough, Ken Denhert and Casey Cooper for their craftsmanship in repairing the damage. REPORTS Operations Committee. Johnson •,announced that the Operations Committee meeting scheduled for November 8th has been cancelled. Planning Committee. Orr noted that the next Committee meeting will be held at 4 : 00 p.m. on November 21st. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7 : 45 p.m. Brenda Ja obe , CMC City Clerk 10 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21 , 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE SELF HAUL CHARGES, MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: s recommended by the Public Works Committee, doption of dinance No. amending the City Code Section referencing ge Collection by a collection company to allow residential se -haul without the mandated service charge in areas that anne to the City after the effective date of this ordinance. Said self-haul provision would expire upon either the City' s contracting hauler taking over service of the area or five years after annexation, whichever occurs first. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee _(telephone concurrence from Bennett) (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3C which left us no choice. There isn't enough room in the sidewalk to do it without grates and still provide an area to wall,. Clark asked if the merchants were upset about the sudden appearance of these large grates. Wickstrom said the merchants were upset about the work, but recognized that it had to be done. In response to Clark, he said that the people on 1 st Avenue were informed in advance of any work being done. Committee unanimously recommended Council authorization of transfer of funds of $57,000. Added Items: Charlie IGefer Interim Funding Agreement with City of Tacoma IGefer said that in the agreement it states that Tacoma will build a water line and Kent and other water districts in South King County will help fund the building of that project and it also says ... "and to construct other facilities as would be necessary to reliably maintain the agreed level of water supply for delivery to the Utilities....." IGefer asked if there is a list of these other facilities. Wickstrom said that those are Tacoma's projects. The Impoundment project is our own project. Those referred to in the agreement are Tacoma's such as Conservation and the Developing of Wells in the Tidelands. Those are projects that Tacoma has identified to firm up the Green River water supply. Wickstrom said that our project is not referenced in this agreement; that's for our future supply needs. We are getting 4.6 mgd per day out of Tacoma and that's not all the water we need for ultimate build-out. Tacoma's supply is firm. Between the Green River and what they have to do to make that year round 4.6 mgd they will provide the firming and will pay for the firming sources that they develop. Tom Brubaker: Meridian Annexation Garbage Service Brubaker said that when we annex into the Meridian area, they currently have the option under their existing franchise to choose not to have garbage service and to self- haul. He said in Kent, a resident is required to pay the minimum garbage hauling service whether you self-haul or not. Brubaker said that when we annex into an area, state law requires us to renew the existing franchise holders contract for five years. He said that under the contract in effect for garbage hauling in the Meridian Annexation area, we should give the citizens the right to continue self-hauling without a minimum charge. Committee unanimously recommended that the City Code Section referencing Garbage Collection by a collection company be modified to take care of the problems of those people currently being serviced in the Meridian Annexation Area and, they be allowed to continue their service for the maximum five year period. 6 ORDINANCE NO . AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent , Washington, relating to mandatory minimum garbage service in annexation areas . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . Amendment . Section 7 . 03 . 020 of the Kent City Code is hereby modified as follows : Sec . 7 . 03 . 020 . Garbage collection by collection companies . A. Garbage collections shall be made by garbage and refuse collection companies as authorized by the city. B. It shall be unlawful for any person, other than those duly authorized by the city to haul garbage through the streets of the city or to dump garbage . Those commercial and industrial business establishments having permits to haul their own garbage and refuse may continue to haul such garbage by annual permit . Renewal permits shall be issued by the city clerk upon application and payment of the annual permit fee . The annual permit fee shall be as follows : 1 1 . Permit holders hauling less than one hundre fifty (150) tons of garbage per month, one hundred dollars ($100 . 00) ; 2 . Permit holders hauling greater than one hundred fifty (150) tons of garbage per month, seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7 , 500 . 00) . Any permit holder, as provided for in this subsection, shall haul garbage at least once a week for public health reasons . C. This section does not apply to the occasional hauling by residential customers of refuse to an approved site if the minimum level of garbage service is paid for by the residential customer , except as set forth in subsection D . D . In annexation areas residential customers mat occasionally haul refuse to an approved site and not be re uired to pay the minimum level of service if those customers held that right prior to annexation; however, this exemption from minimum level of service payments for residential self-haulers shall only be available for a period not to exceed five (5) years from the date of annexation or until the City' s crarbaae collection company contractor assumes collection responsibility in the annexation area whichever occurs first . 2 Section 2 . Savings . Kent City Code Section 7 . 03 . 020 , which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance . Section 3 . 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 4 . 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. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY 3 PASSED the day of 19— APPROVED the day of 19—• PUBLISHED the day of 19—• I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No . passed by the City Council of the City Of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK SELFHRUL.ord 4 j Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: M1-C ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-10 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 32-5 amending the MI-C Zoning District. After review of a proposed zoning code amendment to the M1-C zone at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 23 , 1995, the Commission approved an amendment to Section 15. 04. 170 to allow drive-in and drive-through eating establishments in the MI-C zone, and to reduce the minimum lot size for land in the M1-C zone to 10, 000 sq. feet. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: Council Agenda Item No. 3E ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, amending Section 15 . 04 . 170 of the Kent Zoning Code to allow drive-through eating establishments as principally permitted uses in the MI-C zone and to reduce the minimum lot size for land within the M1-C zone to 10 , 000 square feet . WHEREAS, on August 24 , 1995 , the City received an application for regulatory review of the principally permitted uses in the M1-C zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant ' s request was to allow drive-in eating establishments as principally permitted uses in the M1-C zone and to reduce the minimum lot size for land in the MI-C zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the applicant ' s request at a workshop October 9 , 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider expanding the principally permitted uses in the M1-C zone to allow drive-through eating facilities and to reduce the minimum lot sizes for land in the M1-C zone to 10 , 000 square feet ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to approve the zoning code amendment to allow drive-through eating establishments as principally permitted uses in the Ml-C zone and to reduce the minimum lot size for land in the MI-C zone to 10 , 000 square feet ; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . Section 15 . 04 . 170 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to read as follows : Sec. 15 . 04 .170 . Industrial park district, M1 or M1-C. The purpose of the M-1 district is to provide an environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of a broad range of industrial activities , including modern, large scale administrative facilities, research institutions and specialized manufacturing organizations, all of a non-nuisance type . This district is intended to provide areas for those industrial activities that desire to conduct business in an atmosphere of prestige location in which environmental amenities are protected through a high level of development standards . It is also the purpose of this zone to allow certain 2 limited commercial land uses that provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial area . Sucr uses are allowed in the M1 district , through the application of the - -C ' ' suffix, at centralized, nodal locations where major arterials intersect . A. principally permitted uses, Mi district. The following list is illustrative of the types of permitted uses and is not intended to be exclusive : 1 . Manufacturing, processing, assembling and packaging of articles , products or merchandise from previously prepared natural or synthetic materials , including but not limited to asbestos, bristles , bone, canvas, cellophane and similar synthetics, chalk, clay (pulverized only, with gas or electric kilns) , cloth, cork, feathers, felt , fiber, fur, glass (including glass finishing) , graphite, hair, horn, leather, paints (except boiling processes) paper, paraffin, plastic and resins, precious or semiprecious metals or stones, putty, pumice, rubber, shell , textiles , tobacco, wire, wood, wool and yarn. 2 . Manufacturing, processing, treating, assembling and packaging of articles, products or merchandise from previously prepared ferrous, nonferrous or alloyed metals (such as bar stock sheets, tubes, and wire and other extrusions) , including light foundry casting and forging operations and other forming operations . 3 . Printing, publishing and allied industries, including such processes as lithography, etching, engraving, 3 binding, blueprinting, photocopying, film processing and similar operations or activities . 4 . Manufacturing, processing, blending and packaging of the following: a . Drugs , pharmaceuticals , toiletries and cosmetics . b . Food and kindred products, such as confectionery products, chocolate, cereal breakfast foods, bakery products, paste products, fruits and vegetables, beer, beverages (except fermenting and distilling) , prepared food specialties (such as coffee, dehydrated and instant foods, extracts, spices and dressings) and similar products . C . Dairy products and byproducts , such as milk, cream, cheese and butter, including the processing and bottling of fluid milk and cream and wholesale distribution. 5 . Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods or products , except for those goods or products specifically described as permitted to be stored only as conditional uses in the M3 district . 6 . Crop and tree farming. 7 . Administrative or executive offices which are part of a predominant industrial operation. 8 . Scientific research, testing and experimental development laboratories . 9 . Establishments engaged in electronic, automotive, aerospace, missile, airframe or related manufacturing 4 and assembly activities, including precision machine shops producing parts, accessories, assemblies, systems , engines, major components and whole electronic or electrical devices, automobiles, aircraft, missiles, aerospace or underwater vehicles , or similar products, including research and test facilities, but specifically excluding explosive fuels and propellants . 10 . Manufacturing, processing, assembling and packaging of precision components and products, including precision machine shops for products such as radio and television equipment, business machine equipment, home appliances, scientific, optical , medical , dental and drafting instruments, photographic and optical goods , phonograph records and prerecorded audiovisual tare, measurement and control devices, sound equipment and supplies, personal accessories, and products of similar character . 11 . Headauarters offices of industrial operations . 12 . Alcoholic beverage processes, such as distilling and fermenting. 13 . Retail uses as follows : a . Merchandise vending machine operators . b. Tires, batteries and accessories for industrial vehicles and equipment . C . Eating places, except drive-ins or those with drive-in or drive-through facilities . 5 d . Bulk retail uses which provide goods for regional retail and wholesale markets; provided that each use occupy no less than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43 , 560) square feet of gross floor area. 14 . Administrative, professional, medical , financial and business offices and services, including but not limited to the following: a . Finance, insurance and real estate services . (1) Banking and related services . (2) Security brokers and dealers and related services . (3 ) Commodity brokers and dealers and related services . (4) Insurance carriers . (5) Insurance brokers and agents and related services . (6) Real estate operators , lessors and management services . (7) Real estate agents and brokers and related services . (8) Real estate subdividing and developing services . (9) Housing and investment services . b . Personal services. 6 (1) Linen supply and industrial laundry services . (2) Diaper services . (3 ) Rug cleaning and repair services . (4) Photographic services . (5) Beauty and barber services . (6) Fur repair and storage services . C . Business services. (1) Advertising services . (2) Outdoor advertising services . (3) Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services, and adjustment and collection services . (4) Direct mail advertising services . (5) Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services . (6) Window cleaning services . (7) Disinfecting and exterminating services . (8) News syndicate services . (9) Employment services . (10) Food lockers, with or without food preparation facilities . (11) Business and management consulting services . (12) Detective and protective services . 7 (13 ) Equipment rental and leasing services . (14) Automobile and truck rental services . (15) Motion picture distribution services . (16) Travel agencies . d. Repair services. (1) Electrical repair services . (2) Radio and television repair services . (3) Reupholstery and furniture repair services . (4) Armature rewinding services . e . Professional services . (1) Medical and dental laboratory services . (2) Legal services . (3) Engineering and architectural services . (4) Educational and scientific research services . (5) Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services . (6) Urban planning services . (7) Counseling services . 8 f . Contract construction services. (1) Building construction, general contractor services . (2) Plumbing, heating and air conditioning services . (3 ) Painting, paperhanging and decorating services . (4) Electrical services . (5) Masonry, stonework, tile setting and plastering services . (6) Carpentering and wood flooring. (7) Roofing and sheetmetal services . (8) Concrete services . (9) Water well drilling services . a. Educational services . (1) Vocational or trade schools . (2) Business and stenographic schools . (3 ) Driving schools, truck. h. Miscellaneous services. (1) Business associations and organizations . (2) Labor unions and similar labor organizations . (3 ) Health and fitness clubs and facilities . 9 Other service uses are permitted which may be deemed by the planning director to be of the same general character as and compatible with those uses listed in this subsection. 15 . Gymnastic schools and similar uses . 16 . Indoor paintball . 17 . Other similar uses which the planning director finds compatible with the principally permitted uses described in this subsection, consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ml district and not of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining properties . 18 . Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences . 19 . Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to section 15 . 04 . 200 . B . Principally permitted uses in MI-C district ("C" suffix) . The following commercial uses are permitted in addition to those listed in subsection A. of this section on properties designated with the "C" suffix pursuant to procedures specified in section 15 . 09 . 050 . This list is intended to be illustrative of the types of commercial uses permitted. 1 . Automotive service, maintenance and repair facilities . 2 . Bakeries and confectioneries . 10 3 . Computer and software stores . 4 . Convenience and deli marts, with a maximum gross floor area of three thousand (3 , 000) square feet . 5 . ' Convention facilities . 6 . Exhibition halls and art galleries . 7 . Hotel or motel . 8 . Liquor stores . 9 . Magazine and newspaper stands . 10 . Printing services . 11 . Private post offices . 12 . Shoe repair. 13 . Stationery and office supply stores . 14 . Tailoring . 15 . Eating establishments including drive-in or drive-through eating facilities . Other similar uses are permitted which the planning director finds compatible with the principally permitted uses described in this subsection, consistent with the purpose and intent of the M1 district and not of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining properties . C. Special permit uses . The following uses are permitted provided they conform to the development standards listed in section 15 . 08 . 020 : 1 . Gasoline service stations , with or without retail convenience grocery sales . 2 . Nursery schools and day care centers . .. 11 D. Accessory uses. The fo=lowing are the accessory uses permitted in the M1 district : 1 . Repair operations for products as described as principally permitted uses , and sa=es and service incidental to a principally permitted use, provided such operations are housed as a part of the buildings comprising the basic operation. 2 . Dwelling units, 1-mited to not more than one (1) per establishment , for security o- maintenance personnel and their families , when located on the premises where they are employed in such capacity. No other residential use shall be permitted. 3 . Employee recreaticn facilities and play areas . 4 . Restaurant , cafe c- cafeteria operated in conjunction with a principally permitted use for the convenience of persons employed on the premises . 5 . Nursery schools and day care facilities operated in conjunction with a permitted use . 6 . For permitted uses , hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11 . 02 and which do not accumulate more than twenty thousand (20 , 000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 050 . offsite hazardous waste 12 treatment or storage facilities are not permitted in this district , except Through a special use combining district . 7 . Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appur=enant to a principally permitted use . 8 . The following are accessory uses which are allowed only in the MI-C district in cases where development plans demonstrate a relationship between these uses and the principal uses of the property: a . Gift shops . b. Florist shoos . C . Specialty clothing stores . E . Gc-2ditional uses. The following are the types of conditional uses permitted in the Mi district , subject to approval by the hearing examiner. The list of conditional permitted uses is illustrative of the types of uses which shall be permitted, and is not intended to be exclusive : 1 . Any principally permitted use whose operations are predominantly conducted out-of-doors rather than completely enclosed within a building . 2 . Any type of principally permitted use whose operations are predominantly for the repair of products described rather than the manufacturing or processing of such products . 3 . General conditional uses as listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 . 4 . Car loading and distribution facilities, and rail-truck transfer stations . 13 5 . Manufacturing of paint . 6 . For permitted uses , accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11 . 02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20 , 000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15 . 08 . 050 . Offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities are not permitted in this district , except through a special use combining district . F. Development standards . 1 . Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre except on lands zoned MI-C where the minimum lot size may be 10 , 000 square feet . 2 . Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is sixty (60) percent . 3 . Yards generally. a . Front yard. The minimum front yard setback shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street . This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer . The setbacks are as follows : (1) Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet . (2) Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet . 14 b. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot . The minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot shall be related to the classification of the adjacent street . This classification shall be determined by the city transportation engineer. The setbacks are as follows : (1) Properties fronting on arterial and collector streets shall have a minimum setback of forty (40) feet . (2) Properties fronting on local access streets shall have a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet . C . Side yards . The side yards shall have an aggregate width of ten (10) percent of the lot width, but the aggregate width need not be more than forty (40) feet . There shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet on each side . d. Rear yard. No rear yard is required, except as may be required by other setback provisions of this section . 4 . Yards, transitional conditions. Transitional conditions shall exist when an industrial park Mi district adjoins a residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes intervening use such as a river, freeway, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface 15 street on which the housing does not face . When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided. 5 . Setbacks, Green River. Development in the M1 district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet . Such setbacks are in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act . 6 . Height limitation . The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet . Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet , there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each one (1) foot of, additional building height . The planning director shall be authorized to approve one (1) additional story, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the industrial area, and may impose such conditions as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibility with surrounding uses . Any additional height increase may be granted by the planning commission. 7 . Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15 . 07 shall apply. Where building walls face adjacent streets and are unfenestrated for more than forty (40) feet at any point along the facade, additional landscaping shall be 16 required to reduce visual impacts . In such circumstances , type II landscaping as defined in section 15 . 07 . 050 shall be required, provided that evergreen trees shall be at least ten (10) feet in height and deciduous trees shall be a minimum. of two-inch caliper at time of planting . 8 . Enclosure of activities. Predominant activities and operations shall be completely enclosed within buildings or structures, except for customary appurtenances such as loading and unloading areas, or where special conditions exist as a result of a conditional use public hearing . The planning director shall be authorized to determine the reasonable application of this provision in cases of operational hardship or other showing of uncommon circumstances . 9 . Outside storage or operations yards. Outside storage or operations yards in the M1 zone shall be permitted only as accessory uses . Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure . Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of the principal building or the rear two-thirds of the property and reasonably screened from view from any property line by appropriate walls, fencing, earth mounds or landscaping. Outside storage exceeding a height of fifteen (15) feet shall be so placed on the property as to not detract from the reasonably accepted appearance of the district . 17 10 . Loading areas. a . Loading areas must be located in such a manner that no loading, unloading or maneuvering of trucks associated therewith takes place on public rights-of-way. b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches and a maximum of forty-two (42) inches in height . Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to type III landscaping as described in subsection 15 . 07 . 050 C. 11 . Multitenant buildings. Multitenant buildings shall be permitted. 12 . Improvement and maintenance of yards and open space. All required yards , parking areas, storage areas, operations yards and other open uses on the site shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner appropriate for the district at all times . The planning director shall be authorized to reasonably pursue the enforcement of this subsection where a use is in violation, and to notify the owner or operator of the use in writing of such 'noncompliance . The property owner or operator of the use shall be given a reasonable length of time to correct the condition. G. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15 . 06 shall apply. Signage on commercial uses in the M1-C zone shall be as specified in subsection 15 . 06 . 050 B . 18 H. Offstreet parking. 1 . The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15 . 05 shall apply. 2 . Those areas not required to be landscaped may be used for offstreet parking . I . Performance standards. The performance standards as provided in section 15 . 08 . 050 shall apply. J. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15 . 09 . 010 . SECTION 2 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 3. Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 19 ATTEST : BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of , 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No . , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK zo�eecat�e.ord 20 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, PHASE 11 EAST HILL CPA-95-1 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3 Z6-,j� amending the zoning map to implement the Land Use Plan Map of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCALIPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3F ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington amending the official zoning map of the City of Kent to implement the Land Use Plan Map of the Kent Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, in 1990 the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act (GMA) with subsequent amendments in 1991 and 1993 and as set forth in Chapter 36 . 70A; and WHEREAS, the GMA requires jurisdictions throughout the State of Washington, including the City of Kent, to prepare. and adopt comprehensive plans which contain, at a minimum, elements relating to land use, transportation, capital facilities , housing, and utilities; and which must be both internally consistent and consistent with comprehensive plans from surrounding jurisdictions ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the GMA, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan on April 18 , 1995 , and that, as mandated by the GMA, the plan contained a land use element which included a Land Use Plan Map, which designated the type and density of various land uses throughout the City and the City' s Potential Annexation Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36 . 70A. 120 , the enactment of the GMA requires development regulations which are consistent with and implement a jurisdiction' s comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, Planning Department staff analyzed the City' s zoning map and the adopted Land Use Plan Map and identified areas throughout the City in which the zoning map and Land Use Plan Map were not consistent with one another; and WHEREAS, that the project was divided into two phases : Phase I , which would analyze potential zoning map changes on East Hill, and Phase II , which would analyze zoning map changes on the Valley Floor and West Hill ; and WHEREAS, identification of inconsistencies between the City' s zoning map and the Land Use Plan Map require potential zoning map amendments to achieve consistency; and WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Commission reviewed the Phase I zoning map amendments at a public hearing on July 24 , 1995, and made a recommendation to the City Council for zoning map amendments ; and WHEREAS , the Kent City Council voted to approve the Planning Commission' s recommended zoning map amendments on November 7 , 1995 ; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires that comprehensive plans and development regulations be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact, and that on July 26 , 1995 the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and that this Addendum analyzed the zoning map amendments later adopted by the City Council on November 7 , 1995 ; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : Section I . The zoning boundaries of the City of Kent official zoning map are hereby amended for eight areas on East Hill in Phase I as reflected in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and the Kent Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to incorporate the amendments to the official zoning map as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 2. A copy of the official zoning map, as amended herein, shall be filed with the City Clerk and retained in the office of the Planning Department and made available for public inspection upon request . Section 3. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this Chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect . Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 PUBLISHED day of 1995. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK i {' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1 1 1 S/Y�9T� T� v ut - I IVN I1 REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 1 ZONING: R, - 2 V COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SF - 3 I COMPREHENSIVE PL VN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1I � I \ ;-I ...(f)�Iili �� II Ili �'3.- � w'-U f4/�ll '�,;'Illlflf Ij {�- f L Lf \ r IN, Ln 'I cn 16 REZONE SITE/ errrrrrr CIT`1 LIMITS AREA ZONING: I Rl — 1 2 i CO'_COMPREHENSIVEN E PLA DESIDESIGNATION: cF - 3 � 1 ' � 1 V 1 �lLHtft 1q Y� ' r • � • K 1�d�rn.iST•1c! lUlrF•�1RY� j�4 ``lj_R�� 6Ye�1L "L�E,ti<L'Ksl�ttFF�c 8' A t2 �\ fy5alJI f9'A !l41 yy sns.e-.�t..WrLL7 • • 9 } ryyti;l`�\..� L l tl > j�L' 1�� �!a y/ 5=a �i�.�s�� ' ~•1 ` • It� t 4'°'y,o I 41��. .it �`���fW d° � l<�.7 • � _ r �v r + � t\ Y $x.R 11`' 12�,���`y�' •�`S�'�'..ai•+3 �'^s'-.r'�.'..'�e�i err s. r� t � 41- l a + ry*ij�5Yt ^'tl 1'$r•�I'M ct �� Ci� /fs�•9 A KiY b la {0`lY 1� ! sue• ✓•�"' . A rs� r _ y�1 +Syr- 17 f r`, yriv r�+rt',"� ., �tr A_. �•�.�fi a: �i r3 v1 .a �_..,x�„°YJ .���� 1irr�M1�c..n•�f"9•.°C a l � �� �WAN l4tt �r` F _ L41SuL - •I, Yt�n�Jy�y. c� xt'rkn 9to� 1 DTI .+ €4 1 � CJ�t�-+'-a \lit -1 1'-- ni .....,-1- -r-r-s4•_ �-:j �it r ' �. <.rt cT"_C-��y� ` � 1 � ` r sue---- •^'' r � � t e... a-..= e w Y.�L7t7Y1�iid'� f> ,I r r � COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATI'?N: PHASE 1 u ; lid - -- - �� / Ljoil �1 CD EJ o i Q 1nI ❑ �I I r � � Qn� 1 o Li J REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 4 ZONING: M R lrl LOW DENSITY �/�l iT\T TTTT\T C�TT TTI TlT • lT TI TI CT TlT lT A TTII IT - _ _ _- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE I \�''\ A \' cd E�m EA �,�) �) v v 1 'Q \K v a i REZONE SITE "*'T''T CITY LIMITS AREA 5 ZONING: *R 1 — 7 2 M R M , t MEDIUM DENSITY COMPREHENSNE PLAN DESIGNATION: 11XTTT TTLn A 1LTT v COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1 � o El Ll s � a `� �r SSE% 13 q Lj o + :� -Ell ., TD - d �E PL \ \ SE ST REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA E5 ZONING: R 1 - / • 2 -- ------ ---- - - - c v — 9z COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1 1ED Lu co \o \ v v v REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 7 ZONING: R 1 - 7 . 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: S F - [ ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1 r �P 16 L , I ff CD tJ2� r 0 o �� Q cz03 LID Q SE... 213.4 STD ' - REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA R1 - 5 . 0 - Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: SURPLUS VEHICLES �--- 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommendedby the Public Works Committee, thorization to declare certain Equipment Rental vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authori that they be sold at the State of Washington auction. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works minutes 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3G DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstrom RE: Surplus Vehicles Attached is list of Equipment Rental vehicles which are no longer needed by the City. As such,we are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold at the next State auction. ACTION: Declare this equipment as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction. PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS MEMORANDUM Date: November 6th, 1995 To: Don Wickstrom, Public Worlrc Director From: Jack Spencer, Fleet Mana �� Thru: Eddy Chu, Operations Mana r Subject: Surplus Vehicles I am requesting authorization to surplus vehicles that are no longer needed by Equipment Rental. These will be sold at the next State of Washington auction. D34132 #59 - 1985 Chevrolet, 1/2 Ton Pickup with 98,255 miles Truck was used by the Water Department until 1990 and has been used as a line vehicle up to the present time. Vehicle needs major engine repair. It is impractical to repair and it would be preferable to surplus the vehicle before spending a lot of money on it. D36318 #38 - 1986 Chevrolet, 1/2 Ton Pickup With 85,397 miles Truck was used by the Sewer Department until 1994 and used as a line vehicle until August of this year. The truck has been deadlined. The engine needs overhauling, has low compression, needs the carburetor replaced. This vehicle should be surplused. 03932D #325 - 1988 Chevrolet Celebrity, 4 door, with 66,449 miles This car has been used by the Police Department for investigation. Usually unmarked cars have been replaced after five years because they become recognizable by the public. This vehicle has been extended and used longer than normal. This vehicle should be surplused. D5731D #332 - 1984 Ford LTD, 4 door, with 64,256 miles Used by Police until 1989, then was moved to a line vehicle and rented to other departments as needed. This vehicle should be surplused and a newer car moved to the line. 08780D #345 - 1991 Chevrolet Caprice with 91,553 miles Used by Police as a K9 car, has high mileage and has been replaced with a new unit. 09613D #359 - 1991 Chevrolet Caprice with 71,923 miles Was used on Police Patrol. Vehicle has some steering and front end problems. Also has electrical and starting problems. 01859D #366 - 1987 Chevrolet Caprice with 78,752 miles Car was #122 and used by Public Works Operations, due to low mileage, went to Police Patrol in June of 1993. It has been used two years and now has enough mileage to replace. It has some transmission problems and has been replaced with a new vehicle. D14999 #92 - 1970 Chevrolet Tank Truck, shows 23,007 miles This is an old truck with many miles on it before the tank was installed. Engine will not pass emission test and the tank has rusted out. It would cost more to repair than it is worth and truck has been deadlined. It has been replaced with a new tank and a used truck. JS/map ER0912 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Jim Bennett Don Wickstrom Central Puget Sound (Metro) Public Transportation Account Grant Wickstrom stated that we have received a grant we applied for last year thr . Metro to make ADA improvements at certain bus stops. We need to establish a budget for this grant which is $120,000. Our match is coming out of our Transit money which we had specifically set aside for this purpose. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of S 120,000 and establish a budget for same. Surplus Vehicles Wickstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles in the Committee packet which are no longer needed by the City and requested that they be declared as surplus. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and recommended the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction. S. 196th Corridor (UPRR Crossing) Grant Wickstrom stated that we have received a grant of $8,550 from the State of Washington for the preliminary design for upgrading the railroad spur crossing at 196th Street which is part of our 196th Street Corridor. He said the total amount for the budget is $127,350 of which 90% is grant money. As this time, we are asking for authorization to establish a budget. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of $127,350 and establish a budget for same. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: S. 196TH STREET CORRIDOR - UPRR CROSSING - GRANT - 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: s recommended by the Public Works Committee, ` thorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for improvement to an exi ting UPRR spur crossing at S. 196th Street, to accept the gran for same and to establish a budget in the amount of $127, 350 fer-e: The Railroade�Q will be providing all necessary matching funds. 11 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION: -- Council Agenda Item No. 3H PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Jim Bennett Don Wiccstrom Central Puget Sound (Metro) Public Transportation Account Grant Wiccstrom stated that we have received a grant we applied for last year thru Metro to make ADA improvements at certain bus stops. We need to establish a budget for this grant which is $120,000. Our match is coming out of our Transit money which we had specifically set aside for this purpose. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of $120,000 and establish a budget for same. Surplus Vehicles Wicicstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles in the Committee packet which are no longer needed by the City and requested that they be declared as surplus. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and recommended the sale thereof at the next State of Washington auction. S. 196th Corridor (UPRR Crossing) Grant Wicicstrom stated that we have received a grant of $8,550 from the State of Washington for the preliminary design for upgrading the railroad spur crossing at 196th Street which is part of our 196th Street Corridor. He said the total amount for the budget is $127,350 of which 90% or more is grant money. As this time, we are asking for authorization to establish a budget. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of $127,350 and establish a budget for same. 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Committee FROM: Don Wickstromplo RE: S. 196th St. Corridor - Grant Fund We have received a grant from WA State Dept of Transportation in the amount of $8,550 which represents 90% of the estimated preliminary design cost of the UPRR crossing on the S 196th Street Corridor. The construction costs at this crossing are estimated at $120,000 of which 99% will be considered for funding under this grant. At this time we are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to establish a budget in the amount of S 127,350 for the preliminary design and construction costs at the UPRR crossing on S. 196th Street. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of S 127,350 and to establish a budget for same. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, _1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: METRO GRANT 2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by th blic Works Committee, uthorization for the Mayor to sign t grant agreement with Metro for ADA accessible improvement t bus stops, to accept the Metro pass through grant funds of 81, 000 and Metro's local match thereto of $26,000 and establish�i budget in the amount of $120, 000 for project expenditures�Y The City' s match for this grant will be $13, 000 for which funds exist in the Shuttle Bus project fund. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum and Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 13, 1995 TO: Public Works Comnpittee FROM: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Central Puget Sound Public Transportation Account Grant Kent has received a grant through Metro in the amount of $81,000 to make ADA accessible improvements to bus zone landing pads, curb ramps, and sidewalks, and pedestrian connections in areas where Metro Transit provides service. The City's match for this grant will be $13,000, Metro will also provide matching funds in the amount of $26,000, making a total of$120.000 in project expenditures. At this time the Public Works Department is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to establish a budget in the amount of$120,000 for preliminary design and construction costs. ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of$120,000 and establish a budget for same. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Jim Bennett Don Wickstrom Central Puget Sound (Metro) Public Transportation Account.Grant Wickstrom stated that we have received a grant we applied for last year thru Metro to make ADA improvements at certain bus stops. We need to establish a budget for this grant which is $120,000. Our match is coming out of our Transit money which we had specifically set aside for this purpose. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of S 120,000 and establish a budget for same. Surplus Vehicles Wickstrom referenced a list of Equipment Rental vehicles in the Committee packet which are no longer needed by the City and requested that they be declared as surplus. Committee unanimously recommended that this equipment be declared as surplus and recommended the sale thereof at the nest State of Washington auction. S. 196th Corridor (UPRR Crossing) Grant Wickstrom stated that we have received a grant of $8,550 from the State of Washington for the preliminary design for upgrading the railroad spur crossing at 196th Street which is part of our 196th Street Corridor. He said the total amount for the budget is $127,350 of which 90% is grant money. As this time, we are asking for authorization to establish a budget. Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the grant agreement and direct staff to accept the grant for the total amount of S 127,350 and establish a budget for same. 1 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ASBESTOS REMOVAL PROJECT w�I,,� 2 . SIIMMARY STATEMENT: Accept' asbestos removal from Parks houses located at 8121 South 259th and 24615 26th Place South as complete and release retainage to P.L. Whitton Company Northwest, Inc. upon receipt of state releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3J Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: RUSSELL ROAD PARK ASPHALT REPAIR PROJECT b'� 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the Russell Road Park-Asphalt Sidewalk Repair Project as complete and release retainage to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. upon receipt of state releases. 3 . EXHIBITS: None 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3K Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: BUILDING DEMOLITION - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE 2 . SUMMARY ST TEMENT: mmended by the Public Works Director, ccept as complete th contract with Building Busters, inc. for the Building D molition project and release of retainage after state releases The original contract was $78, 648 .42 . The final construction was $78, 648.42 . 3 . EXHIBITS• 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS• 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION• ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3L Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: JAMES STREET TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Due to the existing hea 0 1.1 Q111� e , the Public Works Department to investigate alternatives to enhance -saw traffic safety along James Street from Central Avenue to 100th Avenue and to limit the investigation to only those alternatives that are financially possible (not to exceed $2 million dollars) , 0,6 nUtyo w,¢,v ka 41 j-rw ►°vAr r- W aLP-4 c +� *tls rw al G uy^ a-,N,�O ,t1�cl"c �r�ceU . 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works minutes 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3M James Street - Paul Mann Wickstrom said that Paul Mann had requested staff to develop costs of constructing a fifth lane in James Street from Central Ave to 100th Ave., He noted that this is a very rough estimate and the numbers came out to be $3 - 4 Million dollars to put in a continuous left turn pocket thru that gap between Central & 100th. Wickstrom noted that Paul was interested in discussing this with Council. In response to Bennett, Wickstrom said that this ,.would involve right of way and included the purchase of some houses by the City. Wickstrom said that the issue here is whether or not Council wants staff to continue investigating this matter. Clark felt that when we open the 196th Corridor, it will reduce traffic on James but only until more build-up occurs on James. Clark asked if there was any alternative to provide the Church with an access point on the backside. Wickstrom explained that the Church has an access on Alvord which they negotiated, acquired and built themselves so they now have a secondary access. Mann stated that he would like the Council to consider another turn-off lane and is $3 Million to much to consider to resolve this issue? In response to Clark's question regarding redirecting traffic on James, Wickstrom said the east leg of 228th would give some relief and S. 196th is only going across Central Ave, which is scheduled to open in 1999, if we resolve the street utility issue. Clark stated that he would make a recommendation that we stop the study when it becomes evident that it will become more expensive than whatever we agree is the minimum line. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to investigate other alternatives for road access off of James Street however, when any exploratory avenue adds up to more than $2 Million dollars, it should be stopped at that point. 218th Street Condemnation Wickstrom stated that on 218th Street we essentially acquired all the right of way with the exception of the Trammel Crow property now known as the New York Life property. Wickstrom said that at this time, we are asking for authorization for the City Attorney to prepare a condemnation ordinance, should we need it. Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the City Attorney to prepare a Condemnation Ordinance for the New York Life property on S. 218th Street. Communications thru the Public Works Dept - Tim Clark Clark said that from his standpoint, it is very clear that some of the Engineers are 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 3N ADDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORR Stream Buffer Requirements . Authorization to set December 12 , 1995 , as the date for a public hearing on the stream buffer requirements in the Meridian Annexation Area. Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: METRO SEWER RATE INCREASE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City was advised by Metro in June of this year that their service per residential unit will be increased from $17 .95 to $19 . 10. This $1. 15 increase will become effective January 11 1996. It has been recommended by the Public Works Committee that this increase be passed along to our customers, including the corresponding utility tax that the additional $1. 15 increase would generate, and that an ordinance be adopted, passing on Metro's rate increase with the effective date of the rate being January 1, 1996. 3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum, Public Works minutes (9/11/95) and ordinance 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Memorandum (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember �a 'I 'V' moves, Councilmember ;� _seconds to adopt Ordinance No. .L)--'(-'passing on Metro' s rate increase, including the corresponding utility tax thereon, with the effective date of the rate being January 1, 1996. DISCUSSION: ACTION• 1 Council Agenda 11 Item No. 4A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS September 11, 1995 TO: Public Works Com ittee FROM: Don Wickstro RE: Metro Sewer Rate Increase Metro advised the City in June of this year that their service charge per residential unit will be increased from $17.95 to $19.10. This $1.15 increase will become effective January 1, 1996. It is our recommendation to pass along this increase to our customers and the corresponding utility tax that the additional $1.15 increase would generate. As such, we are requesting the single family residential rate be increased $1.19 to cover the Metro service charge and the 3.8% utility tax thereon. We are including the utility tax because as you are aware, it is no longer charged directly to the customer. To do otherwise just reduces the funds available for City's operational expenses and capital improvement needs. The charge for a single family residential unit would increase from $23.05 to $24.24 and the charge to all others would increase from $3.07 per 100 cubic foot to $3.23 per 100 cubic foot. The City's Lifeline rate would increase from $21.13 to $22.32. ACTION: Recommend adoption of the Ordinance passing on Metro's rate increase as reflected on the above with the affective date of the rate being January 1, 1996. IMPACT OF PROPOSED METRO RATE CHANGES ON SELECTED CUSTOMERS . Class & Individual Customer Sewer Existing Proposed Based on Water Consumption Rate ($) Rate ($) % Change Residential Customers 23.05 24.24 5 Commercial/Industrial Customers With very low sewer use; e.g., small store with no special sewer uses. 900 cu ft/month 27.63 29.07 5 With low sewer use; e.g., service station. 2,500 cu ft/month 76.75 80.75 5 With medium sewer use; e.g., large apartment building. 12,000 cut ft/month 368.40 387.60 5 With high sewer use; e.g., very large office building 25,000 cu ft/month 767.50 807.50 5 With very high sewer use; e.g., major industry 750,000 cu ft/month 23,025.00 24,225.00 5 1 ,500,000 cu ft/month 46,050.00 48,450.00 5 M626 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE September 11, 1995 PRESENT: Jim Bennett Gary Gill Tim Clark Paul Scott Don Wickstrom Tom Graham Tom Brubaker Mr. & Mrs. Rust ABSENT: Paul Mann SEWER RATE INCREASE Wickstrom explained that METRO is increasing their rates by a $1.15 and the City is proposing the utility tax be passed onto the property owners. He said that the utility tax is now on the Utility and not billed separately to the individual customer, therefore, that is why we include in the rate change the utility tax portion. Wickstromn commented that we would pay for it anyway, one way or another. He went on to say that the City's utility tax on the sewer fund doesn't show up on utility bills. It is paid by the Utility and, as such, it's an overhead cost, so anytime the rate changes, if there are no corresponding added percentage related to the utility tax, it comes out of our existing operating costs. Councilman Clark questioned what the explanation was from METRO. Wickstrom explained that METRO was still in the process of meeting the Federal water quality edict pertaining to requiring secondary treatment at all their sewage treatment facilities. He said that once that's complete METRO next edict is to clean up their CSO's (combined sewer overflow) problems. As such, there will always be a yearly METRO increase. Committee unanimously recommended authorization to the adopt the proposed sewer increase. PROPOSED TNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - S. 240th STREET Wickstrom stated that this was strictly for information at this time since we did not have a formal agreement and they were in the process of developing it. He said as part of the Meridian Annexation, we had thought we were clear of all County concerns, then the petition forced a Boundary Review Board hearing which gave a second life to King Co. Public Works people who used this as leverage to force the City to participate. Wickstrom stated that the City would have participated anyway in the road project with regard to that portion fronting on the annexation. He said that the County brought it to the City's attention that they were going to testify before the BRB had we not worked out an arrangement with them. Wickstrom said that the County_ had several roads that they were proposing to build in the Meridian Annexation, but actually only two that they were building and the rest they had no plan of building within the Six-Year Plan. One was S.E. 256th which would be ours to build anyway and S.E. 240th ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington, adjusting the scheduled charges for sewer service in the City as a result of the sewer rate increase issued by Metropolitan King County. WHEREAS, the City has been advised by Metropolitan King County that their service charge for each residential unit of sewer service shall be increased from $17 . 95 to $19 . 10 ; and WHEREAS, this increase will become effective January 1, 1996 ; and WHEREAS, the City must pass this increase along to its customers, as it has in the past, together with the 3 . 80-. utility tax thereon, because utility tax is no longer directly charged to customers . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : s wr SECTION I . Section 7 . 04 . 280 of the Kent City Code shall be amended as follows : Sec . 7 . 04 . 280 . Schedule of charges; for service within City. The following are the sanitary sewer service charges for service inside the City. Type of Service Charge per month 1 . Single-family resi- $24 . 24 dential 2 . Duplex residential ; 23 . 95 24 . 24 each unit separately charged. 3 . Single-family resi- dential/Lifeline : Eli- gibility criteria for Lifeline Rate shall be established by City Council . 21 . 22 . 32 4 . All other than sin- gle-family residen- tial , shall be billed in accordance with the 2 s. �. consumption of water and at the following rate, except that no monthly $3 . 9:� 3 . 23 per bill shall be less than 100 cubic feet $33 . G5 24 . 24 . per month. SECTION 2. Kent City Code Section 7 . 04 . 280 , which is amended by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance . SECTION 3 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on January 1, 1996 , which is at least thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR 3 s.....�. BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No . passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 4 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21. 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT FSU-94-2 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Top of the Hill Final Plat project is 8 .74 acres in size and is located on the north side of SE 244th Street, approximately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. The Council approved the Top of the Hill preliminary plat on September 20, 1994 . 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; map; City Council minutes of September 20, 1994 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember & titi moves, Councilmember 4,1/' seconds to approve the staff's recommendation of approval for the Top of the Hill Final Plat No. FSU-94-2 with 18 conditions, and to authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat mylar. DISCUSSION• -� ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4B CITY OF vile, CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Jim White, Mavor MEMORANDUM November 2, 1995 MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT #FSU-94-2 On September 20, 1994 the City Council approved the,Top of the Hill Preliminary Subdivision SU-94-2, a 42-lot single family residential plat. The site is approximately 8.74 acres in size and is located on the north side of SE 244th Street, approximately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue SE. The property is presently zoned R1 -5.0, Single Family Residentail, on seven and a quarter acres, and a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size on the remaining 1 .49 acres is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential, with a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size. Eighteen(18) conditions were part of the Council's approval. The applicant has now complied with these conditions as listed below and has made an application for a final plat. Staff recommends approval of this application. A. PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT: 1 . The subdivider shall execute an environmental mitigation agreement to participate in, and pay a fair share of the construction costs of the City's South 272nd/277th Street Corridor Project. The minimum benefit to the subdivider is estimated at $54,468 based uoon $2, 136 per PM peak hour trip for the 12 new PM peak hour trips entering and exiting the site under the new zoning; and upon $1 ,068 per PM peak hour trip for the 27 trips entering and exiting the site under the existing R1 -7.2 zoning; and the capacity of the South 272nd/South 277th Street Corridor. 2. The subdivider shall deed to the City of Kent all of the right-of-way necessary for the construction of the plat street to City standards for a Residential Street; including a minimum 49' right-of-way along the roadway. 3. The subdivider shall acquire, and grant to the City of Kent, all right-of- way necessary to construct a pair of 35' radius curb returns, with 5' sidewalks and utility strips, at the intersection of the Road "A" (102nd Place SE) and Southeast 244th Street. -- _ i, . cP tin tin•:'T c•.5111CC'I 071i1n:_.:sr.1'1 EL[*PI In\f •n, .:,.:ain I' • _>;,.:::_ Top of the Hill Final Plat #FSU-94-2 November 2, 1995 - Page 2 4. The subdivider shall execute a traffic signal participation covenant for the future construction of a traffic signal system at S. 244th Street at 10—'.th Avenue SE. 5. Provide approved engineering plans and either construct or bond for the following: A. The public street, storm drainage, water and sanitary sewer facilities which serve all lots in this plat; including a 32' wide paved roadway; concrete curbs and gutters; 5' wide concrete sidewalks alona both sides of the plat street; street lighting; landscaping; storm drainage; street channelization; utilities and appurtenances. The plan shall show cleariv how stormwater runoff will be controlled from all Drooerties in a manner that will not adverselv impact off-site Drooerties. B. Widen and improve Southeast 244th Street across the entire subdivision frontage (including the 3 existing homes, Lots 2 and 42, and Storm Water Detention Tract "D"). This improvement shall include an 18-foot-wide half street improvement on the northerly side of Southeast 244th; including and engineered pavement section; concrete curbs and gutters; 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk; street lighting; landscaping; storm drainage; street channelization; utilities and appurtenances. These improvements shall also include sufficient pavement on the southdriv side of the roadwav centerline to provide a minimum 24- foot-wide roadwav across the entire frontage of the subdivision: and necessary oavement transitions to the existing portion-of Southeast 244th Street to the west of the subdivision. In addition the subdivider shall install "No Parkina" sions across the entire subdivision frontage on Southeast 244th Street. C. Provide gravity sanitary sewer to serve all lots and extend the system as necessary to allow future extensions that will serve upgradient properties. D. Provide a public water system which meets domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots. These iR9P FeveFHe9ts •� de Top of the Hill Final Plat #FSU-94-2 November 2, 1995 Page 3 SEfnrcc-r+--pdvcrEFF 6R `tc—SE di }cly=�idE of `ell ;eed'.'+' eetl'reFlinErt m 74 reel bb4 e-reed,,yay aeFese `.- E r + 4i + the eXiStiRglaeF�i e R „f Se -he s±t -2 -h StF P-+ - emu.e +rrF}c-eRtiFe Svl9di'ViSiGR fFeRtacge er, geu he:s' 21 4'ch ere:t. - E. Widen and reconstruct Southeast 244th Street between the easterly subdivision boundary and 104th Avenue SE, and all storm drainage which will serve this plat; including: a minimum 24-foot- wide roadway, paved with an engineered pavement section designed appropriately for a residential collector street; 5-foot- wide graded gravel shoulders along the northerly side of Southeast 244th Street; storm drainage; street channelization; utilities and appurtenances. F. Provide a minimum 6-foot-wide gravel walkway along: i . The northerly side of Southeast 244th Street; between the westerly subdivision boundary and 100th Avenue SE; and 2. The easterly side of 100th Avenue SE; between Southeast 244th Street and southerly terminus of the concrete sidewalk south of 240th Street. t-, 1 1 h t*e r .,.. fr 1. -T-r-,c'`-pi-i-Fi snz-ri s�r',F eC ar.y--G'f4�'ctr-rrr�=a =-FcfrE T i .b•.. .... "ee+3Teld Vie=ties-T:a FRanneF that i`l ne adveFsely + erTrr 6. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for ail utilities-- public and private, and the right-of-way for the entire plat street. 7. Comply with all applicable SEPA conditions as denoted in #ENV-93-36. B. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ON ANY LOT: 1 . Construct all the improvements noted in Section A above. If the subdivision is constructed in phases, then the details and extent. of improvements required in Section A above shall be reviewed and agreed to by the City of Kent Engineering and Planning Departments in 3 I S 89'18'22' E 6060' T u -5 60 55.110 55 60 55 GO' 51.53 IG N Ur.II I TRAC Tl,trPEN 21 20oIP 19 oP i8 oP 17 0 � 16 cP 15 0� 14 4 22 C19 n 161 5560' S550' S5.6U' SS GO 219: GG p/n 13 3( N c2a ns ¢1 6.: SE 242ND PLACE .70 . CIA ��— H 39'I B'22- w 255.a9- �5i�q O S n 1 .. 23 iue a, c�3o�" 1 C22 z3' 36.07' 51.00 61.00 61.00' 36.a2' 12 Z i C17 CII, Cl) I N 89'21'33" w 95.04 C23 t a. a g?I In 78 24 Lu 34 glo 35 0 36 0l' 37 8 0 3Lu 8 m ai N 89'2133- w U _ W f I 95.00 Q W C) N 6U'1 c�'11 55 00' 51.CC' 51.co 61 00' 65 25' .Q"I E'S CO I p 25 o d 52.23 52 CO' 87.84' 52.00 61.Ca' d 99'17 4a W I'. 10 9500' Z j N 39'21'L w r z .ry W W W W b l a j 1l I o 33 r 32 �I TRACT 'A' m n m _ cv N 99101. 80.00' O T T- 39 95co.. l0 T 1 O O Co (OPEN SP4CE) O p .40 ,p - T -a O O O - z z 9 26 C26 1 C'<a C3 N T8K529331 978 C3 = 83'71 C27 �5 2. . . g. 1 Cq CS 9"C0 ' SE 243RD STREET i 27 a='1r59- w I j .6 C28 12).AT — 1D �. C7 .5.' 4 C2a C5 rye I °, 10 CO 37.40 1 40 O,T aa96' 3261- C5 SS. C31 I C2 28zi W l z 6 o 5 29 0 n ra n P .p .f o 0 p m o P 1 a �5.15 z' 30 z 31 n W 4 z �5' PRIVATE Dan V,nUE cn o J „ EASEMENT 62.59' 1 5953 55 CO' j ''7 70.00 63 a2 11N 19'175.- w N 89'17'59- w 187 iI — 3o iJ 59'w—I%3.%5' —— 600093•' Q g c I 5' DRAINAGE ESN'T z r 5 PR1Vn tE ORi INACE `oil �f EASEMENT C _I 6' a 41 _ W U= 0 3 2 1 Eo WI I„ I I- �10 ELEC"RIC TRANSMISSION _1 m EASEMENT - RECORCWO NO. zI 1 i ~ al I 95C6220719 I 2a. 10' ELEC ipC TIP SMl'SO p I .• __ _—___ _—__—_ EASEMENT - RECCRCINC N0. z I 1 9506220)19 I r. CI __2 _____________ —J_____-__ _ 9000 I 1A201 ''000, 600 919 125.0< 1 U .a.9"1759 lU .p O p „ O WE TABLE 5 39*17'59' E EwcTn I oeErA SE. 244TH ST '5.CC 7942" 90'0215 1 -Co 39: °Q 3E" TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT RFSU-94-2 -0Co 3as Co 29 Or:' to 55 n II -O.CO '6.95 DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT. A%19- 9C'C8 C6'1 FIELC SURvi Y CCMIRCL WAS BY CLOSED LAND SURVEYCR'S CER I 20 86.52 °O'^606 TRAVERSE LOOPS. MINIMUM CLOSURE CE ".T,On ;O 68: 71152a' OCCPS WA$ 1: 2,.000. IN AC.'..".RDANCE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IHIG PLnI Ll vn 3,. -H WAC 322-130. .^ 1`� � U7'1051' OE SErnCN 20 rOvmcHlc NORTH 1IC I, DISTANCES ARE SHC'6N CCRREITLY U= ..,-. .. .I-.,fin PACK OF FEARING: AS EA.'. THEREON I.I.wI BV. SET'.. Ce er,-_r 20 _ l i .. COT.TT'IU�IITY The Mayor C_CCned the uublic hearing . DEVELOPMENT no co:�ments from the audience and WOODS MOVED tc BLOCK GRANT close the public hearing. Orr seconded ana t:m:_ notion carried. ORR _M.OVED to adopt the 1995 Cor munity Develonment Block Grant PrOgrar. cs revised, including the contingency plans =0r estimated entitlement changes , as recommended 'v the Planning Co,=tittee. Woods seconded and the notion carried. (CONSENT CAL•END=P - I'I'E-M 3 D) Amendment to 1994-1996 Community Develonment Block Grant (CDBG) Interlocal Cooperation Aareement . AP:ROVAL of _mendment NO . 1 to the 199^-1996 CDBG Interlocal CQcnerction: =_creea=_nt dated June 21, 1-993 , and authorization Or tn= Mayor to sign Lhis Afi _ndment and _o'_:.ard _- tC King County. (CONSENT C%LEND_ R - Amendment to 1994-1996 Home Interlocal Cooperation A=eemer_t. APPROVAL o_ _ mend-ent No. 1 to the 1904-19c6 SOME rnt rinC_l COCCE-a- tion AQreerjent dated June 2.1, 1993 , and au-_*nOri- i n for e M, r si ; is - zat-O:. O_ t1� aV0_ to Cn tu__ =crward it to King CCunzy.. NNEX _TION (CONSENT C'=_LENDAR - I_EIS 3 C) ZONING Everson Annexation Zcning. ADOrTION c= Ordinanice No . 3184 designating 70r4 the Everson Annexaticn. r _TS (OTHER SIISINESS - ITE?1 4A) Top of the ^ill Preliminary Plat SU-94-2 . Thip date has been set to consider the -xaniner ' s recctinendaticn for c--ndi_ticnal approval of an acmlicatlon by ^ai:%a r Inc. for a 42-1Ot si-a je =a-1i 1 v residential Drel'_minary su_-divisicn. The urcoerty is located, On t:^e north side of SE 24"_t_"! Street, approximately 600 feet west of 104th :_venue SEE. - Matt Jackson of the Plenning Depart-lent noted that area is anoroximately 08 . 74 acres , and explained that apprcxl_i:ately % . 25 acres Was rezoned to R1-5 . 0 on Marc" 1-5 , 199,_ . __ added that t:-e Hearing Examiner rec=ende C condi- tional az=cval�Of t_rie prel ini na`•v '^1st or, s Seotem er 20 , 199 PTLTS August 17 , 1994 • He noted that t_^.e conditions x- • are contained in the agenda packet. �•e e vlained that 30 of the lots are zoned r,1-5 . 0 and 4 are zoned R1-7 . 2 . Martin Durkan . Jr. , 22401 Sweeney Road, Maple Valley, representing the owner and the engineer, noted than. the working relatlonshlp with the i planning Denartment On this Orcject has been positive. He stated that the 5 , 000 sc. ft. low Cvill prOViCe medium-level homes t0 pecble wi_O would not cLal ify for a larger let cr larger home, and will bring affcrdable homes t0 dent without having multi-family.. units . - - There were no further co=i ttent5 frOtu the audl_ ence. oRR MOVED to acCeOt the fi=1C1:�C5 C= Ln.e . Hearing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing J Examiner' s recommendation of aporova l with nineteen ( 19) conditions of the Too c= the Dili Preliminary subdivision . Woods -seconded and the motion carried. T HER BUS 7 NESS - ITE`? "B) Rachael preliminary Plat SU-94- . This dates has been set to consider the Heari na xamlrer ' s . i recommendation for Conditional approval OL an application by Brad pier:"TZOns/Teresa Hutchens for a 12-lot si nal e faro l V residential prel i l,_P.arJ subdivision . The property is located WESt 07- Fifth avenue S . , approximately 100 feet Scut_i Cf West Crcw Street. OFZR MOVED to accept the findings of the ari-:c Examiner and to adept the hearing r. ni ner' s recommendation Of approval with t:dentV (20) COnC'_tiOP.S OL the Rachael place prelimiiiarV subdivision. Woods seconded and the mcticm carried. (OTHER BUSINESS - TTEM -_C) Harvev Final Plat FSU-90-3 . This date has been set to continue Consideration of an application for the Harvey Final Plat. This was discussed at the Council meeting Of September C , 199n- • The subject procertV is 2 . 25 acres in Size and is located north of S . 252nd Street, between 22nd avenue_ S . and 25th avenue S . Council o Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL PLAZA REZONE RZ-95-2 2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval of an application by Harmit S. Lamba to rezone an area from the current zoning NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, to CC, Community Commercial. The property is located at 24606 - 24700 Military Road S. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report, Finding/andRecomimendations 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Exami Zer (Committee, Staff, Examine , Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PE S0 L IMPACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTI Councilmember V moves, Councilmember 1 ' seconds to accept the Findings of the Hearing Examiner, and to adopt/pa4de0e� the Hearing Examiner's recommenda- tion of approval of the West Hill Plaza Rezone No. RZ-95-2, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• v\,v ACTION• JV1 Council Agenda Item No. 4C CITY OF 3"12B Jim White, Mayor d�tTII6'1P=� OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER (206) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter Hearing Examiner FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FILE NO: WEST HILL PLAZA REZONE #RZ-95-2 APPLICANT: Harmit Lamba REQUEST: A request to rezone 2.58 acres of property from NCC, Neighborhood Community Commercial, to CC, Community Commercial. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 24606 - 24700 Military Road S. APPLICATION FILED: June 22, 1995 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: July 19, 1995 MEETING DATE: October 4, 1995 RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: October 18, 1995 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department Kristin Langley, Public Works Department PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Dr. Charanjit Lamba WRITTEN TESTIMONY: None EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 - Hearing Examiner Recommendation and Planning Staff Report & File Including: Exhibit 1 A - Application, Exhibit 1 B -Environmental Analysis, Exhibit 1 C - Departmental Comments and Exhibit 1 D - Affidavits of Notice of Public Hearing. 1 2204th AVE.SO- /KENT.WASHINGTON 99032-5895l TELEPHONE (206,859-3300/FAX 4 859-3331 Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 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 . An application for a rezone was filed on July 22, 1995. The property proposed for a rezone is located at 24606 - 24700 Military Road South and is known as the West Hill Plaza Shopping Center. Exhibit 1A, Application. 2. The property is approximately 2.58 acres. The applicant proposes a rezone from "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) to "CC" (Community Commercial). Exhibit 1A. The proposed rezone would allow a broader range of office and retail uses within the West Hill Shopping Center. The rezone would help the owner of the property rent and develop the vacant areas within the shopping center as a greater number of businesses could be located within the shopping center under the proposed CC zone. Exhibit 1A, Application; Testimony of Mr. Fred Satterstrom ; Testimony of Dr. Lambda. 3. Property to the north and south of the site is zoned Neighborhood Convenience Commercial. Property to the east and west of the site is zoned R1-7.2, Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. A shopping complex presently occupies the site with a variety of business uses including medical offices of the applicant, barber salon and dance studio. A hamburger restaurant, karate studio and food market occupy buildings to the north of the site and an auto repair business exists just south of the site. Single family houses are located to the west across Military Road and the Kent National Guard Armory, including military housing, exists to the east of the site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. 4. The City Comprehensive Plan Map designates the site as Commercial. Areas designated Commercial in the plan are to allow a variety of retail, office and service uses. Several policies of the Comprehensive Plan offer support for the proposed rezone. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4-5, Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. 2 - Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 5. No specific development project is associated with this rezone application. Exhibit 1; Testimony of Dr. Lambda. 6. A final Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for this proposal on July 19, 1995. No conditions were attached to the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS). The DNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1B; Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. 7. The property has access to both Military Road South and 38th Avenue South. Both streets have a right-of-way of 60 feet; the actual pavement of Military Road is 52 feet and of 38th Avenue South is 32 feet. The average daily traffic count is about 10,000 vehicle trips per day for Military Road and less than 2,500 for 38th Avenue South. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3. 8. Since the existing NCC zoning designation was applied in 1973, the city has experienced rapid growth and development. The Growth Management Act also required the City to re-examine its planning guidelines and development regulations for the City. Several major shopping centers have been constructed in communities nearby the City since 1973. The West Hill Plaza has experienced several tenant changes and presently has some unoccupied space. Testimony of Dr. Lambda; Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. 9. A public hearing was held on this application on October 4, 1995. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the site, published in the newspaper and mailed to persons living near the site. Exhibit 1D, Affidavits of Notice. The public hearing was attended by a representative of the City and the applicant. The City presented a recommendation to approve the rezone request without conditions. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Testimony of Fred Satterstrom. The applicant presented testimony in support of the rezone request. Testimony of Dr. Lambda. No one testified or submitted any evidence against the rezone request nor did anyone raise any concerns or questions about the rezone request at the public hearing. All testimony and evidence presented prior to and during the public hearing supported approval of the rezone request. 3 Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 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; 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 Comprehensive Plan Map and Policies. 1 .1 The designation of Commercial on the comprehensive plan map indicates the proposal is consistent with the vision of the future adopted by the City Council. The uses allowed in a Community Commercial zone are compatible 4 Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 with those listed in the comprehensive plan under the Commercial designation. Finding of Fact No.4. 1.2 The Examiner must also consider the policies of the comprehensive plans as well as the map designations. The Comprehensive Plan includes written policies to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas and to ensure that commercial developments near single family homes are compatible in height and scale. Exhibit 1, Planning Department Report, page 4-5; Finding of Fact No.4 . The proposed rezone is consistent with these policies. Compatibility with Development in the Vicinity CONCLUSION 2: The potential development associated with the rezone proposal would be compatible with the existing development in the vicinity of the proposed rezone. The proposed rezone is in an area of single family residential housing and small retail commercial development. The proposed rezone would be consistent with this surrounding development. The type of development authorized under the proposed zone is just as compatible with the existing development than is the type of development authorized under the current zone. Finding of Fact No.2. 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 rezone proposal. The Planning Department evidence shows that there are no traffic impacts associated with the present proposal and that potential developments in the CC zone can be mitigated at the time of the application for a specific development. Findings of Fact No. 7. Change of Circumstances CONCLUSION 4: Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the existing zone to warrant the proposed rezone. 5 Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 The subject property was given the "NCC" zoning designation in 1973. There has been significant changes in land use activity in the city since 1973. The proposed zoning designation reflects the changing nature of small shopping centers designed to serve adjacent residential areas. West Hill Plaza provides medical services, hair cuts, cleaners and dance lessons. The changing consumer needs of nearby residents can be served by additional retail uses allowed in a CC zone. Finding of Fact No. 8. Health Safety and Welfare of the Citizens of Kent CONCLUSION 5: The proposed rezone would not adversely affect the general welfare of the citizens of Kent in the area surrounding the proposed rezone. No one presented any evidence of any nature against this rezone proposal. The Hearing Examiner must conclude that the proposed rezone would not have any adverse affect on anyone in the area surrounding the rezone. Finding of Fact No. 9 . RECOMMENDATION Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Examiner recommends the City Council APPROVE this request for a rezone without conditions. It is the Examiner's opinion that the rezone request, as proposed, meets the criteria for approval established by the Council. DATED this 18th day of October, 1995 40616� THEODORE PAUL HUNTER Hearing Examiner 6 Findings and Recommendation West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 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. There is no appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall consider the rezone recommendation at a regularly scheduled public meeting within 30 days. c:rz952.fin 7 CITY OF LQ\,L[22 V J� V77- CITY OF KENT Jim White, Mayor (206) 859-3390 STAFF REPORT FOR HEARING EXAMINER MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1995 at 3:00 PM FILE NO: WEST HILL PLAZA REZONE ##RZ-95-2 APPLICANT: Harmit Lamba REQUEST: A request to rezone 2.58 acres of property from NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial to CC, Community Commercial. STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Description of Proposal The applicant proposes to rezone an existing shopping complex from the current zoning of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, to CC, Community Commercial. The proposed rezone would allow a broader range of office and retail uses in the existing West Hill Plaza shopping center. B. Location The subject property is located at 24606-24700 Military Road South on Kent's West Hill. C. Size of Prop The size of the subject property is approximately 2.58 acres. The rezone site consists of two tax parcels which are located at the center of the NCC-zoned area at S. 246th and Military Road on Kent's West Hill. 1 220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT.W ASHII GTON 99032-5895 1 TELEPHONE f2061859-33001 FAX k 859-3334 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 D. Zoning The subject site is bordered on the north and south sides by NCC zoning. The zoning across Military Road to the west is R1-7.2, Single Family Residential. The zoning across 38th Avenue South to the east is also R1-7.2. E. Land Use The West Hill Plaza shopping center is presently located on the site. A relatively small shopping complex, it contains several uses including medical offices, cleaners, barber and styling salon, dance studio, and some vacant store space. Other commercial uses are located to the north and south of the proposed rezone site. To the north, a hamburger restaurant, karate studio, and food market occupy several small buildings. To the south, an auto repair business abuts the site. A vacant commercial building is located just south of the auto repair use. Single family residential uses are located across Military Road to the west. To the east across 38th Avenue South is the Kent National Guard Armory which includes a recruiting center and military housing. F. Site History The subject property was annexed into the City of Kent in 1958 as part of a 1100 acre annexation (Ordinance #984). The present NCC zoning was applied in 1973 as a result of the city-wide zoning project. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Environmental Assessment A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed rezone was issued on July 19, 1995 (File #ENV-95-41). No conditions were required. 2 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 B. Significant Physical Features 1. Topography and Vegetation The site is generally flat. Because the site is already developed with a shopping complex, most of the site area is impervious. Some landscaping exists in nonunpervious areas. C. Significant Social Features 1. Street System The property has access to both Military Road South and 38th Avenue South. Military Road is classified as a minor arterial street and 38th Avenue is classified as a residential collector. Both streets have a right-of- way width of 60-feet; the actual pavement width on Military Road is 52- feet while that of 38th Avenue is 32-feet. The average daily traffic count on Military Road is approximately 10,000 vehicle trips per day; the traffic count on 38th Avenue is less than 2500. 2. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems An existing 8-inch and 12-inch water main line presently serves the existing development on the site. An existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line located along 38th Avenue South presently serves the subject property. 3. Stormwater Syste The existing shopping center was constructed prior to the adoption of Kent's on-site detention requirements. A stormwater system, built to requirements of the City's ordinance, will be required at such time as there is a proposal for major development of the center. 4. Local Improvement Districts (LID's) There are no existing or proposed LID's for this property. 3 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 5. Parks Kronisch Park is located in close proximity to the proposed rezone site. Linda Heights neighborhood park is located several blocks to the west of the site along S. 248th Street. III. CONSULTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The following departments and agencies were advised of this application: Department of Operations City Attorney Fire Chief City Clerk Chief of Police Development Services/Fire Prevention Director of Public Works Parks and Recreation Director In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200-feet of the site were notified of the application and the public hearing. IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW A. Comprehensive Plan The Kent Comprehensive Plan Map designates the subject site as Commercial. (It is worth noting that the Comprehensive Plan Map contains a Neighborhood Services designation which is used only in one small area on East Hill. The Commercial designation is used extensively throughout the City, including areas on West and East Hill in addition the Valley Floor.) According to the Plan, areas designated for Commercial allow a variety of retail, office and service uses. A rezone from NCC to CC is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan: LAND USE Fi EMENT Goal LU-12: Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order to maintain and strengthen existing 4 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 commercial areas, to minimize costs associated with extension of facilities, and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another. Policy LU-12.1 Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas. Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed use zoning, and higher- density zones, planned unit developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes. Policy LU-13.6 Ensure that commercial and mixed use developments adjacent to existing single family residential areas are compatible in height and scale. Planning Department Comment The Comprehensive Plan Map designates the proposed rezone site as Commercial. Although there is a Neighborhood Services designation in the Plan, it is not applied to this site. Commercial policy statements in the Land Use Element of the Plan promote in-filling within existing commercial districts in order to strengthen these centers and take advantage of economic opportunities. At the same time, Plan policies encourage compatibility between commercial areas and single family residential neighborhoods. B. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A REQUEST FOR REZONE According to Kent City Code Section 15.09.050(C), "...the following standards and criteria shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for 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: As mentioned above under the discussion in section IV.A, the proposed rezone is consistent with the Commercial plan designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan map adopted in April 1995. In addition, the proposed rezone to CC appears to be consistent with the Plan's Land Use policies. Policy statements included in section 5 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 IV.A, above, encourage in-fill within commercial areas. Inasmuch as this rezone would allow a wider range of retail and office uses, it would help to encourage greater and more intense use of the existing shopping center. 2. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. Planning Department Comment: The existing commercial uses within the West Hill Plaza shopping center are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Under CC zoning, a wider range of retail and office uses would be allowed, but these commercial uses should also be generally compatible with the neighborhood. The development standards of the NCC and CC zones are identical. Should a major re-development of the West Hill Plaza be proposed or, if a major change in use occurs, all or a portion of the site would be required to be brought up to existing development standards. 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: The site has access to Military Road South, an improved street with sidewalks, curb and gutter, and street lighting. The rezone, a non-project under SEPA, will not itself have any impact on the transportation system. Any major re-development or change in use of the shopping center would require SEPA review. At that time, specific traffic impacts would be addressed and mitigated. It is not anticipated that the transportation system in the area would be unduly burdened if the center were to be re-developed or if a major change occurred. The size of the site is limited (i.e., 2.58 acres), and both Military Road and 38th Avenue have additional capacity. 4. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. 6 Staff Report West Hill Plaza Rezone #RZ-95-2 Planning_Department Comment: The original use of the West Hill Plaza was a large food market. This use went out of business approximately 15 years ago. Since this time, a variety of uses have been proposed to locate in this structure. Many of these proposed uses have been rejected by the City; several have required a zoning interpretation by the Planning Director in order to locate at the site. The applicant attests to some difficulty in finding suitable tenants under the present NCC zoning, which is rather narrowly drawn under the present zoning code. The Planning Department would agree with the applicant that the NCC zone is very limited in its range of permitted uses, perhaps too limited. In the recently adopted City Comprehensive Plan, the use of a zone such as NCC was seen in only very restricted circumstances. The Plan designation for such neighborhood commercial areas was called "Neighborhood Services." This designation was not applied to the subject rezone site but to one single parcel on the East Hill. Instead, the subject rezone site was given a Commercial designation on the Plan map, which is the same designation as that of CC-zoned areas on East Hill where several large shopping centers presently exist. 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare of citizens of the City. Planning Department Comment: The proposed rezone of the West Hill Plaza should not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare of area residents. If a major re- development of the site or a change in use is proposed in the future, an environmental review pursuant to SEPA will be conducted and any adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated. V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the merits of this request and the code criteria for granting approval of a rezone, the staff recommends APPROVAL of the West Hill Plaza rezone (File #RZ-95-2). KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 26, 1995 c: rz952.rpt 7 City of Kent - Planning Department x e 'ZI S a < 2S9 N m ti 2 T ST m > � a ¢ r m 242 � N (� x PL � S 243 T Efi C m C �gE E r y 5 44 S T > m n S 2 > ¢ 51 m = 5 E+ S27 CT y� [ti 5 24 5 248 S7 N �1 e� AZ 292 57 �a S2 S N lJl a ST ¢ m 5 2 0 _ s S ST = r 5 > S 252 ST N 5T ¢ W J � T P� ¢> v� S c 2 61 H m S 252 S m a S > 2SU PL4 J ST V 5 255 ST '^ O m S 255 FL N v 256 FL S 56 T S 21 - ^ 11 PL > m APPLICATION NAME: West Hill Plaza NUMBER: #RZ-95-2 DATE: October 4, 1995 RF UEST: Rezone AL LEGEND N Application site Vicinity map o-*-*-4 Railroad tracks Kent City Limits mum r ram. � lw City of Kent - Planning Department 1571 \ I \ I \. LI \ n J I I 1 C 12 i t I I t l l i 11 III o —`1 I S I 1 1 S � y I r— I _ I I APPLICATION NAME: West Hill Plaza NUMBER: #RZ-95-2 DATE: October 4, 1995 R'WEST: Rezone Ank LEGEND N Application site Site Plan Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21 , 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SCHOOL IMPACT FEE 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The proposed ordinance relates to school impact fees, establishes a framework for the adoption of a school impact fee program by the City; requires the execution of an interlocal agreement between the City and any school district located in the City and requests to participate in the school impact fee program; provides for the adoption of the School District' s Capital Facilities Plan; allows collection of school impact fees by the City on new development impacting schools; provides the formula for fee calculation and a fee schedule; describes the procedures for credit, appeals, and refunds; all as authorized by the Growth Management Act and Chapter 82 . 02 RCW; amends Title 12 of the Kent City Code by adding a new chapter 12. 13 and sets an effective date. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance, agreement, minutes , resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, /schmootlrimpact seconds 1. to adopt Ordinance No. school impact fees, 2 . to approve and authorize tcute the proposed interlocal agreement relat fees i 3 . to adopt Resolution No. / relating to consideration of a low income housing a emption to school impact fees. DISCUSSION• ACTION• i Council Agenda Item No. 4D ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON RELATING TO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES ; ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ADOPTION OF A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PROGRAM BY THE CITY; REQUIRING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY REQUESTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CITY' S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ALLOWING COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES BY THE CITY ON NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING SCHOOL FACILITIES; PROVIDING THE FORMULA FOR CALCULATION OF THE FEE AND FEE SCHEDULE; DESCRIBING THE PROCEDURES FOR CREDIT, APPEAL AND REFUNDS; ALL AS AUTHORIZED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, RCW 82 . 02 . 050 THROUGH 82 . 02 . 100 ; AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE KENT CITY CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12 . 13 ; AND SETTING A DATE WHEN THE SAME SHALL BE EFFECTIVE . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent finds that adequate school facilities should be provided to serve the student population generated from new development in the City; and WHEREAS, to ensure that school facilities are available to accommodate expected growth when needed, the Council recognizes the cost of new school facilities must be shared by the public and private sectors, and the proportionate share of the expense of school facilities necessitated by the impacts of new development .should be h me by developers through the imposition of school impact fees as authorized by the Growth Management Act (RCW 82 . 02 . 050 - 82 . 02 . 1 00) ; and WHEREAS, an organized framework must be adopted for the determination and analysis of the school district ' s need for impact fees to partially fund school facilities necessitated by new development, and to allow the imposition and collection of those fees by the school district pursuant to the Growth Management Act and all other applicable law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS : SECTION 1 . There is hereby added a new chapter to the Kent City Code, Chapter 12 . 13 , entitled "School Impact Fees, " to read as follows . CHAPTER 12 . 13 . SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Sec . 12 . 13 . 010 . Authority. This chapter is adopted to implement Kent ' s comprehensive plan policies, the Growth Management Act, RCW 82 . 02 . 050 through 82 . 02 . 100 ; and the State Subdivision Act , Chapter 58 . 17 RCW. 2 This chapter is also necessary to address identified impacts of new development on schools, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare . Sec . 12 . 13 . 020 . Definitions For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall have the indicated meanings : A. "Capacity" means the number of students the District ' s facilities can accommodate district-wide, based on the District ' s standard of service, as determined by the District . B . "Capital Facilities Plan" means the District ' s facilities plan adopted by the school board consisting of : 1 . a forecast of future needs for school facilities based on the District ' s enrollment projections; 2 . an identification of additional demands placed on existing public facilities by new development ; 3 . the long-range construction and capital improvement projects of the District ; 4 . the schools under construction or expansion; S . the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new school facilities ; 6 . an inventory of existing school facilities, including permanent, transitional and relocatable facilities ; 7 . at least a six year financing component , updated as necessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period, for financing needed for school facilities within projected funding levels , and identifying sources of financing for such purposes, including bond issues authorized by the voters; and 8 . an identification of deficiencies in school facilities serving the student populations and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time; and 9 . any other long-range projects planned by the District . C. "City" means the City of Kent . D. "Classrooms" means educational facilities of the District required to house students for its basic educational program. The classrooms are those facilities the District determines are necessary to best serve its student population. Specialized facilities as identified by the District, including but not limited to 4 gymnasiums, cafeterias, libraries, administrative offices, and child care centers, shall not be counted as classrooms . E . "Construction Cost Per Student" means the cost of construction of a permanent school facility in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District ' s design standard per grade span. F . "Design Standard" means the space required, by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs , which is needed in order to fulfill the educational goals of the District as identified in the District ' s capital facilities plan. G. "District" means any school district whose boundaries include, in whole or in part, areas of the City of Kent . H . "Developer" means the person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property for which development activity is proposed. I . "Development Activity" means any residential construction or expansion of a building, structure or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land that creates additional demand for school facilities . J. "Elderly" means a person aged 62 or older. 5 K. "Encumbered" means impact fees identified by the District as being committed as part of the funding for a school facility for which the publicly funded share has been assured or building permits sought or construction contracts let . L. "Interlocal Agreement" means the agreement between the District and the City, governing the operation of the school impact fee program and describing the relationship, duties and liabilities of the parties . M. "Grade Span" means the categories into which the District groups its grade of students ; i . e . , elementary, middle or junior high school, and high school . N. " Impact Fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and development, that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development . "Impact Fee" does not include a reasonable permit or application fee . O . "Impact Fee Schedule" means the table of impact fees to be charged per unit of development, computed by the formula 6 adopted under this ordinance, indicating the standard fee amount per dwelling unit that shall be paid as a condition of residential development within the City. P . "Permanent Facilities" means facilities of the District with a fixed foundation which are not relocatable facilities . Q. "Relocatable Facilities" means any factory-built structure, transportable in one or more sections that is designed to be used as an education space and is needed to prevent the overbuilding of school facilities, to meet the needs of service areas within the District or to cover the gap between the time that families move into new residential developments and the date that construction is completed on permanent school facilities . R. "Relocatable Facilities Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of purchasing and siting a relocatable facility in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District ' s design standard per grade span . S . "Site Cost Per Student" means the estimated cost of a site in the District for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the District ' s design standard per grade span. 7 T . "Standard of Service" means the standard adopted by the District which identifies the program year, the class size by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs, the number of classrooms, the types of facilities the District believes will best serve its student population, and other factors as identified by the District . The District ' s standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable facilities which are used as transitional facilities or any other specific facilities housed in relocatable facilities . U. "Student Factor" means the number derived by the District to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit . Student factors shall be based on District records of average actual student generated rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation; provided that , if such information is not available in the District, data from adjacent districts , or districts with similar demographics or county wide averages may be used. Student factors must be updated on an annual basis, and separately determined for single family and multi-family dwelling units and for grade spans . 8 V. "Transitional Facilities" means those school facilities that are being used pending the construction of permanent facilities, provided that the necessary financial commitments are in place to construct the permanent facilities . Sec . 12 . 13 . 030 . Impact fee .- applicability. The imposition of impact fee schedules developed for a School District and subsequently adopted by the City Council in support of the District ' s needs, shall be applied by the City to all forms of residential development which are subject to City review and approval . Sec . 12 . 13 . 040 . Exemptions . The following Development Activities do not create any additional school impacts and are exempt from the requirements of this ordinance : A. Reconstruction, remodeling or construction of the following facilities, subject to the recording of a covenant or recorded declaration of restrictions precluding use of the property for other than the exempt purpose . Provided, that if the property is used for a non-exempt purpose, then the school impact fees then in effect shall be paid. 9 1 . Shelters or dwelling units for temporary placement , which provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than four weeks . 2 . Construction or remodeling of transitional housing facilities or dwelling units that provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than twenty-four (24) months, in connection with job training, self-sufficiency training and human services counseling, the purpose of which is to help persons make the transition from homelessness to placement in permanent housing. 3 . Any form of housing for the elderly, including nursing homes, retirement centers , and any type of housing units for persons age 55 and over, which have recorded covenants or recorded declaration of restrictions precluding school-aged children as residents in those units . B . Rebuilding of legally established dwelling unit (s) destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, explosion, act of Cod or other accident or catastrophe, or remodeling of existing legally established dwelling unit (s) , provided that such rebuilding takes place within a period of one year after destruction, and so long as no additional dwelling units are created. 10 C. Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are converted into condominium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created. D. Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 100 , due to mitigation of the same system improvement under the State Environmental Policy Act . E . Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant to a condition of plat or PUD approval to pay fees, dedicate land or construct or improve school facilities, unless the condition of the plat or PUD approval provides otherwise : provided that the condition of the plat or PUD approval predates the effective date of fee imposition. F . Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant to a voluntary agreement entered into with the District to pay fees , dedicate land or construct or improve school facilities, unless the terms of the voluntary agreement provide otherwise provided that the agreement predates the effective date of fee imposition . 11 Sec . 12 . 13 . 050 . Interlocal agreement between the City and District . As a condition of the City ' s authorization and adoption of a school impact fee ordinance, the City and District shall enter into an interlocal agreement governing the operation of the school impact fee program, and describing the relationship and liabilities of the parties thereunder. Sec . 12 . 13 . 060 . Submission of District Capital Facilities Plan and Data . A. On an annual basis , the District shall submit the following materials to the City Council : 1 . The District ' s capital facilities plan (as defined in Section 12 . 13 . 010 herein) and adopted by the school board; 2 . The District ' s enrollment projections over the next six (6) years, its current enrollment and the district ' s enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3 . The District ' s standard of service; 4 . The District ' s overall capacity over the next six (6) years , which shall take into account the available 12 capacity from school facilities planned by the District but not yet built and be a function of the District ' s standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in District facilities . 5 . An inventory of the District ' s existing facilities . B . To the extent that the District ' s standard of service. identifies a deficiency in its existing facilities, the District ' s capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact fees, for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time . C . Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service . If sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the District ' s capital Facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the District plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service . .. li D . The District shall also submit an annual report to the City Council showing the capital improvements which were serviced in whole or in part by the impact fees . E . In its development of the Financing Plan Component of the Capital Facilities Plan, the District shall plan on a six-year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps : 1 . Establish a six-year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as approved by the school board consistent with RCW 28A. 53 . 020 , RCW 84 . 52 . 052 and . 056 as amended; and 2 . Apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of die District ' s ability. Sec . 12 . 13 . 070 . Annual Council Review. On at least an annual basis , the City Council shall review the information submitted by the District pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 060 (A) herein. The review shall occur in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the City' s Comprehensive Plan. 14 Sec . 12 . 13 . 080 . Impact Fee Program Elements . A. Impact fees will be assessed on every new dwelling unit in the District for which a fee schedule has been established. B . Impact fees will be imposed on a district-by- district basis , on behalf of any school district which provides to the City, a capital facilities plan, the District ' s standards of service for the various grade spans , estimates of the cost of providing needed facilities and other capital improvements , and the data from the District called for by the formula in Attachment A. Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development . The impact fee formula shall account in the fee calculation for future revenue the District will receive from the development . The ordinance adopting the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness . C . The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the District and approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the City as part of the 15 capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program. Sec . 12 . 13 . 090 . Fee Calculations . A. The fee shall be calculated based on the formula set out in Attachment A. B . Separate fees shall be calculated for single family and multi-family types of dwelling units , and separate student generation rates must be determined by the District for each type of dwelling unit . For the purpose of this ordinance, mobile homes shall be treated as single family dwellings and duplexes shall be treated as multi-family dwellings . C . The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and data to be supplied by the District, as indicated in Attachment A. The fee calculations shall also be made on a district-wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facilities in the District used currently or within the last two years for instructional purposes . D . The formula in Attachment A provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that would be made by the 16 development based on historical levels of voter support for bond issues in the District . E . The formula also provides for a credit for school facilities or sites actually provided by a developer which the District finds acceptable . F . The City may also impose an application fee to cover the reasonable costs of administration of the impact fee program. Sec . 12 . 13 . 100 . Fee Collection. At the time of application for a residential building permit at the City, the school impact fee shall be imposed based on the impact fee schedule using the capital facilities plan adopted by the City. The impact fee and the application fee shall be collected by the City, and maintained in separate accounts . All school impact fees shall be paid to the District from the school impact fee account monthly. The City shall retain all application fees associated with the City' s administration of the impact fee program. 17 Sec . 12 . 13 . 110 . Assessment of Impact Fees . A. For residential developments located in school districts where impact fees have been adopted by city ordinance, the City shall collect impact fees based upon the schedule set forth in Attachment A, and shall be collected by the City from any applicant where such development activity requires issuance of a residential building permit or a mobile home permit . B . For application for single family and multi-family residential building permits and mobile home permits , the total amount of the impact fees shall be assessed and collected from the applicant when the building permit is issued, using the impact fee schedules then in effect . C. The City shall not issue the required building permit or mobile home permit unless and until the impact fees set forth in the impact fee schedule have been paid. Sec . 12 . 13 . 120 . Determination of the Fee, Adjustments, Exceptions and Appeals . A. The City shall determine a developer' s impact fee, based upon the schedule provided by the District . B . Arrangement may be made for later payment of the impact fee with the approval of the District only if the Distri, 18 determines that it will be unable to use or will not need the payment until a later time, provided that sufficient security, as defined by the District, is provided to assure payment . Security shall be made to and held by the District, which will be responsible for tracking and documenting the security interest . C. The fee amount established in the schedule shall be reduced by the amount of any payment previously made for the lot or development activity in question, either as a condition of approval or pursuant to a voluntary agreement . D . Whenever a developer is granted approval subject to a condition that the developer actually provide a school facility acceptable to the District , the developer shall be entitled to a credit for the actual cost of providing the facility, against the fee that would be chargeable under the formula provided by this ordinance . The cost of construction shall be estimated at the time of approval, but must be documented, and the documentation confirmed after the construction is completed to assure that an accurate credit amount is provided. If construction costs are less than the calculated fee amount, the difference remaining shall be chargeable as a school impact fee . E . The standard impact fees may be adjusted, if one of the following circumstances exist, provided that the discount set 19 forth in the fee formula fails to adjust for the error in the calculation or fails to ameliorate for the unfairness of the fee : 1 . The developer demonstrates that an impact fee assessment was improperly calculated; or 2 . Unusual circumstances identified by the developer demonstrate that if the standard impact fee amount was applied to the development, it would be unfair or unjust . F . In cases where a developer requests an independent fee calculation, adjustment exception or a credit pursuant to RCW 82 . 02 . 060 (3 ) , the City shall consult with the District and the District shall advise the City prior to the City making the final impact fee determination. G. A developer may provide studies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor used by the District may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal . H. Any appeal of the decision of the City with regard to fee amounts shall follow the process for the appeal of the underlying development application, as set forth in Kent City Code . Any errors in the formula identified as a result of the appeal should be referred to the Council for possible modification. 20 I . Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a residential building permit or a mobile home permit . Sec . 12 . 13 . 130 . Impact Fee Accounts and Refunds . A. Impact- fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by the District solely for the District ' s school impact fees . All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which impact fees were imposed. Annually, the District , based in part on its report prepared pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 060, shall prepare a report on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees . The District shall submit a copy of this report to the City Council . The City shall maintain separate school impact fee and administration fee accounts pursuant to Section 12 . 13 . 110 , and shall prepare a report on the source and amount of all school impact fees collected and transferred to the District . B . Impact fees for the District ' s system improvements shall be expended by the District only in conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the comprehensive plan. 21 C . Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered by the - District for a permissible use within six (6) years of receipt by the District, unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six (6) years . Such extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified to the City by the District in a written report . The City Council shall identify the District ' s extraordinary and compelling reasons for the fees to be held longer than six (6) years in the Council ' s own written findings . D. The current owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expended or encumbered within six (6) years of'" receipt of the funds by the District on school facilities intended to benefit the development activity for which the impact fees were paid. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis . The District shall notify potential claimants by first-class mail deposited with the United States postal service addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the County tax records . E . An owner' s request for a refund must be submitted to the District in writing within one (1) year of the date the rigs 22 to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever date is later. Any impact fees that are not expended or encumbered by the District in conformance with the capital facilities plan within these time limitations , and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one (1) year period, shall be retained and expended consistent with the provisions of this section. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees . F . Should the City seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds , including interest earned, shall be refunded to the current owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of the refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the County tax records . All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one (1) year . At the end of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the District , but must be expended by the District, consistent with the provisions of this Section. The notice requirement set forth above shall 23 not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances with the account or accounts being terminated. G. A developer may request and shall receive refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when: 1 . The developer does not proceed to finalize the development activity as required by statute or City Code including the Uniform Building Code; and 2 . No impact on the District has resulted. "Impact" shall be deemed to include cases where the District has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund. In the event that the District has expended or encumbered the fees in good faith, no refund shall b�.. forthcoming. However, if within a period of three (3) years , the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner shall be eligible for a credit . The owner must petition the District and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the owner for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof . The District shall determine whether to grant a credit, and such determinations may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in Section 12 . 13 . 120 above . 24 H. Interest due upon the refund of impact fees required by this Section shall be calculated according to the average amount received by the District on invested funds throughout the period during which the fees were retained. SECTION 2 . Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to 'be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance . SECTION 3 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 25 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995 . APPROVED day of 1995 . PUBLISHED day of 1995 . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent , Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 26 ATTACHMENT A FORMULA FOR DETERMINING SCHOOL IMPACT FEES IF: A = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X site cost per student for sites for facilities in that grade span=Full Cost Fee for site acquisition cost B = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X school construction cost per student for facilities in that grade span X ratio of District's square footage of permanent facilities to total square footage of facilities =Full Cost Fee for school construction C = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span X relocatable facilities cost per student for facilities in that grade span X ratio of District's square footage of relocatable facilities to total square footage of facilities =Full Cost Fee for relocatable facilities D = Student Factor for Dwelling Unit Type and grade span "Boeckh Index" X SPI Square Ft per student factor X state match% = State Match Credit, and Al, B 1, Cl, DI = A, B, C, D for Elementary grade spans A2, B2, C2, D2 = A, B, C, D, for Middle/junior high grade spans A3, B3, C3, D3 = A, B, C, D for High School grade spans TC =Tax payment credit=The net present value of the Average Assessed Value in the District for Unit Type X Current School District Capital Property Tax Levy Rate, using a 10 year discount period and current interest rate (based on the Bond Buyer Twenty Bond General Obligation Bond Index) FC=Facilities Credit=The per-dwelling-unit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the development THEN the unfunded need = UN=Al+...+C3 - (DI-D2-D3)-TC AND the developer fee obligation = F=UN/2 AND the net fee obligation = NF = F-FC [Notes: 1. Student Factors are to be provided by the District based on District records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation; if such information is not available in the District, data from adjacent districts, districts with similar demographics, or countywide averages must be used. Student factors must be separately determined for single family and multi-family dwelling units, and for grade spans. 2. The "Boeckh index" is a construction trade index of construction costs for various kinds of buildings; it is adjusted annually. 3. The District is to provide its own site and facilities standards and projected costs to be used in the formula, consistent with the requirements of this ordinance. 4. The formula can be applied by using the following table.] s z z � � z 5 � II ii II II II II II II II II II II II II II II X C z ) J U ^J n :� �i _,y J Try. r•' '.' v 'll U - ^-- •^--� ('. = o N CD II II II II II II II II II II II II 3 / z � 2 5 � 9 \ 3 2 _ � Z \ = w 2 \ - \ 73 \ j 7 . 71 ZD / \ \ \ \ \ KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Impact Fees Per Single Family Dwelling Unit $3,675 Impact Fees Per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $1,936 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND THE KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 1995, by and between the City of Kent (the "City" hereinafter) and the Kent School District (the "District" hereinafter). WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act. Chapter 36.70A RCW, and Chapter 82.02 RCW (the "Act" hereinafter), which authorizes the imposition of impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, which financing must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds; and WHEREAS, the Act allows the collection and expenditure of impact fees only on public facilities which are addressed by a capital facilities element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted under the Act; and WHEREAS, the District has prepared a capital facilities plan, and authorization to collect and expend fees is contingent upon the City's adopting the District's Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, all as required by RCW 36.70A.070, and on the plan's adherence with the statutory requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. (the "school impact fee ordinance"). which describes the features of the school impact fee program, and allows the District to receive and expend the school impact fees in conformance with the Act; and WHEREAS, the City and the District have entered into this Interlocal Agreement pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW, for the purposes of setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the parties with regard to the school impact fee program. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows: I. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT The District, by and through its officials, employees, agents and representatives, agrees to: A. Annually submit to the City a six-year capital facilities plan or an update of the previously adopted plan, together with an impact fee schedule. which meets the requirements of the Act and the school impact fee ordinance on or before April 1 st of each year. In addition, the District shall submit all other information required by Section 6(A) of the school impact fee ordinance. B. Assist the City if the school impact fees are challenged. -1- C. Establish and maintain impact fee accounts, as required by RCW 82.02.070. D. Prepare a report to the City to allow the City to meet the requirements of RCW 82.02.070(1) and submit such report to the City on or before April 1 of each year, showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. E. Provide for proper expenditure of impact fees, as provided in RCW 82.02.050(4) and 82.02.070(2): F. Encumber or expend impact fees as provided in RCW 82.02.070(3), and where the District has extraordinary and compelling reasons for noncompliance with this statute, the District shall identify such reasons in written findings, to the City Council. G. Notify property owners of refunds under RCW 82.02.080 and the processing and payment of any refunds, together with any interest which may be due. H. Review all covenants and declaration of restrictions for form, as these documents are required to maintain exemptions from payment of impact fees. I. Maintain all accounts and records necessary to ensure compliance with this Agreement, the school impact fee ordinance and all other applicable law. II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY The City, by and through its officers, officials, employees, agents and representatives, agrees to: A. Be responsible for all administrative aspects of the impact fee program, including: 1. the determination, pursuant to the school impact fee ordinance, whether or not residential development activity in the City is exempt from payment of fees: 2. the calculation of the fee amount for any non-exempt residential development activity, based upon the schedule of fees adopted by the City pursuant to the school impact fee ordinance: 3. the receipt of the fees from the applicant; 4. imposition and collection of the administrative or permit application fees associated with the impact fee program and the development activity. B. Establish and maintain school impact fee accounts pursuant to RCW 82.02.070, so that impact fees can be transferred to the District on a monthly basis. -2- C. Develop a report on the school impact fee account as required by RC W 82.02.070(1), and review of the District's report required by RCW 82.02.050(4), detailing the fees received and the system improvements financed in whole or in part by the fees. D. When City permits have been applied for, enforce covenants or declaration of covenants and restrictions, where the same have been executed as a condition of exemption from school impact fees. When permits are not applied for, the City shall advise the District of any potential enforcement action, and the District will elect whether to take enforcement action at its expense or to reimburse the City for the City's cost of enforcement. III. AUDIT A. The District's records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection, review-or audit, by the City or appropriate state agency. B. The District agrees to cooperate with any monitoring or evaluation activities conducted by the City that pertain to the subject of this Agreement. The District agrees to allow the City or appropriate state agencies and/or any of their employees, agents or representatives, to have full access to and the right to examine, audit,make excerpts or transcripts,during normal business hours, all of the District's records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The City shall provide days advance notice to the District of fiscal audits to be conducted. IV. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS A. The District shall, at its own cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the District, its officers, employees or agents, relating to the District's implementation of the school impact fee program, performance of the duties set forth in paragraph I of this Agreement, or compliance with the terms of Ordinance No. , all as may be amended from time to time. This indemnification by the District of the City shall include, but not be limited to: 1. The District's responsibility to refund any fees with interest, which are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been improperly paid, regardless of whether the City erroneously required the fee amount: 2. The District's agreement not to impose any liability on the City for the City's failure to collect the proper fee amount or any fee from a developer conducting any development activity, provided that the City shall make reasonable attempts to collect such fee. B. The District shall. at its own cost and expense. protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments, or awards of damages, resulting from a challenge to the legality of Ordinance No. , or resulting from any claim for compensation under Initiative 164 or similar legislation; provided however, that if the District offers to Defend,the District shall not be liable for any of the City's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made. C. The District further agrees that the District shall, at its own costs and expense, protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages arising out of or in any way resulting from the District's failure to refund impact fees, or interest on such impact fees, including but not limited to a determination that impact fees from development activity that was not completed are not refundable because the funds were expended or encumbered by the District whether or not the District's determination was made in good faith; provided however, that if the District offers to defend,the District shall not be liable for any of the City's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made. D. The District's duties to the City under this Section shall not be diminished or extinguished by the prior termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section V. E. Except as provided in paragraphs A, B and C, the City shall,at its own cost and expense, protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District, its officers, employees, or agents, from any and all costs, claims,judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or in any way resulting from the acts or omissions of the City, its officers, employees or agents, relating to the City's implementation of the school impact fee program,performance of the duties set forth in Paragraph II of this Agreement, or the terms of Ordinance No. , all as may be amended from time to time; provided however, that if the City offers to defend, the City shall not be liable for any of the District's attorney's fees or litigation costs incurred after such offer to defend is made, and provided further that the District shall promptly refund any fees as required by a final court order including payment of any pre- or postjudgment interest. F. The City's duties to the District under this Section shall not be diminished or extinguished by prior termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section V. V. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERMINATION A. The District's authorization to receive impact fees under this Agreement may be terminated without cause by the City, in whole or in part, at any time, but only upon the repeal or invalidation of Ordinance No. All other obligations under this Agreement shall remain in effect until both of the following conditions have been satisfied: 1. the City or the District provides written notice that this Agreement is being terminated; and -4- 2. the District no longer retains unexpended or unencumbered impact fees and interest earned thereon. The obligations under Section IV, Indemnification, shall be continuing and shall not be diminished or extinguished by the termination of this Agreement. B. The District shall have the duty to ensure that upon termination of this Agreement, any remaining unexpended or unencumbered impact fees and interest earned thereon are either properly expended or refunded pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RC W. C. Nothing herein shall limit, waive, or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement or by law that either parry may have in the event that the obligations, terms, and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other party. y VI. MODIFICATION No changes or modifications of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such changes or modifications are in writing and executed by both parties. VII. INTEGRATION This Agreement, together with the school impact fee ordinance, contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon the by parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to bind either party. VIII. SEVERABILITY In the event that any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms, conditions or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid term, condition or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this Agreement are declared severable. IX. RIGHTS OF OTHER PARTIES It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and conveys no right to any other party. X. DISPUTES Jurisdiction of any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in King County Superior Court, and the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. -5- XI. GOVERNING LAW AND FILING This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by,the laws of the State of Washington. This Agreement shall become effective following occurrence of the following: A. Approval of the Agreement by the official action of the governing bodies of each of the parties hereto; B. Execution of the Agreement by the duly authorized representative of each of the parties hereto; C. The filing of a copy of this Agreement with the following public officials: 1. The City Clerk of the City of Kent; 2. The Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Kent School District; and 3. The King County Records and Elections Division. XII. ADMINISTRATION A. The City's representative for purposes of administering this Agreement is: the City Administrator or his/her designee. B. The District's representative for purposes of administering this Agreement is: the Superintendent or his/her designee. -6- XIII. WAIVER OF DEFAULT Waiver of any default in the performance of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of the Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the date and year set forth below. THE CITY OF KENT: KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: By: By: Its Its APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, -7- 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 of the City of Kent to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State 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 of the Kent School District to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: My Commission expires: -8- CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Committee member Clark questioned if the proposed Accessory Housing amendment had a requirement within it for off-street parking. He also asked if there would be any conflict with the accessory housing and the request to amend the development standards in regard to the minimum lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that there is a section that stipulates that driveways must be 20 feet long. Ms. Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, questioned whether the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements are documented somewhere by the Public Works Department. Ms. Evezich mentioned that if there is a traffic plan that is going to be the basis for the Public Works Department requiring a setback or a right of way requirement, then that language needs to be included in the Zoning Code Amendment. The verbiage will be added to the draft Ordinance to indicate what documentation will be used to approve or disapprove setback requirements. Committee member Johnson MOVED to approve and send to the full Council the single family development standards zoning code amendment on November 21, 1995. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Clark. Chair Orr clarified if the motion included the identification of the documentation that will be used by the Public Works Department. Committee member Johnson confirmed that his motion did include such documentation. The motion carried. ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) The City Attorney's office received copies of existing Ordinances from other jurisdictions. Ms. Evezich will provide the Committee with a legislative history from those jurisdictions at the next meeting for action. None of those jurisdictions have a 1,000 foot buffer from a legal nonconforming residential use in a commercial area but rather all of their restrictions address residential in terms of a district or a zone. Incorporated into the findings will be a support of a recommendation for a zoning code change to eliminate the 1,000 foot setback nonconforming residential uses. SCHOOL IMPACT FE ORDINANCE - (L. Evezich) Mr. Rodger Anderson from the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th NE, Kirkland. Mr. Anderson is proposing an exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance to accommodate low income housing. He presented the Committee an example of an exemption currently in place in Bainbridge Island. Chair Orr recommended continuing with the adoption of the existing Ordinance and then have the Council take a look at the possible exemption during the next six months. Ms. Evezich recommended a Resolution to indicate the Planning Committee would consider the proposed exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance during the next six months. Mr. Fred High,Kent School District. Mr. High commented on the exemption for the School Impact Fee Ordinance for low income housing. Mr. High discussed the reasoning behind requesting the mitigation fees. He presented the committee with a cost analysis demonstrating the average costs that are generated to the schools with each new single family residence. 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Ms. Jody Putnam, Federal Way School District, commented that approximately less than 5% of the City of Kent stretches into the Federal Way School District. The Federal Way School District is in the process of negotiating with the City of Federal Way to introduce an Impact Fee Ordinance. Ms. Putnam stated that the cost to build the schools necessary as population grows is a lot more than what is collected from the School Impact fees. She emphasized that the impact fees help to get the new schools built. Ms. Grace Yuam, attorney for the Kent School District. Ms. Yuam represents nine King County School Districts and works with the districts to develop school impact fees. Ms. Yuam voiced her support for the school impact fees and offered to answer any questions that the Committee may have on this issue. Mr. Brooks Fenton, Trinity Reformed Church, questioned whether the life of the school was taken into consideration for the calculation of the impact fees. Ms. Yuam explained to Mr. Fenton that the life of the school had been taken into consideration. She went on to explain the impact fee formula. Ms. Evezich questioned Ms. Yuam if any of the schools in the districts she represents has any experience with low income housing exemption. Ms. Yuam explained that there is an exception in place in unincorporated King County however; it is a different from the exemption in Bainbridge Island. Committee member Clark MOVED to forward the Ordinance concerning the school impact fees to the City Council on November 21, 1995. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to create a Resolution to address the exemption for low income housing during the six months after the Ordinance is in effect. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to enter into an Interlocal agreement with the Federal Way and Kent school districts for collecting impact fees on behalf of both school districts. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. I 1� C:\USERS\DOC\PCOM\MINUTES\NOV07.WPD 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to school impact fees; resolving to consider a .low income housing exemption from school impact fees assessment. WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act and Chapter 82. 02 RCW authorize the enactment of a school impact fee program for the collection of fees from new development which impact schools; and WHEREAS, RCW 82 . 02 . 060 (2) specifically authorizes local governments to include a low income housing exemption within a school imipact fee ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent supports the consideration of a low income housing exemption; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. To send to the Planning Committee the matter of a low income housing exemption to school impact fees and to report back to the full City Council within six (6) months. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of , 1995 . Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of 1995. JIM WHITE, 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 1995 . (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK 2 Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE IN MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: King County will transfer six parks and eight smaller pieces of open space to the City of Kent as part of the Meridian Annexation. Staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the "Letter of Transfer, " a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to agreed upon improvements to be made by King County and any other documents to effectuate the transactions contemplated in these agreements. 3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Co ission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL PACT: NO YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember VV" seconds that the Mayor be authorized to sign the "Letters of Transfers, " Memorandum of Understanding, and related docu- ments regarding the transfer of parks and open space from King Counq to the City of Kent in the Meridian Annexation area. DISCUSSION: - ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 4E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington, relating to the Meridian Annexation; transfer of ownership and operation of parks and open space to the City of Kent, Washington WHEREAS, on January 1, 1996 the City of Kent will annex the area east of Kent known as the Meridian Annexation; and WHEREAS,King County desires to transfer ownership and operation of five developed parks and one undeveloped park to the City of Kent; and WHEREAS King County desires to transfer other lands commonly known as open space; and WHEREAS the City of Kent and King County have determined improvements to these parks that will be completed by King County; and WHEREAS the Kent Parks will manage and operate these parks and open space; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Kent City Council authorizes Mayor Jim White to sign the "Letter of.Transfers pertaining to specified parks and open space, Memorandum of Understanding relating to agreed upon improvements, and any other documents to affectuate the transactions contemplated in these agreements. Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this day of 1995. Concurred by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this day of , 1995. JIM WHITE, 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 1995.' (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK Kent City Council Meeting Date November 21, 1995 Category Other Business 1. SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-8 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On June 26, 1995, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Single Family Residential Development Standards. This item was sent to the City Council on October 31 1995. At that time, the Council requested that this item be sent to the City Council Planning Committee for discussion. The Committee reviewed the item on October 17, and November 71 1995. The Zoning Code Amendment is proposed to implement the goals and policies of the adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. 3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated November 21, 1995; proposed densities and dimensions chart; City Council Planning Committee minutes of November 7 and October 17, 1995; and Planning Commission minutes of June 26, 1995 4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Exai ^^mmission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSOI YES P 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ f SOURCE OF FUNDS: w 6v 7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTI,O �( N: Councilmember � , / moves, Council�mber Wkl-V seconds to approve the Zoning Code Amendment/on Single Family Residential Development Standards (#ZCA-95-8) per the Planning Commission and City Council Planning Committee recommendations, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. DISCUSSION• ACTION. Council Agenda Item No. 4F CITY OF L �� -� PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 Jim White, iVlayor MEMORANDUM November 21, 1995 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER SUBJECT: PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (ZCA-95-8) The attached chart contains the Planning Commission recommendations, and the City Council Planning Committee's additional recommendation for revised Kent Zoning Code density and lot dimension provisions for single family residential development. The proposed revised standards are shaded in the chart. For each development standard, a comparison is shown to existing standards in the Kent Zoning Code as well as the King County Zoning Code. Wherever possible. relevant to Kent's specific needs and development pattern. the standards are coordinated with those of King County so that, as annexations occur from King County to the City of Kent, single family residential development standards will be more consistent and predictable. The major issues addressed by the proposed revisions are: 1. Minimum Lot Widths. 2. Minimum Setbacks from front property lines. 3. Lot Sizes as related to inability of property owners and developers to achieve the stated Comprehensive Plan densities because of the area required for roads and utilities. 4. Maximum building coverage and maximum impervious surface coverage. The recommendations are based on information compiled from community forums with local residents and property owners, engineers. architects, and land developers; analysis of Kent's existing regulations, development history. and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies; regulations from other jurisdictions (with particular focus on King County regulations); and a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission. The recommendations were considered by the City Council Planning Committee in workshops on October 17, and again on November 7, 1995. The committee recommended an additional section to the Zoning Code which would insure that the Public Works Department could modify. "U 31h AVE SO. IKENT WAS Ii I NCTON 980"-5495/TELEPHONE '06S59-',100i FAAc¢i - PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS- PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (ZCA-95-8) November 21, 1995 Page 2 traffic impacts LvY a building setback line for a front yard because existing or expected future vehicle p IV X and necessary road improvements on major streets. The following additional secti n s proposed: -� , Ile Proposed front vards less than twenty feet in depth are subject taPublic Works Department �.1J ":A- i exi tin and future ' traffic volumes and right of way, requirements as specified in the City of Kent Comprehensive Transportation Plan and City of Kent Construction Standards Subject to your review and decision, an ordinance should be drafted for adoption of the revised single family development standards. LP/mp:c:ccsfl 121.mem Attachment cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director PROPOSED DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS PLANNING CONINIISSION-,TUNE 26, 199; ,G,ItESI DEN FlAL zESIDENTlal. ZONE V-I R.-� al-:a I itl-r lu�,.,, RI-;2 I RI-S.0 PERN9I'ITED DENSITY ' IDc;A InL:A -DC.t 3D1:lA asu1;:A ,alw,t Snug I NI1-nIUNI LOT WIDTH � I KING COUNTY '-., '_5 NA N\ + 30 KENTEXISTIN I0o 100 ,a I ,0 70 .a sa xa ••s•roar ..i MIN. STREET SETBACK K NG COUNTY 30 30 Ne N: N: l0 a KENT EXISTING 20 -0 -0 20 20 20 ( 20 I� I,- Asa •• t•e�.at n i t i t t NIIN. ET. SETBACKS I KING COUNTY 10 :0 NA NA NA KENT EXISTING I S-I5 S45 S-5 R-20 R--0 R-S I ea • e•e tart u I l' MAXMP-TNI HEIGHT KING COUNTY � 35 �I 35 NA NA NA 35 35 KENT EXISTING 35 I 33 35 I 35 35 35 I 33 d e I'1yl ! MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE ' KING COUNTY � LS So � IS a �� NA NA NA � 50°'0 55 Fo KENT EXISTING 307. 30?e 3098 �� 3048 �� 30me 30% 40% ea t•twat a .. t . l MAX. COPERVIOUS SURD ACE I KING COUNTY I -0% -040 NA i NA NA 7076 I I KENT EXISTING i NA i N'A NA I NA I NA NA I NA MINIMUM LOT SIZE KING COUNTY NSI NA NA NA NA NA NA KENT EXISTING 43,450 SF 133.450 SF I -0.000 SF 12.000 SF 9.600 SF 7,200 SF 5.000 SF IG 1 '19at. w tt Y Iti III II It l III .NA NA is used in the chart,where no re utiors currently exist relative to the development standard. PROPOSED DEY@LOPMENT CONDITIONS L Minimum lot width,budding setbacm,and rtutimum lot sire regumnions may be moriified under coning code provisions for zero lot line and caster housing development. -. .kt least 20 linear feet of:i r ivervay shah be provided between am'garage,carport or other parking wren and the street properly line�%ith the exception of an alley nrooerty line. 3. Porches and private and shared coun3'ard remures may he bwit'.,ubin the front building setback line. 4. On any tat over 1 acre in area,in the A-1 and R-A districts.an additional I5Pe of budding coverage shall he permitted for buildings r Bialea to agricultural _ onc:ices. In cases'.where owiding coverage exceeds tSe basic permitted 15"o,the maximum impervious surtace requirement shot[be adjusted to allay 5^0 hnperviou;area in addition to mudding coverage.;This section refers:o the stolf recommendation. It should be deleted if Planning Commission recommendation is adorded.) 3. rime pt for lots used f u axu ar nyr:cu it Ural pracces,:he mntun on me rvi ma surface area.1 doe-ed shall be 10,000 square feet sir hen We tat is Greater th art 1 acre. .,. -I u,ietermme muumum lot•.vWth for rreguiar lots,a circle of applicable diameter shall lu scaled,.,thin(lie proposed boundaries of ;he lot,provided that �in access casement 10 anutdcr!ot is,at included,vuhin the caccie. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Mr. Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the problem lies within the Meridian Annexation area and the County's existing Soos Creek Plan. The County currently established a 100 foot buffer for Little Soos Creek, Upper Soos Creek, and Soosette Creek. Under the existing Kent zoning code, the setback would be decreased to 50 feet. The County and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have already voiced their concern regarding the City of Kent's inadequate buffer requirement. Mr. Brubaker explained that the City is discussing the possibility of adding this buffer as an overlay to the Meridian annexation area only and more specifically to only those streams listed above. The process for changing the buffer requirements would require an area-wide rezone covering the entire Meridian Annexation area. The proposed rezone would go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing with a recommendation to the Council. It would then go to the Council for final approval. This process can not be accomplished before January 1, 1996, when the Meridian Annexation takes place. Mr. Brubaker is requesting that at the November 21, meeting the Committee begin the overlay process for an area-wide rezone in the Meridian Annexation area. He is also requesting the Committee to establish a moratorium at that time on development within this 100 foot buffer zone in the interim. This will give the City the means to restrict development within the 100 foot buffer at the time of the Annexation. Committee member Clark questioned if there were any permits pending that would be influenced by this. Mr. Brubaker explained that there wouldn't be any because this is the existing buffer in the County and this is not any change over what the county has, it is just an attempt to maintain what the county has in place so there would be no impact on existing development permits. Mr. Harris explained that if there are any permits pending in the county now they are setting back 100 feet. Chair Leona Orr asked for clarification as to whether the Council will need to adopt the Ordinance the same night at the Council to be sure this is in place or can this be adopted as an emergency Ordinance. Mr. Brubaker will look into that issue and inform the Committee of his findings at the November 21 meeting. mZCA-95-1 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - (L. Phillips) This is a continued issue regarding minimum ten feet setbacks on frontage property from previous meetings. The main concern at this point is the issue of traffic impacts or expected future traffic impacts on the main street that a house would front on. The ten foot minimum setback would be too close to the roadway if the Public Works Department needed to obtain a wider right of way. The Public Works Department would review and approve the site plan if the proposed front yard was _. less than 20 feet in depth. The proposed setback will be reviewed in relation to the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Committee member Clark questioned if the proposed Accessory Housing amendment had a requirement within it for off-street parking. He also asked if there would be any conflict with the accessory housing and the request to amend the development standards in regard to the minimum lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that there is a section that stipulates that driveways must be 20 feet Iona., Ms. Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, questioned whether the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements are documented somewhere by the Public Works Department. Ms. Evezich mentioned that if there is a traffic plan that is going to be the basis for the Public Works Department requiring a setback or a right of way requirement, then that language needs to be included in the Zoning Code Amendment. The verbiage will be added to the draft Ordinance to indicate what documentation will be used to approve or disapprove setback requirements. Committee member Johnson MOVED to approve and send to the full Council the single family development standards zoning code amendment on November 21, 1995. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Clark. Chair Orr clarified if the motion included the identification of the documentation that will be used by the Public Works Department. Committee member Johnson confirmed that his motion did include such documentation. The motion carried. ADULT USE ZONING 4ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) The Citv Attornev's office received copies of existing Ordinances from other jurisdictions. Ms. Evezich will provide the Committee with a legislative history from those jurisdictions at the next meeting for action. None of those jurisdictions have a 1,000 foot buffer from a legal nonconforming residential use in a commercial area but rather all of their restrictions address residential in terms of a district or a zone. Incorporated into the findings will be a support of a recommendation for a zoning code change in reducing the setback to within 1,000 feet of nonconforming residential uses. SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - (L. Evezich) Mr. Rodger Anderson from the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th NE. Kirkland. Mr. Anderson is proposing an exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance to accommodate low income housing. He presented the Committee an example of an exemption currently in place in Bainbridge Island. Chair Orr recommended continuing with the adoption of the existing Ordinance and then have the Council take a look at the possible exemption during the next six months. Ms. Evezich recommended a Resolution to indicate the Planning Committee would consider the proposed exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance during the next six months. 'vIr. Fred High, Kent School District. Mr. High commented on the exemption for the School Impact Fee Ordinance for low income housing. Mr. Hiah discussed the reasoning behind requesting the mitigation fees. He presented the committee with a cost analysis demonstrating the average costs that are generated to the schools with each new single family residence. City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 Committee member Johnson MOVED and Committee member Clark SECONDED the motion to limit the size of an accessory unit that is being built at the same time as new construction of the original dwelling. In new construction the accessory unit will be limited to forty percent of the principal unit, with no limits on existing dwellings, Motion carried. SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZON NG CODE AMENDMENTS (ZCA-95-8) (Linda Phillips) Chair Orr discussed her concerns regarding building setbacks from property lines. If a building is being built on a busy street and has a ten foot setback, the street may need to be widened in the future, and the City may become unable to widen the street. Ms. Orr indicated that there are areas in the City now where the street needs to be widened, but there is no room to do so. Mr. Harris suggested that the Public Works Department devise an official plan line for streets that may need widening in the future without having to condemn homes. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich pointed out the need to establish strict guidelines that are carefully defined to make the regulations fair to all citizens. Chair Orr was concerned about impervious surfaces. Ms. Phillips pointed out that the City currently has no limits on the percentage of residential lots of regulating this impervious service coverage. that can be paved. This would be the beginning The percentage could be changed in the future, if needed. The Committee decided to continue the discussion regarding single family development standards at the November 7, 1995, Planning Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm. 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1995 Page 2 Development Techniques would be first, followed by the continuation of the public hearing last month for Accessory Housing. COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS - There were none. CLUSTER HOUSING AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES - #ZCA-95-2 & rc .;� �Y . s it zc A Linda Phillips, Planner, said this evening's discussions will be on the basic zoning standards for single family development, which need to be resolved before creating the cluster ordinance. Ms. Phillips said the purpose of the recommended changes is to achieve consistency between the zoning code and the comprehensive plan, as required by Washington State. As stated in the Goals and Policies of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, she said the basic goal of the proposed change is to provide a climate for land owners and developers to build the needed housing as Kent grows, in single family neighborhoods, without resorting to additional multifamily zoning. Another goal is to encourage single family housing for a variety of family types, to accommodate the diversified housing needs. Ms. Phillips reviewed four zoning code issues to be considered for revision. They are: 1) Minimum lot width; 2) Minimum setbacks from front property lines; 3) Inability to achieve the stated Comprehensive Plan densities because of the area required for roads and utilities; ^) Maximum building coverageimaximum impervious surface coverage. Ms. Phillips referened the density and dimension requirement chart included in her memo dated June 26, 1995. The information included Kent's existing requirements, Kin; County's reauirements, and proposed changes to Kent's requirements. She said the chart indicates the residential capacities in both units per acre as well as the minimum lot square footage. She said that in the future density should be calculated using the comprehensive plan units per acre standard. Ms. Phillips said lowering the street setback requirements from 20 feet to 10 feet was another area Kent is proposing to coordinate with King County, to provide the opportunity for innovative site plans and larger back yards. Also discussed was the importance of limiting the impervious surface and building coverage, so as to lessen problems of floods resulting from stormwater. She said consideration was given to requests made by developers and individuals who attended community forums, who asked that Kent's requirements resemble King County's standards. Ms. Phillips answered questions raised by the Commissioners. She said ADU's (Accessory Dwelling Units) would be allowed on small residential lots, providing the balance of the requirements are also met. In response to a comment regarding the difficulty a 20 foot garage setback with a house setback of only 10 feet would cause, she said by using alleys and through #ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Relared Deveiopmeni Techniques RZC.4-95-3 Accessary Housing Ordinance Planning Commission i mutes June 26, 1995 Page 3 design modifications, this standard could be met, which would also help to alleviate cars parked 2-deep in driveways from extending on io the public right-of-way. Mr. Harris added that this proposed change would allow flexibility and some options to current zoning restrictions. Another issue raised was recommended maximum building coverage for larger lot sizes. Commissioner Stringham was concerned that larger homes may be designed, but not be allowed to build because they exceed the allowable square footage coverage. The question was asked how minimum lot width determinations are made with smaller and odd shaped lots. Ms. Phillips said a specific method for the City has not been set, however lot width averaging and building "footprints" have been used. She said a circle of varying diameters is proposed to determine minimum lot widths. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing. No one present wished to speak. It was MOVED and SECONDED to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED. Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Planning Department's recommendation as summarized on the staff report. Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Nuss read a section from the Seattle Solid Waste Utility stating in part "basing on density rather than lot size in the key building block necessary to secure the Goals of the Kent Comprehensive Plan." She also stated that she learned after the comprehensive plan had moved on from the Planning Commission to the Planning Committee of the City Council, there was a potential discrepancy as to what Kent's housing density really is, between what was proposed and what we really need to have. She also said there must be concurrency with Olympia, as to what they say we need and what is happening in Kent, before we star working on issues as density for cluster housing. Mr. Harris clarified that tonight's action is related only to building setbacks and single family residential standards, and that cluster housing will be discussed at a later time. Commissioner MacIsaac said existing standards should remain in the A-1 and RA Zones, rather than using the proposed percentages for Maximum Building Coverage!Impervious Surface. Discussions continued regarding adding a friendly amendment to change the A-1 and RA standards. A vote was taken on the original motion without a friendly amendment. The motion was DEFEATED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Nuss, Dahle, Heineman. Nay - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Stringham, MacIsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill. Commission: Stringham MOVED to adopt staff's recommendation, changing the lot coverage in A-1 and RA to 30 percent, and changing the impervious surface in the same classifications to 40 percent. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Stringham, Macrsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill. Nay Commissioners Dahle, Nuss, Heineman. ;ZC.d-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Tec,nioues ,`ZC.4-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance Kent City Council Meeting 4 Date November 21, 1995 (Xf �A Category Consent Calendar 1. SUBJECT: ACCESSORY HOUSING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-3 IN 60 a, S' 2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 7 amendEng Chapter 15. 02 of the zoning code to include a definition of "Accessory Dwelling Units, " amend} Chapter 15. 04 to allow accessory dwelling units in single family dwellings, and amender chapter 15. 05 to establish parking requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units and adding a new section 15. 08. 350 to establish regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units. 3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance 4. RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission (Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. ) 5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES 6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ SOURCE OF FUNDS: 7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds DISCUSSION: ACTION• Council Agenda Item No. 3D I�I I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 15.02 of the zoning code to include a definition of "Accessory Dwelling Units", amending Chapter 15.04 to allow accessory dwelling units in single family dwellings and amending Chapter 15.05 to establish parking requirements for accessory dwelling units and adding a new Section 15.08.350 to establish regulations for accessory dwelling units. WHEREAS, the Washington Housing Policy Act (Senate Bill 5584) requires all cities of more than 20,000 people to allow accessory housing in single family zones; and WHEREAS, the 1989 Report of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Single Family Neighborhoods and the Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies adopted in June of 1992 mandated the City to remove regulatory barriers to accessory units; and i i WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City of Kent included a Housing Element in its Comprehensive Plan which was adopted on April 18, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Housing Element also requires that the City implement an accessory housing ordinance; and WHEREAS, Policy H-2.1 of the Housing Element states that Kent will promote a wide range of housing to meet the needs of our diverse population and ensure that such housing is available throughout the community for people of all income levels and special needs; and I I� WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.120, the GMA requires that jurisdictions enact development regulations which are consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan); and i WHEREAS, accessory housing will increase the supply of affordable rental units through better use of the existing housing stock; and i WHEREAS, accessory housing will make home ownership more affordable } because it will be easier to buy both new and existing homes with the help of an accessory apartment; and WHEREAS, accessory housing will make it more comfortable for older people to retain their homes because an accessory apartment can provide them with added income, security, companionship, and the opportunity to trade rent reductions for needed services; and i WHEREAS, accessory housing will make it easier for single parents to meet mortgage payments and hold onto their homes in the wake of a divorce and, as a result, keep their children in the same neighborhood; and WHEREAS, accessory housing will increase the opportunity for disabled persons to live independently because accessory units can provide them with both privacy and the proximity to needed support; NOW, THEREFORE, Section 1. Chapter 15.02. is hereby amended by adding a new Section 15.02.004 as follows: 2 II t� I; j i? I' Sec 15 02 004 Accessory Dwelling Unit. An accessory dwelling unit (®DU) is a habitable dwelling unit added to created within or detached from and on the same lot with a single family dwelling that provides basic requirements for living sleeping. eating, cooking, and sanitation. ,I Section 2. Section 15.04.005 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection i 15.04.005(C)(f) as follows: I � Sec. 15.04.005. Agricultural district, A-1. I The stated goal of the city is to preserve prime agricultural land in the Green River Valley as a nonrenewable resource. The agriculture zone shall actively encourage the jconcentration of agricultural uses in areas where incompatibility with urban uses will be minimal to aid in the implementation of those goals. Further, such classification of prime i agricultural land thus recognizes and encourages farming activity as a viable sector of the local Ieconomy. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1.Agricultural uses, including any customary agricultural building or structure, such as planting, cultivation and harvesting of crops, animal husbandry, nurseries i and greenhouses and other agricultural occupations. 2. One (1) single-family dwelling per lot. 3. Group homes class I-A. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. I ` I I 3 i i i i C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Guest cottages not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 2. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 3. Roadside stands not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for the sale of agricultural products on the premises. 4. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 5. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. 6. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and do not accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 7. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 2. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 4 it ` E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre. 2. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is one hundred (100) feet. 3. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30) percent. 4. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet. b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is fifteen (15) feet. C. Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet. d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is twenty (20) feet. 5. Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos provided that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. 6. Additional standards. a. Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. b. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards. C. The following uses are prohibited: (1) The removal of topsoil for any purpose. (2) Grade and fill operations, provided that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct buildings or structures as outlined in subsections 15.04.005 A., B., C. and D. 5 1 i (3) All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses. (4) Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials. (5) Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. Section 3. Section 15.04.010 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.010(C)(6) as follows: Sec. 15.04.010. Residential agricultural district, RA. �iThe city has, through its RA and MA zones, the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth. It is essential that the city avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. Rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for additional residential, commercial or industrial land in the city. This documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis showing that the other lands already zoned and accessible to municipal services are not sufficient or suitable to accommodate demand for the proposed uses and that the market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to provide municipal services, including but not limited to police, fire, streets, water, drainage and sewer, required by the project. 6 A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Agricultural uses, including any customary agricultural building or structure, such as planting, cultivation and harvesting of crops, animal husbandry, nurseries and greenhouses and other agricultural occupations. 2. One (1) single-family dwelling per lot. 3. Group homes class I-A. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Guest cottages not rented or otherwise conducted as a business. 2. Accommodations for farm operators and employees, but not accommodations for transient labor. 3. Roadside stand not exceeding four hundred (400) square feet in floor area, and not over twenty (20) lineal feet on any side, primarily for the sale of agricultural products grown on the premises. 4. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 5. Other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, except for onsite hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities, which are not permitted in residential zones. 6, Accessoa dwelling units D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: general conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 7 4 i E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre. 2. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is one hundred (100) feet. 3. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30) percent. 4. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet. b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is fifteen (15) feet. C. Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet. d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is twenty (20) feet. 5. Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. 6. Additional standards. a. Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. b. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. 8 Section 4. Section 15.04.020 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.020(F)(4) as follows: Sec. 15.04.020. Single-family residential districts. It is the purpose of the single-family residential districts to stabilize and preserve low density, single-family residential neighborhoods. It is further the purpose to provide a range of minimum lot sizes in order to promote diversity and recognize a variety of residential environments. A. Districts established by lot area. The following single-family residential districts are established: 1. R1-20: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet minimum lot area. 2. R1-12: Twelve thousand (12,000) square feet minimum lot area. 3. R1-9.6: Nine thousand six hundred (9,600) square feet minimum lot area. 4. R1-7.2: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet minimum lot area. 5. R1-5.0: Five thousand (5,000) square feet minimum lot area. B. Minimum zoning area. Minimum zoning area for the R1-5.0 district is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet (three (3) lots). C. Maximum zoning area. Maximum zoning area for the R1-5.0 district is eight (8) acres. D. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. One (1) single-family dwelling per lot. 2. Crop and tree farming. 3. Group homes class I-A. 9 I i I E. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. F. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports and minor structures for storage of personal property. 2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. 3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 4. Accessory dwelling units. G. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. H. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is as follows: a. R1-20: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. b. R1-12: Twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. C. R1-9.6: Nine thousand six hundred (9,600) square feet. d. R1-7.2: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. e. R1-5.0: Five thousand (5,000) square feet. 2. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is as follows: a. R1-20: Seventy (70) feet. b. R1-12: Seventy (70) feet. C. R1-9.6: Seventy (70) feet. d. R1-7.2: Seventy (70) feet. e. R1-5.0: Fifty (50) feet. 10 i� i 3. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is as follows: a. R1-20: Thirty (30) percent. b. R1-12: Thirty (30) percent. C. R1-9.6: Thirty (30) percent. d. R1-7.2: Thirty (30) percent. e. R1-5.0: Forty (40) percent. 4. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet. b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is five (5) feet. C. Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is eight (8) feet. d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet. 5. Height limitation. Height limitations are as follows: a. R1-20: Two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. b. R1-12: Two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. C. R1-9.6: Two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. d. R1-7.2: Two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. e. R1-5.0: Two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty (30) feet. 6. Interior yards. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage. i I I 7. Additional standards. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards; provided that solar access setback requirements of sections 15.08.230 through 15.08.234 shall not apply to the R1-5.0 zone. II. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. J. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking regulations of chapter 15.05 shall apply. K. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. Section . Section 15.04.030 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.030(C)(4) as follows: Sec. 15.04.030. Duplex multifamily residential district, MR-D. It is the purpose of the MR-D district to provide for a limited increase in population density and allow for a greater variety of housing types by allowing duplex dwelling units. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. One (1) single-family dwelling per lot. (1 2. One (1) duplex per lot. 3. Group homes class I-A and I-B. 4. Crop and tree farming. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. 12 i C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: � ry Y 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports and minor structures for storage of personal property. i 2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. J 3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions r of section 15.08.040. 1 4. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. General conditional uses listed in section 15.08.030. 2. Group homes class I-C, II-A, II-B and II-C. E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is as follows: a. Single-family dwellings: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet. b. Duplex (two-family dwelling unit): Eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet. 2. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is as follows: a. Single-family dwelling: Seventy (70) feet. b. Duplex: Eighty (80) feet. 3. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is as follows: a. Single-family dwelling: Thirty (30) percent. b. Duplex: Forty (40) percent. 4. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet. b. Side yard. Minimum side yard is five (5) feet. C. Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is eight (8) feet. 13 i d. Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet. 5. Height limitation. The height limitation is two and one-half(2 1/2) stories, not exceeding thirty-five (35) feet. 6. Interior yards. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage. 7. Additional standards. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required when the property to be developed is classified as view property. Section 6. Section 15.04.040 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.040(C)(5) as follows: Sec. 15.04.040. Garden density multifamily residential district, MR-G. It is the purpose of the MR-G district to provide locations for garden apartment densities suitable for suburban living. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings or duplexes. 2. Multiple-family dwellings, including apartments and townhouses. 3. Group homes class I-A and I-B. 4. Crop or tree farming. 14 i I B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery school and day care centers. C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports and minor structures for storage of personal property. 2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. 3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 4. Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a principally permitted use. 5. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 2. Group homes class I-C, I1-A, II-B and II-C. E. Development standards. 1. Single-family dwellings and duplexes. For single-family dwellings and duplexes, the development standards of section 15.04.020 and section 15.04.030 shall apply. 2. Multifamily dwelling units. The following shall apply to multifamily dwelling units: a. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. b. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is eighty (80) 15 i II �i i p feet. k C. Density. Maximum density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. d. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is forty- five (45) percent. e. Minimum yard requirements. i� (1) Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) I feet. (2) Side yard. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. (3) Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet. (4) Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet. f. Distances between buildings. (1) An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. (2) The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half the sum of the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case j shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same building separated from each other by a court or other open space. g. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter kl' 15.07 shall apply. h. Height limitation. The height limitation is three (3) stories, not exceeding forty (40) feet. i. Additional standards. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to 16 i general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards. j. Multifamily transition areas. The requirements of section 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100) feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way. k. Multifamily design review. The requirements of section 15.09.047 shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units. I F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. I G. Offstreet parking. i 1. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 0 2. Offstreet parking may be located in required yards except for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right-of-way, which must be landscaped. No offstreet parking is permitted in the required open green area. H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required as provided in section 15.09.010. Section 7. Section 15.04.060 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.060(C)(5) as follows: Sec. 15.04.060. High density multifamily residential district, MR-H. It is the purpose of the MR-H district to provide for locations for high density residential districts suitable for urban living. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Single-family dwellings and two-family dwellings or duplexes. 2. Multiple-family dwellings. 17 3. Group homes class I-A, I-B and I-C. 4. Crop and tree farming. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020. (No uses presently listed.) C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: I1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as garages, carports or minor structures for storage of personal property. 2. Rooming and boarding of not more than three (3) persons. 3. Customary incidental home occupations subject to the provisions of section 15.08.040. 4. Offices incidental and necessary to the conduct of a permitted use. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 2. Group homes class 11-A, II-B and II-C. E. Development standards. 1. Single-family dwellings and duplexes. For single-family dwellings and duplexes, the development standards of section 15.04.020 and section 15.04.030 shall apply. 2. Multifamily dwelling units. The following shall apply to multifamily dwelling units: a. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. b. Minimum lot width. Minimum lot width is eighty (80) 18 j i i feet. II C. Density. Maximum density is forty (40) dwelling units !� per acre. d. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is fifty .I (50) percent. i! e. Minimum yard requirements. i (1) Front yard. Minimum front yard is twenty (20) feet. (2) Side yard. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. (3) Rear yard. Minimum rear yard is twenty (20) feet. (4) Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot is fifteen (15) feet. f. Distances between buildings. (1) An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. (2) The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half the sum of the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same building separated from each other by a court or other open space. g. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. h. Height limitation. The height limitation is four (4) stories, not exceeding fifty (50) feet. 19 i i. Additional standards. See chapter 15.08, pertaining to general and supplementary provisions, for requirements concerning accessory buildings and additional standards. j. Multifamily transition areas. The requirements of section 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100) feet of a single-family district of within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way. k. Multifamily design review. The requirements of section 15.09.047 shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Offstreet parking. 1. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 2. Offstreet parking may be located in required yards, except for the front ten (10) feet abutting any public right-of-way, which must be landscaped. No offstreet parking is permitted in the required open green area. H. Development plan review. Development plan review is required as provided in section 15.09.010. Section 8. Section 15.04.115 is hereby amended by adding a new section 15.04.115(C)(3) as follows: Sec. 15.04.115. Downtown commercial enterprise, DCE. The purpose of this district is to encourage and promote higher density development and a variety and mixture of compatible retail, commercial, residential, civic, recreational, and service activities in the downtown area, to enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown, and to implement the goals and policies of the downtown plan. 20 i fli A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Retail establishments, including convenience goods, department and variety stores, and specialty shops such as apparel and accessories, gift shops, toy shops, cards and paper goods, home and home accessory shops, antique shops, and book shops. 2. Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, launderettes, and household repair shops. 3. Food-related shops, restaurants (including outdoor eating areas and excluding drive-through restaurants), taverns. 4. Professional and administrative offices, including medical/dental, legal, real estate, and financial services. 5. Business and technical schools, and schools and studios for photography, art, music, and dance. 6. Business service establishments, such as blueprinting, photocopying, and consulting services. 7. Multifamily residential uses, including housing for senior citizens. 8. Banks and financial institutions. 9. Hotels and motels. 10. Drive-through businesses, excluding drive-through restaurants. 11. Performing and cultural arts facilities, including movie theaters. 12. Public facilities and uses, including regional and community facilities, such as libraries, government office buildings, and parks. . 13. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed, such as garages, carports, storage sheds, and fences. 14. Preschools and daycare centers. 21 15. Group homes class 1-A, 1-B and 1-C. 16. Other uses designated by the planning director as consistent with the purpose of the DCE zoning district. B. Special permit uses. Special permit use is as follows: 1. Churches. C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities, which must be enclosed, loading and unloading areas. 2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment and/or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one time on site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment and/or storage facilities which are not permitted in this district. 3. Day care facilities operated in conjunction with a permitted use. 4. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. Commercial parking lots and structures. j 2. Railway and bus depots, taxi stands. ! 3. Drive-through restaurants, only if located in a building having at least two (2) stories. 4. Group homes class 2-A, 2-B, 2-C and 3. 5. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. E. Development standards. The development standards are as follows: 1. Minimum lot. Five thousand (5,000) square feet. 22 I� I i j, 2. Maximum site coverage. One hundred (100) percent. 3. Setbacks. No minimum setback is required. When a rear and/or r side yard abuts a residential district, then a twenty-foot rear and/or side yard setback may be required. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. 4. Height limitation. No maximum height limit. See the downtown design review criteria outlined in section 15.09.048. j 5. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. i F. Signs. The sign requirements of chapter 15.06 shall apply. jG. Off-street parking. The off-street parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. 1 H. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required, as provided in section 15.09.010. I. Downtown design review. The downtown design review requirements of section 15.09.048 shall apply. PP Y• Section 9. Section 15.04.140 is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 15.04.140(C)(3) as follows: i Sec. 15.04.140. General commercial district, GC. I The purpose and intent of the general commercial district is to recognize the existence of commercial areas developed in strips along certain major thoroughfares; to provide use incentives and development standards which will encourage the redevelopment and upgrading of such areas; to provide for a range of trade, service, entertainment and recreation land uses which occur adjacent to major traffic arterials and residential uses; and to provide areas for development which are automobile oriented and designed for convenience, safety and 23 i the reduction of the visual blight of uncontrolled advertising signs, traffic control devices and utility equipment. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Trade. a. Wholesale. Bakery. b. Retail--General merchandise. (1) Department stores. (2) Dry goods and general merchandise. (3) Electrical supplies. (4) Farm equipment. (5) Hardware. (6) Heating and plumbing equipment. (7) Lumberyards. (8) Mail order houses. (9) Merchandise vending machine operators. (10) Paint, glass and wallpaper. (11) Variety stores. C. Retail--Food. (1) Bakeries, with accessory manufacturing. (2) Candy, nut and confectionery, with accessory manufacturing. (3) Dairy products. (4) Fruits and vegetables. (5) Groceries. (6) Meat, fish and poultry. d. Retail--Automotive, marine craft, aircraft and accessories. 24 I' 1 I �I 1 (1) Aircraft and accessories. I I (2) Marine craft and accessories. (3) Motor vehicles (new or used cars and recreation vehicles). (4) Tires, batteries and accessories. e. Retail--Apparel and accessories. New or used apparel and accessories. f. Retail--Furniture, home furnishings and equipment. New or used and finished or unfinished furniture, home furnishings and equipment. g. Retail--Eating and drinking establishments. (1) Drinking establishments (taverns and cocktail lounges). (2) Eating establishments (restaurants) without drive- in or drive-through facilities. h. Retail--Other. (1) Antiques. (2) Bicycles. (3) Books. i (4) Bottled gas. (5) Cameras and photographic supplies. (6) Cigars and cigarettes. 1 (7) Computers and software. (8) Drug and proprietary items. (9) Florists. (10) Fuel and ice dealers. 25 i 1 (11) Fuel oil. (12) Gifts, novelties and souvenirs. (13) Hay, grains and feeds. (14) Jewelry. (15) Liquor. (16) Newspapers and magazines. (17) Optical goods. (18) Pets and pet supplies. (19) Secondhand merchandise. (20) Sporting goods. (21) Stationery. (22) Videocassette sales and rentals. 2. Services. a. Finance, insurance and real estate services. (1) Banking and related services. (2) Commodity brokers, dealers and related services. (3) Housing and investment services. (4) Insurance brokers, agents and related services. (5) Insurance carriers. (6) Real estate agents, brokers and related services. (7) Real estate operators, lessors and management services. (8) Real estate subdividing and developing services. (9) Security brokers and dealers and related services. (10) Title abstracting and insurance services. b. Personal services. 26 II i II I ill (1) Beauty and barber services. f f (2) Diaper services. (3) Funeral and crematory services. (4) Laundering and dry cleaning (self-service). (5) Laundering, dry cleaning and dyeing services. j (6) Linen supply and industrial laundry services. (7) Photographic services. I I, (8) Pressing, alteration and garment repair. (9) Rug cleaning and repair services. (10) Shoe repair, shoe shining and hat cleaning services. C. Business services. (1) Advertising services. (2) Automobile and truck rental. (3) Blueprinting and photocopying services. (4) Business and management consulting services. (5) Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services; adjustment and collection services. (6) Detective and protective services. (7) Disinfecting and exterminating services. (8) Employment services. (9) Equipment rental and leasing services. (10) Food lockers without food preparation facilities. (11) Motion picture distribution and services. (12) News syndicate services. (13) Other dwelling and business services. 27 i (14) Outdoor advertising services. I (15) Photofinishing services. (16) Research, development and testing services. (17) Stenographic services and other duplicating and I mailing services. i (18) Trading stamp services. (19) Window cleaning services. i d. Repair services. (1) Armature rewinding services. (2) Automobile repair services. (3) Automobile wash services. (4) Electrical repair services. + (5) Fleet vehicle maintenance. (6) Radio and television repair services. !i (7) Reupholstery and furniture repair services. (8) Small engine repair. (9) Truck repair. (10) Watch, clock and jewelry repair services. e. Professional services. (1) Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services. (2) Educational and scientific research services. (3) Engineering and architectural services. (4) Hospital services. (5) Legal services. (6) Medical and dental laboratory services. (7) Medical and dental services. i; I 28 i i l (8) Medical clinic, outpatient services. (9) Sanitarium, convalescent and rest home services. (10) Urban planning services. f. Contract construction services. (1) Building construction, general contractor services. (2) Carpentering and wood flooring. (3) Concrete services. !' (4) Electrical services. i ' (5) Masonry, stonework, tile setting and plastering services. (6) Painting, paperhanging and decorating services. (7) Plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. (8) Roofing and sheetmetal services. (9) Water well drilling services. g. Educational services. (1) Art and music schools. (2) Barber and beauty schools. !i (3) Business and stenographic schools. I (4) Correspondence schools. (5) Dancing schools. I (6) Driving schools, auto. (7) Driving schools, truck. (8) Vocational or trade schools. h. Miscellaneous services. (1) Animal grooming parlors. (2) Business associations and organizations. 29 i (3) Civic, social and fraternal associations. (4) Labor unions and similar labor organizations. (5) Veterinary clinics and animal hospital services when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. (6) Welfare and charitable services. 3. Residential. a. Lodgings: (1) Hotels. (2) Motels. b. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. C. Transitional housing facilities, limited to a maximum of twenty (20) residents at any one (1) time and four (4) resident staff. 4. Cultural, entertainment and recreational. a. Cultural activities and nature exhibitions. (1) Art galleries. (2) Historic and monument sites. b. Public assembly. (1) Amphitheaters. (2) Arenas and field houses. (3) Auditoriums. (4) Drive-in movies. (5) Exhibition halls. 30 I (6) Legitimate theaters (live). (7) Motion picture theaters. (8) Stadiums. c. Amusements and recreation. (1) Amusement parks. (2) Athletic clubs. f (3) Bowling. (4) Fairgrounds. (5) Go-cart tracks. (6) Golf driving ranges. (7) Miniature golf. (8) Skating (roller or ice). (9) Tennis. i (10) Video arcades. 5. Other uses. a. Other retail trade, service, or entertainment or recreational uses that are of the same general character as those listed in this subsection, which are deemed compatible with other permitted uses in this district and which operate in accordance with the stated purpose of this district. b. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to section 15.04.200. B. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Gasoline service stations. 2. Eating establishments (restaurants) with drive-in or drive-through facilities. 31 I� i I 3. Nursery schools and day care centers. 4. Churches. C. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities. 2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than ten thousand (10,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 3. Accessory dwelling units. D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. Printing and publishing establishments, and accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to such use. 2. Miniwarehouses and self-service storage. 3. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030, except for transitional housing with a maximum of twenty (20) residents and four (4) staff. 4. Kennels. 5. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses which are not subject to cleanup requirements of chapter 11.02 and which accumulate more than ten thousand (10,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site or which handle more than twenty thousand (20,000) pounds of hazardous substances and wastes on the site in any thirty-day period of time, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 32 �i i i i I { I 6. Group homes class I-A, I-B, I-C, II-A, II-B, II-C and III. 7. Recreational vehicle parks. E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is forty (40) percent. 3. Front yard. There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet in depth. 4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except when a side yard abuts a residential district, and then a twenty-foot side yard shall be required. 5. Rear yard. No rear yard is required, except when a rear yard abuts a residential district, and then a twenty-foot rear yard shall be required. 6. Height limitation. The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. However, the planning director shall be authorized to grant one (1) additional story in height if during development plan review it is found that this additional story would not detract from the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may lbe granted by the planning commission. 1 7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall apply. 8. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced for security and public safety by a sight-obscuring fence unless it is determined through the I development plan review that a sight-obscuring fence is not necessary. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. G. Offstreet parking. 1. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. i 33 , i I� 2. Offstreet parking may be located in required yards, except in areas required to be landscaped. H. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. Section 10. Section 15.04.150 is herebyamended b adding a y g new subsection 15.04.150(C)(9) as follows: Sec. 15.04.150. Professional and office district, O. It is the purpose of the O district to provide for areas appropriate for professional and administrative offices. It is intended that such districts shall buffer residential districts and the development standards are such that office uses should be compatible with residential districts. A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows: 1. Medical and dental offices and medical and dental laboratory services. 2. Administrative and professional offices such as lawyers, engineers, real estate and accountants, financial offices such as banks and savings and loan institutions, insurance offices, auditing, bookkeeping, architectural and urban planning services, business and management consulting services and advertising services. 3. Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty (150) feet to any residential use, providing the animals are housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent acoustical engineers. 4. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, music or dance; educational and scientific research; and research and development services. 34 I I' i 5. Blueprinting and photocopying services. 6. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services, and ` s adjustment and collecting services. 7. Detective and protective services. 8. Stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services. I 9. News syndicate services. I i 10. Employment services. 11. Group homes class I-A, I-B and I-C. a w 12. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of f the same general character as the uses permitted in subsections A.1. through 11. of this I. l section. r. 13. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings subject to section 15.04.200. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. B. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows: 1. Incidental sales and services, such as restaurants, pharmacies and retail sales, to serve occupants and patrons of permitted uses, when conducted within the same building, provided there is no exterior display or advertising. 2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not permitted in this district. 35 s C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: 1. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted as a conditional use only when included within a mixed use development. 2. Mortuaries. 3. Beauty and barber services. 4. Tanning salons. 5. Nail manicuring services. 6. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030. 7. Retail sales as follows: a. Retail sales are permitted as part of a planned development where at least fifty (50) percent of the total development is for office use. b. Drive-in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning establishments and other similar retail establishments are not permitted. 8. Group homes class II-A, II-B, Il-C and III. 9. Accessory dwelling units. D. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020: 1. Churches. 2. Nursery schools and day care centers. E. Development standards. 1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 2. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30) percent. 3. Front yard. Minimum front yard setback is twenty-five (25) feet. 4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except abutting a residential 36 I 1 i� f Ih district, and then the side yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum. 5. Rear yard. No rear yard is required, except abutting a residential district, and then the rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet. 6. Height limitation. The height limitation is three (3) stories or I forty (40) feet. f 7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 i shall apply. F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply. j I G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply. i H. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as provided in section 15.09.010. f! Section 11. Section 15.05.040 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended by I! adding a new subsection 15.05.040(A)(1)(f) as follows: �I I; 1 I Sec. 15.05.040. Parking standards for specific activities. f, f. Accessory dwelling unit. f i One off-street parking space per accessory unit is required in addition to �f the required parking for the single family home. The Planning Director !� I may waive this requirement where there are special circumstances i I j related to the property and its location The surface of a required ADU I off-street parking space shall comply with Kent City Code I &15.05.090(C). 1 37 i � q Section 12. Chapter 15.08 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended to add a new subsection 15.08.350 as follows: Sec. 15.08.350. Accessory dwelling unit regulations. J A. In ten . The City provides these accessory dwelling unit regulations for 4 the following purposes: f 1. To increase the supply of affordable rental units through better use of the existing housing stock, much of which is underutilized because the baby boom has been followed by an empty nester boom, because there are fewer children per family, because there are more single parent households, and because there are more one and two person elderly households. 2. To make homeownership more affordable because it will be easier to buy both new and existing homes with the help of an accessory apartment. 3. To make it more comfortable for older people to retain their homes because an accessory apartment can provide them with added income, security, companionship, and the opportunity to trade rent reductions for needed services. 4. To make it easier for single parents to meet mortgage payments and hold onto their homes in the wake of a divorce and, as a result, keep their children in the same neighborhood. 5. To increase the opportunity for disabled persons to live independently because accessory units can provide them with both privacy and the proximity to needed support. 6. To reduce the isolation of households that is a result of increased affluence in housing, and/or longer lifespans and periods of frailty, and/or suburban land use patterns that isolate people who cannot drive. 7. To make better use of existing public investment in streets, 38 i I transit, water, sewer, and other utilities. B. Standards and Criteria. 1. One ADU per dwelling unit is allowed out-right within all Rl, single family residential zones, and single family dwellings within the city. 2. An ADU may be established in a new or existing single family dwelling by creating the unit within or in addition to the dwelling, or as a detached unit from the principal dwelling. 3. The ADU, as well as the main dwelling unit, must meet all applicable setbacks, lot coverage, and building height requirements. 4. The design and size of an ADU shall conform to all applicable standards in the building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, fire, health, and any other applicable codes. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Ordinance, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. 5. One of the dwelling units shall be owner occupied as the owner(s) principal residence for at least 6 months a year. No permit for an ADU will be issued until the owner files a covenant evidencing this use limitation against the property; this covenant must also be recorded in the records of the King County Auditor. This covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. ' 6. If both the ADU or the principal unit ceases to be owner occupied for more than 6 months, the ADU permit shall be deemed revoked and use of the I unit as an ADU must cease immediately.. 7. The size of an ADU contained within or attached to an existing single family structure shall be limited by the existing structure's applicable zoning requirements. An ADU incorporated in the construction of a new single family house shall be limited to 40% of the principal unit. The size of a detached ADU, for either new construction or an existing home, shall be up to 800 square feet or 33% of the size of the principal unit, 39 I it whichever is smaller. A legal guest cottage, as defined by Kent Zoning Code Section 15.02.174, existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall not be denied an accessory housing permit solely because it is larger than the maximum size stated in this criteria. 8. The owner or developer shall take every effort to avoid additional entrances or other visible changes on the street facade of the house which indicates the presence of an ADU. 9. A permit application must be completed and approved for all ADUs. The Planning Department shall determine the application requirements for an ADU permit. 10. ADUs existing prior to the adoption of the accessory housing ordinance may be found to be legal on the condition that the property owner applies for an ADU permit and complies with all required standards and provisions. Such property owners have a one year period from the date the accessory housing ordinance is adopted in which to apply for an ADU permit, after which time such property owners can be subject to fines and penalties established in this title. 11. Adjacent neighbors of an ADU applicant shall be notified of the ADU zoning permit application. This notification is informational only. The decision by the Planning Department to grant an ADU zoning permit is non-appealable by the neighbors of the permit holder. Section 13. Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this Chapter are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. 40 11 Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED day of 1995. APPROVED day of 1995 PUBLISHED day of 11995. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK adu.ord 41 I _ r r CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS A. R E /P 0 R T S A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT w/cL / B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 6�30 C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ' D. PLANNING COMMITTEE GYM E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE F. PARKS COMMITTEE G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A-v �w OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Christi Houser, Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Cliff Craig, Lois Deusen, Karen Ford, Becky Fowler, Dee Gergich, Mary Ann Kern, Jana King, Roger Lubovich, Brent McFall, May Miller, Ron Spang MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chen, Richard King The meeting was called to order at 9:35 a.m. by Acting Chairperson Houser. (Chairman Johnson arrived at 9:40 a.m. AXnroval of Vouchers: All claims for the period ending October 16, 1995, in the amount of $3,544,378.99 were approved for payment. Septemher Financial Report Acting Chairperson Houser asked to begin with the September Financial Report. Finance Director May Miller distributed the report to the Committee. In reviewing the report, May noted that the debt service total for the Golf Course was used for capital projects; that the accumulation of funds for the City's portion of the Tacoma Pipeline is continuing, and our self insurance funds are reaching the $1 million reserves targeted. On page 5, May noted that the LID foreclosures are a small amount due to the strong collection efforts with the help of Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich. She continued on page 5 stating that the Council is expected to have 75% of bond capacity available by next year. May noted that the revenue is 3.5% over forecast at the end of September with expenses showing close to forecast before the annexation budget change has been added. May continued her review and on page 13 noted that manufacturing appears to be down until the one time payment received last year is backed out which shows a 4.5% increase. In reviewing the building permits, May reported detail reports for September indicate new industrial building permits for $2.5 million; new buildings of$6.7 million; 6 residential permits and 32 re-roofs. During the remainder of her review, May noted that recreation fees are still under budget and the 1996 forecast has been lowered and that the golf course has finished the summer under budget by $424,000. She stated that it is hoped that the golf course will recover next year but the projections have been lowered. May concluded her review. LID 346 Bond Sale May Miller introduced Dick King of Lehman Brothers and explained that the LID was completed leaving a balance of$518,162 to be covered by bonds. Dick King referred the Committee to the materials included with the agenda_ He stated that the interest rates had been up a bit Tuesday. Dick noted that the graph showed the twenty year trend is slightly down and stated that it is expected that the future will be stable with a slight downward trend. He explained that LID 346 is estimated to be close to the market average rate of 5.85% and that depending on the price issue and the market it is expected that it will be issued a week from today for adoption at the November 7th Council Meeting. May added that she would also be looking at refinancing the water bonds to lower interest rates and restructure debt before the pipeline. She informed the Committee that she would be bringing any recommendations back to the Committee in the future. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there were any questions. Committeemember Houser moved to recommend authorization for the City to negotiate the sale of LID 346 Bonds for$518,162 with Lehman Brothers. Murieival Court Video Arraignment Director of Operations Brent McFall explained that at the last meeting the Committee had requested a report on video arraignment at the Court. Information Services Director Ron Spang distributed the subject etafiie rP nrt�to the f nmmith-F- Cnana-nwiPwPd the diaoram inchided with the renort and noted that OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT. OCTOBER 2� , 1095 restricted access of the facilities involved has slowed down the project and multiple consultants, vendors, department staff and competing projects have added to the difficulties. He noted the milestone list that Dee Gergich had included which does not capture all of the many problems that are to numerous to list. Ron noted that at this point it is close to being up and running with the exception of some background noise that staff is trying to cleanup. 1996 Budget.Review May Miller stated that according to the changes in the law, a public hearing on the budget and tax levy ordinance needs to be held at the next Council Meeting. She stated that the tax levy ordinance is ready but the information has not been received from the County and isn't expected until after December. May explained that the City can adopt too high and adjust it down, but not too low. McFall added that as had been mentioned at the Council Workshop, based on our evaluation, it is anticipated that the levy will be lowered. May explained that the adoption of the budget could happen at the first or second meeting in November and asked if there were any questions or additional review. Orr stated that she had no specific questions. Johnson stated that he has gone through it and commented that it was easier to read than past years. May noted that there will be some technical changes such as the public defense contract in law will need an additional $20,000 due to the cases increasing by 30%. Another change will need to be made in Police due to a few missed grants. Orr asked if there would be any public hearings. May replied that one had been held on August 1 st and the second one is scheduled for the next Council Meeting. McFall stated that the one on November 7th is required by law and the one in August was an effort to receive input from the public. He noted that the budget can be adopted the same night as the public hearing, it is up to the Committee when they would like to schedule adoption. Houser asked if the letter would be clarified where it states that 23 staff will be added and 16 police officers. McFall replied that it would be fixed. Houser questioned page I-42 asking if this would approve the City Administrative Offices being funded by Councilmanic Bonds. Miller responded that this was only a plan and would be adopted separately in 1997 with any proposed funding. McFall stated that a balance needs to be looked at when considering Councilmanic Bonds since the capacity allowed does not guarantee an ability to pay them off within existing revenues. Miller stated that a conservative approach was used in putting together the budget with reduced park fees and modest sales tax increases projected. McFall recommended that the ordinance adopting the budget be adopted at the next Council Meeting with the ordinance setting the tax levy. Orr so moved, Houser seconded and the motion carried 3-0. May stated that she would explain-any technical changes made at the Council Meeting. Committee Chair Johnson asked if there was any further business. There being none brought forward the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 a.m. Brenda Jacober City Clerk City of Kent Parks Committee Meeting October 17, 1995 Present: Christi Houser, Paul Mann Employees: John Hodgson, Helen Wickstrom, Lori Hogan, Cheryl Fraser, Dimitris Carter, Christina Stookey, Julie Stangle, Tamara Sevigny, Dave Everett Residents: Tiana Waters, Annie Fomai, Sonya Waters, Nicole Sanchez, Cheri Warner; James Street Crossing property manager/854-8100. Make a Difference Day: John invited all council to this event on October 28th. Over 12,000 bulbs will be planted in downtown Kent and in parks. It is a national program that is sponsored to promote community service. Capital Projects: Going to bid on new park signs hopefully next week. We hope to have the signs for the five new parks in the annexation area by January 1. Surplus Houses: Golf course house has someone interested in it. The buyers are looking for a place to put it. No one wanted the Salt Air Hills home or the Corrections Center home, so we have negotiated with the fire department to use the Salt Air Hills for a fire test site. It will be burned three times then cleared. The Corrections Center home we could not burn, so we are getting bids now to have it demolished. Our hope is to have the later two houses gone by November. Russell Road: Sidewalk and storm drain work being done. Acquisition of Midway Reservoir: Still in negotiations regarding the future possibility of putting in the water area and the cost goes up for permits, who should pay for them. Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 is done. Kiwanis Tot Lot#3: We have applied for a grant and feel like we may get it. Kiwanis Tot Lot #4: We should have all four of the tot lots rebuilt by the middle of 1996. Lights: All 16 lights have arrived and are being installed as we speak. Lake Fenwick Trail: Stairs are in; 200 feet of stairs! Youth Teen Program: Cheryl Fraser introduced the staff and gave some background on their lines of expertise. Julie Stangle thanked the committee for the donations which make the program possible. Video technology is giving the kids a craft. Julie sees this program expanding to teach kids how to work in a real TV station. Goal is to hook up with teens and encourage them to tape games, interviews, etc., and bring back for the cable station. Other areas teaching leadership skills and recycling which they can take back to their apartment complex and use as a p-patch or recycling program. To encourage the arts, teens were encouraged to become a part of the Art Reclamation Program at the Kent Memorial Park. Dimitris Carter shared how kids are learning to make friends and bring cooperation into their lives through recreation. He also shared how the Lighthouse Project worked to help kids make friends and find positive outlets for their energy and build confidence. Dimitris found this saying and brought it up as how he felt personally about the program: "We know we are in a position to make or break a child, Break them from the social ills, and create a variety of positive experiences. From our director to our rec leaders we believe in supporting, mentoring, and healing through multicultural diversity as well as fostering pride in today's youth and teens. And we believe they know it's true by what we say and by what we do." Tamara is working on the apartment based programs. Finding a simple place for kids to do homework, learn home-life skills, sports, community volunteer projects and leadership. Tamara's second area to be working on is to provide after school sports, drama, after school games, crafts for older and younger siblings. Another reason this is so important to the program is it provides the children with a shelter and a feeling of safety after school. A recreation van is being sought to provide kids an opportunity for hands on use of computers, and video production equipment. With recently received grant money, the program is looking for a dealership who will match funds to purchase a state of the art van. The present van offers games, camcorders, video production, sports events, music and cultural/ethnic events. "Outreach" is designed to attract and enable all youth to participate in current recreational and cultural programs with the assistance of scholarships, transportation, equipment, and on-site programming. Cheri Warner from James Street Crossing offered testimony that the programs have been very positive. Thank you very much. The Hot Steppers were introduced. Tiana, Sonya and Annie. They reported how the program has been positive for them. How they have made friends and helped them become confident. John Hodgson noted that we do have a grant to buy equipment - and to enhance the Cable TV system and we envision a youth cable TV segment. Other grants received: $38,000 for mobile unit, and $20,000 for p-patch program. Golf Fees: Proposed unlimited use card. During the weekdays for Winter use. A fee of $300/$350 is charged. If a person golfed everyday - they would save about $600. Request for mini-putt and range by $.50. We would like to raise the Par 3 course, but can wait if necessary as we haven't made improvements to the course. Paul Mann moved to accept total fee increase as presented to the committee. It was seconded and approved. Watercraft Ordinances: With the annexation on Easthill, we need to bring the water ordinances in line with the current King County Ordinances. Two ordinances have been brought before the committee. The first 4.01, removing watercraft and boating within the ordinance and moving the water regulations to 4.06. These codes are to merely put in place the same codes that currently exist. No new regulations are being put in place at this time with the exception of Page 11: 'any watercraft with internal combustion'. We have changed the penalty provisions to civil infraction with a fine up to $250 except for a couple items which are misdemeanors, damage to property, firearms discharge. Float planes have not been regulated with these ordinances. Roger will check into this to make sure it is regulated under a different jurisdiction. Paul Mann moved to accept the ordinances with the changes discussed. Christi seconded the motion. It carried. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. s� BRENDA JACOBER CITY OF �rd\'L5� S (Please put in Council agenda packet) l CITY COUNCIL PLANTIING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995, 4:00 PM Jim White. Mavor Committee Members Present Citv Attornevs Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Planning Staff Other James P. Harris Fred High, Kent School District Fred Satterstrom Jerry Prouty, W. E. Ruth Real Estate Margaret Porter SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (Master Builders Association - D. Flynn) Mr. Dan Flynn from Master Builders Association was scheduled to speak at the meeting. He was unable to attend and will come to the October 17, 1995 meeting. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich presented the ordinance for the interlocal agreement. The Citv Attorney's Office is not recommending any drastic changes. City Attorney Roger Lubovich discussed this with Fred High of the Kent School District and Ms. Evezich in regards to making the Impact Fee Program more generic because Federal Way and Renton School Districts have areas that extend into Kent City limits. If the other school districts would submit to the City a Capital Facilities Plan and agree to an ordinance,terms, and conditions similar to the interlocal agreement that we have proposed with the Kent School District. The City will consider collecting the fees in the same manner that is proposed for the Kent School District. Federal Way School District was unable to send representation to this meeting. Some proposed changes in the draft ordinance are, the language has been made more generic to incorporate those coextensive boundaries with those two other school districts, and adding it into Chapter 12 of the Kent City Code. Also, the draft ordinance has made the correction to collect the fees at the permit stage. There seemed to be more equity doing it at the permit stage because of the possibility of somebody might plat but not develop. The draft ordinance was distributed to Councilmembers and one will be sent to the Kent School District. Ms. Evezich stated that the City currently does not collect school impact fees. The City has collected fees for impacts on traffic and parks pursuant to a voluntary agreement. A voluntary agreement would require that the fee collected was in proportion to the direct impact of a plat, subdivision, or building development on the increased cost of a certain school district. The fees could only be spent in relation to that particular impact. Fees are also allowed to be collected pursuant to SEPA, the impact must be directly in relation to the particular plat, PUD, or building activity that is being permitted and spent only in relation to mitigating the impact of that particular l 220 hh AVE.SO.. /KE]T.WASHINGTOV 9tiO3'_-53951 TELEPHONE (1061859-33001 FAX=859-3334 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 development. Under the Growth Management Act, and under the plan that the City of Kent is proposing, the fees can be collected at the permitting stage for building activity that reasonably relates to the increased capacity and the adverse impacts of that particular development. With the Growth Management approach and because we have the co-extensive boundaries, the reasonable relationship standard would allow the Kent School District or whichever school district to collect a fee that was not necessarily spent to offset the impacts of that particular development,but to offset district-wide deficiencies. This gives the school district more ability to forecast their needs in relationship with how all of the impacts in an area will impact schools district-wide as opposed to one small area. Committeechair Orr stated that this item would go on the agenda for the next meeting, October 17, 1995, as an information item. Ms. Orr asked that the Master Builders Association be notified again so that they may give their presentation. Jerry Prouty, of W. E. Ruth Real Estate, stated that he is against the School Impact Fee. Mr. Prouty was concerned that housing affordability and the fact that it may cause potential single family home buyers to choose apartment living. Mr. Prouty fears that this will increase multifamily housing. Ms. Evezich added that the draft ordinance is modeled as close to the existing King County ordinance and the fee schedules that are in the Capital Facilities Plan prepared by the Kent School District are the same as the ones that are currently being used by King County. ADULT USE ZONING 9ZCA-95-1 - (Laurie Evezich) Assistant Attorney Laurie Evezich said the Planning Commission last heard the Adult Use zoning issue on April 24, 1995. The Adult Use Zoning was being heard because of the Federal District Court order. The Order indicated that although Kent's Adult Use Zoning ordinance was constitutional, it was not constitutional as applied to some particular plaintiffs; therefore, required the City to look at our adult use zoning. Planning Commissioner Kent Morrill sent a memo to the City Council dated May 2, 1995, indicating their inability to come to a decision, and now the issue is before the Planning Committee. Ms. Evezich explained that one recommendation made by the Planning staff is to have the 1,000 foot setbacks not be applied to residential uses as opposed to residential zones or districts. The protected areas would remain intact, the 1,000 foot setbacks would apply to churches, schools, parks and libraries, residential zones and districts. The only difference would be that the 1,000 foot setback would not apply to residential uses. This would, hopefully, create additional sites for adult use 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October '), 1995 businesses to be located within the City of Kent(without opening up an inordinate amount of area) and still make it consistent with the zoning of those particular businesses in commercial areas. A check would be made for negative secondary effects on the residential uses which are legal nonconforming uses in the commercial areas. The staff recommendation for the Planning Committee is to consider that as a possibility for Adult Use Zoning. The staff would assist on a presentation on the amount of sites available based on that language being eliminated from the existing adult use ordinance. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom went over the four (4) alternatives considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on any of the proposed Adult Use ordinance. The Commission, after the February 1995 public hearing, decided that it should go back to the Planning Department until Planning staff could come up with proposals for 20 sites for adult use. The item went back to the Commission in April 1995 with the following alternatives: 1. No change to existing regulations, keeping the 1,000 setback from all five protected uses which included the 1,000 foot buffer from existing residences even though they might be in Commercial and Industrial zones. 2. A reduction of the 1,000 buffer around nonconforming residential uses to 250 feet, without the addition of the M I C zone. This would create 12 eligible sites. 3. A 250 foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses and adding Adult Use to the M1 C zoning district, a reduction of the 1,000 foot setback, and there is only one area in the City that is zoned M 1 C and it is in the middle of a industrial area. This created the most eligible sites out of all four alternatives, about 32 sites. 4. A zero foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses. It would be deleting the protective buffer for those residences in the Commercial or Industrial zones but maintaining the 1,000 buffer for all the other protected uses. That would be single family zoned areas, churches, schools, libraries, and public parks. This created about 19 sites eligible for adult use. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich pointed out that the amount of appropriate sites depends on factors such as the size of the city and the number of available sites in relation to the number of square acres city-wide. Committeechair Orr raised the concern that the Meridian Annexation may change the number of sites required. Ms. Evezich stated that it is a determination by the court to as to whether or not there is an avenue of access to this type of information. If the Court finds that the CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 numbers are small in comparison to a very large population, that seems to be more incriminating a number of sites where there is availability for this type of business to move around. Ms. Evezich went on to say the City should not be concerned with the right number of sites,but with how the city finds a way to preserve the ordinance which has been found to be constitutional without opening it up unreasonably to a large number of sites. One way to do that is to review the ordinance and the way it is written now, and determine those areas that are protected, and how they are negatively impacted by this type of business. Upon doing that it was found that there were no findings to support a conclusion of negative secondary effects in relationship to nonconforming residential uses. There were negative secondary effects associated with this type of business on residential zones and residential districts. City Attorney Roger Lubovich added that the courts look at a particular pattern that is given and make a decision. In a particular case, 12-18 sites were not sufficient. In another case 22 sites were sufficient, but we cannot make a judgment because each case has different factors (population, acreage). In our case, the city has a potential of seven sites. The Court stated the seven sites were not enough. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom indicated that there are no eligible sites in the annexation area.. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich brought to the Committee's attention the fact that the court requires, when trying to come up with the findings to support the basis for the decision to "zone" in a certain manner, is whether or not the areas that are being protected have been negatively impacted by these secondary effects. There was a study prepared by the Planning Department and findings in support of the negative secondary effects on the protected uses aforementioned. At the time the analysis was done, the record was deficient in indicating that there was a negative secondary impact on nonconforming residential uses within a commercial, manufacturing, and/or industrial area. Whatever direction is taken, the findings will need to support the conclusion. Committeechair Orr suggested that this item go before the Planning Committee the November 7, 1995, and action be taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. 4 CITY OF J IELD2 � ZS City Council Planning Committee Minutes i' October 17, 1995, 4:00 PM Jim White, Mayor Committee Members Present Citv Attornevs Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Plannin}Staff Other James P. Harris Tom Heller, Regional Analytic Linda Phillips Sciences Betsy Czark Roger Anderson, Seattle/King County Margaret Porter Association of Realtors Cyndi Wells Jill Goodwin, Master Builders Association Dan Flynn, Masters Builders Association Gary Frentess, Hipline School District SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (Master Builders Association - D. Flvnnl Dan Flynn, Public Affairs Director for the Master Builders Association, introduced Tom Heller of Regional Analytic Sciences. Mr. Flynn stated concerns about what school impact fees mean for housing affordability, and that they are not solving the school's problems because of the minimal amount of fees. Mr. Flynn handed out three documents: 1. Median Income/Monthly Payments/Affordability 2. Rethinking School Impact Fees 3. The Truth About Regulations and The Cost of Housing Mr. Tom Heller, of Regional Analytic Sciences, spoke about a study he was contracted to do for The Master Builders Association in Pierce County. The study focused on the amount that builders and developers pay in taxes during the course of constructing a home. Mr. Heller pointed out that the amount collected by school impact fees is not enough to pay for the construction of a new school. Gary Frentress of the Highline School District pointed out that school impact fees are not necessarily intended only for new construction of a school. These fees may cover the cost of an i 1 2'_01th AVE.50.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE t'061859-3300/FAX*859-3334 City Council Planning Committee Minutes ✓ October 17, 1995 addition. Only a portion of that growth is attributed to new homes. There is a direct cost to the school districts from increased students. Schools may not receive the other sources of taxes that Mr. Heller mentioned. Part of the reason that the school impact fees came about was a lot of the tax-payers that have been in their areas for 30 to 40 years paid for the existing facilities and feel that the new home owners are using these facilities without contribution. Chair Orr asked Mr. Frentress if the Highline School District was interested in pursuing the impact fees for the part that lies within the City of Kent. Mr. Frentress said he was trying to give a school district perspective. The City of Kent would have a minimal impact on the Highline School District because the area is small. Highline has pursued impact fees in the cities of Tukwila, Seatac, Des Moines, Burien, and King County. They all have areas in the Highline School District. None of these cities have adopted these school impact fees except King County. Highline has collected fees from King County. Chair Orr said that the information handed out today would be reviewed and action will probably be taken at the November 7, 1995 Planning Committee meeting. Ms. Orr invited all parties to come back at that time. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich asked Mr. Heller about his report for Pierce County and if it was an impact fee report. Mr. Heller stated that it was to identify the amount of taxes that are generated in the course of constructing a home and where they flow in our government. This report was completed in April 1995. ACCESSORY HOUSING ZONING CODE AMENDy1ENT #ZCA-95-3 Betsy Czark) Chair Orr addressed the main concerns about accessory housing and the recommendation as presented by the Planning Department. The clarification about the one year grace period for existing accessory housing units was discussed with the conclusion that any accessory housing units that exist have a one year grace period to come in and apply for an accessory housing unit permit. Chair Orr was concerned about the size of the unit within the original dwelling and the possibility that it may create a duplex. Citizens are concerned that duplexes would be built in single family zones. The Planning Department recommendation indicated that the one of the units has to be occupied by the owner for at least sic months out of the year. Chair Orr questioned how this would be enforced, and how the City could monitor these actions. Planner, Betsy Czark, brought 2 City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 to the Committee's attention that there will be a notification process. The adjacent neighbors will be notified of the procedures and invited to keep the City informed. Planner Betsy Czark stated that a detached accessory unit limit is thirty-three percent of the original dwelling or 800 square feet, whichever is smaller. The Planning Commission had suggested no size limitations on an accessory unit within the principal dwelling because of the possibility of a basement conversion. The basement can be fifty percent of the whole dwelling, if the size of an accessory unit is limited to less than fifty percent, such an easily done accessory unit could not be done. Planning Director, James P. Harris, stated that if a permit application were taken into the Planning Department and it appeared to be a duplex, then the City should not issue that permit. An accessory unit should be classified as an addition on or conversion to part of an existing dwelling. Ms. Czark stated that presently the City allows building accessory units on new or existing buildings. Chair Orr stated that accessory units should be limited on new buildings to ensure that new �- duplexes will not be built. Ms. Orr, again, addressed concern regarding the Cities ability to monitor accessory units and enforce the regulations. Ms. Czark suggested that the City limit the accessory housing to existing dwellings. Mr. Harris suggested trying that for one year. Planner, Linda Phillips, indicated that there is a need to allow this in new construction. She used the example of people who are legitimately saving space for their parents to use when they become dependant on them. Chair Orr suggested putting a size limit on the accessory units for new construction. She suggested no less than sixty percent for the principal unit and no more than forty percent for the accessory unit in new construction. There was some discussion regarding availability of parking for accessory housing units. In the recommendation from the Planning Department, one off street parking space must be provided for the accessory unit. If there is adequate street parking; street parking may be allowed if authorized by the Engineering Department. 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes October 17, 1995 Committee member Johnson MOVED and Committee member Clark SECONDED the motion to limit the size of an accessory unit that is being built at the same time as new construction of the original dwelling. In new construction the accessory unit will be limited to forty percent of the principal unit, with no limits on existing dwellings, Motion carried. SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS (ZCA-95-8) (Linda Phillips) Chair Orr discussed her concerns regarding building setbacks from property lines. If a building is being built on a busy street and has a ten foot setback, the street may need to be widened in the future, and the City may become unable to widen the street. Ms. Orr indicated that there are areas in the City now where the street needs to be widened, but there is no room to do so. Mr. Harris suggested that the Public Works Department devise an official plan line for streets that may need widening in the future without having to condemn homes. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich pointed out the need to establish strict guidelines that are carefully defined to make the regulations fair to all citizens. Chair Orr was concerned about impervious surfaces. Ms_ Phillips pointed out that the City currently has no limits on the percentage of residential lots that can be paved. This would be the beginning of regulating this impervious service coverage. The percentage could be changed in the future, if needed. The Committee decided to continue the discussion regarding single family development standards at the November 7, 1995, Planning Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm. a CITY OF L"L BRENDA JACOBER (Please put in Council _ CITY COUNCIL agenda packet) PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES Jim White, Mayor �¢ TER" Planning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker Planning_Staff Public Works Jim Harris Gary Gill Fred Satterstrom Bill Wolinski Linda Phillips Margaret Porter Teresa Beener Other Fred High, Kent School District Grace Yuam, Attorney for the Kent School District Rodger Anderson, Seattle King County Association of Realtors Daniel Moberly, Kent School District Bill Goodwin, SW Development Bill Ruth, W. E. Ruth, Inc. Gus Erickson, Puget Western Brooks Fenton, Trinity Reformed Church Jody Putnam, Federal Way School District ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA INTERL OCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA - (J. Harris) Mr. Harris, Planning Director, presented the Committee with a copy of a draft for an Interlocal Agreement with King County relating to the processing of building permits and land use applications for the Meridian Annexation area. Mr. Harris requested that this item be brought before the November 21, City_Council Planning Committee meeting for action. The Committee agreed to this request. BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR CREEKS AND STREAMS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA- (J. Harris/T. Brubaker) Currently the City requires a 50 foot setback from major creeks and streams while the County allows for a 100 foot buffer. Mr. Harris requested that this item be brought before the Committee for action at the November 21 st meeting. 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX N 859-3334 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Mr. Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the problem lies within the Meridian Annexation area and the County's existing Soos Creek Plan. The County currently established a 100 foot buffer for Little Soos Creek, Upper Soos Creek, and Soosette Creek. Under the existing Kent zoning code, the setback would be decreased to 50 feet. The County and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have already voiced their concern regarding the City of Kent's inadequate buffer requirement. Mr. Brubaker explained that the City is discussing the possibility of adding this buffer as an overlay to the Meridian annexation area only and more specifically to only those streams listed above. The process for changing the buffer requirements would require an area-wide rezone covering the entire Meridian Annexation area. The proposed rezone would go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing with a recommendation to the Council. It would then go to the Council for final approval. This process can not be accomplished before January 1, 1996, when the Meridian Annexation takes place. Mr. Brubaker is requesting that at the November 21, meeting the Committee begin the overlay process for an area-wide rezone in the Meridian Annexation area. He is also requesting the Committee to establish a moratorium at that time on development within this 100 foot buffer zone in the interim. This will give the City the means to restrict development within the 100 foot buffer at the time of the Annexation. Committee member Clark questioned if there were any permits pending that would be influenced by this. Mr. Brubaker explained that there wouldn't be any because this is the existing buffer in the County and this is not any change over what the county has, it is just an attempt to maintain what the county has in place so there would be no impact on existing development permits. Mr. Harris explained that if there are any permits pending in the county now they are setting back 100 feet. Chair Leona Orr asked for clarification as to whether the Council will need to adopt the Ordinance the same night at the Council to be sure this is in place or can this be adopted as an emergency Ordinance. Mr. Brubaker will look into that issue and inform the Committee of his findings at the November 21 meeting. #ZCA 95 1 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT =(L. Phillips) This is a continued issue regarding minimum ten feet setbacks on frontage property from previous meetings. The main concern at this point is the issue of traffic impacts or expected future traffic impacts on the main street that a house would front on. The ten foot minimum setback would be too close to the roadway if the Public Works Department needed to obtain a wider right of way. The Public Works Department would review and approve the site plan if the proposed front yard was less than 20 feet in depth. The proposed setback will be reviewed in relation to the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements. 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Committee member Clark questioned if the proposed Accessory Housing amendment had a requirement within it for off-street parking. He also asked if there would be any conflict with the accessory housing and the request to amend the development standards in regard to the minimum lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that there is a section that stipulates that driveways must be 20 feet long. Ms. Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, questioned whether the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements are documented somewhere by the Public Works Department. Ms. Evezich mentioned that if there is a traffic plan that is going to be the basis for the Public Works Department requiring a setback or a right of way requirement, then that language needs to be included in the Zoning Code Amendment. The verbiage will be added to the draft Ordinance to indicate what documentation will be used to approve or disapprove setback requirements. Committee member Johnson MOVED to approve and send to,the full Council the single family development standards zoning code amendment on November 21, 1995. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Clark. Chair Orr clarified if the motion included the identification of the documentation that will be used by the Public Works Department. Committee member Johnson confirmed that his motion did include such documentation. The motion carried. ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) The City Attorney's office received copies of existing Ordinances from other jurisdictions. Ms. Evezich will provide the Committee with a legislative history from those jurisdictions at the next meeting for action. None of those jurisdictions have a 1,000 foot buffer from a legal nonconforming residential use in a commercial area but rather all of their restrictions address residential in terms of a district or a zone. Incorporated into the findings will be a support of a recommendation for a zoning code change to eliminate the 1,000 foot setback nonconforming residential uses. SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - (L. Evezich) Mr. Rodger Anderson from the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th NE, Kirkland. Mr. Anderson is proposing an exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance to accommodate low income housing. He presented the Committee an example of an exemption currently in place in Bainbridge Island. Chair Orr recommended continuing with the adoption of the existing Ordinance and then have the Council take a look at the possible exemption during the next six months. Ms. Evezich recommended a Resolution to indicate the Planning Committee would consider the proposed exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance during the next six months. Mr. Fred High,Kent School District. Mr. High commented on the exemption for the School Impact Fee Ordinance for low income housing. Mr. High discussed the reasoning behind requesting the mitigation fees. He presented the committee with a cost analysis demonstrating the average costs that are generated to the schools with each new single family residence. 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Ms. Jody Putnam,Federal Way School District, commented that approximately less than 5% of the City of Kent stretches into the Federal Way School District. The Federal Way School District is in the process of negotiating with the City of Federal Way to introduce an Impact Fee Ordinance. Ms. Putnam stated that the cost to build the schools necessary as population grows is a lot more than what is collected from the School Impact fees. She emphasized that the impact fees help to get the new schools built. Ms. Grace Yuam, attorney for the Kent School District. Ms. Yuam represents nine King County School Districts and works with the districts to develop school impact fees. Ms. Yuam voiced her support for the school impact fees and offered to answer any questions that the Committee may have on this issue. Mr. Brooks Fenton, Trinity Reformed Church, questioned whether the life of the school was taken into consideration for the calculation of the impact fees. Ms. Yuam explained to Mr. Fenton that the life of the school had been taken into consideration. She went on to explain the impact fee formula. Ms. Evezich questioned Ms. Yuam if any of the schools in the districts she represents has any experience with low income housing exemption. Ms. Yuam explained that there is an exception in place in unincorporated King County however; it is a different from the exemption in Bainbridge Island. Committee member Clark MOVED to forward the Ordinance concerning the school impact fees to the City Council on November 21, 1995. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to create a Resolution to address the exemption for low income housing during the six months after the Ordinance is in effect. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. Committee member Clark MOVED to enter into an Interlocal agreement with the Federal Way and Kent school districts for collecting impact fees on behalf of both school districts. Motion was SECONDED by Committee member Johnson. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. C:\USERS\DOC\PCOM\MINUTES\PCO 1107.MIN 4 CITY OF ���SV �S BRENDA JACOBER (Please put in Council CITY COUNCIL agenda packet) PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES Jim White, Mayor .'A?7IICC�a Planning Committee Members Present: City Attomev's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Tom Brubaker Planning S, taff Public Works Jim Harris Gary Gill Fred Satterstrom Bill Wolinski Linda Phillips Margaret Porter Teresa Beener Other Fred High, Kent School District Grace Yuam, Attorney for the Kent School District Rodger Anderson, Seattle King County Association of Realtors Daniel Moberly, Kent School District Bill Goodwin, SW Development Bill Ruth, W. E. Ruth, Inc. Gus Erickson, Puget Western Brooks Fenton, Trinity Reformed Church Jody Putnam, Federal Way School District ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH KING COUNTY FOR THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA - (J. Harris) Mr. Harris, Planning Director, presented the Committee with a copy of a draft for an Interlocal Agreement with King County relating to the processing of building permits and land use applications for the Meridian Annexation area. Mr. Harris requested that this item be brought before the November 21, City Council Planning Committee meeting for action. The Committee agreed to this request. BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR CREEKS AND STREAMS IN THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION AREA- (J. Harris/T. Brubaker) Currently the City requires a 50 foot setback from major creeks and streams while the County allows for a 100 foot buffer. Mr. Harris requested that this item be brought before the Committee for action at the November 21 st meeting. 2204th AVE.SO.. !KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE f2061859-3300/F.AX X 859-3334 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 v Mr. Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the problem lies within the Meridian Annexation area and the County's existing Soos Creek Plan. The County currently established a 100 foot buffer for Little Soos Creek, Upper Soos Creek, and Soosette Creek. Under the existing Kent zoning code, the setback would be decreased to 50 feet. The County and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe have already voiced their concern regarding the City of Kent's inadequate buffer requirement. Mr. Brubaker explained that the City is discussing the possibility of adding this buffer as an overlay to the Meridian annexation area only and more specifically to only those streams listed above. The process for changing the buffer requirements would require an area-wide rezone covering the entire Meridian Annexation area. The proposed rezone would go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing with a recommendation to the Council. It would then go to the Council for final approval. This process can not be accomplished before January 1, 1996, when the Meridian Annexation takes place. Mr. Brubaker is requesting that at the November 21, meeting the Committee begin the overlay process for an area-wide rezone in the Meridian Annexation area. He is also requesting the Committee to establish a moratorium at that time on development within this 100 foot buffer zone in the interim. This will give the City the means to restrict development within the 100 foot buffer at the time of the Annexation. Committee member Clark questioned if there were any permits pending that would be influenced by this. Mr. Brubaker explained that there wouldn't be any because this is the existing buffer in the County and this is not any change over what the county has, it is just an attempt to maintain what the county has in place so there would be no impact on existing development permits. Mr. Harris explained that if there are any permits pending in the county now they are setting back 100 feet. Chair Leona Orr asked for clarification as to whether the Council will need to adopt the Ordinance the same night at the Council to be sure this is in place or can this be adopted as an emergency Ordinance. Mr. Brubaker will look into that issue and inform the Committee of his findings at the November 21 meeting. #ZCA 95 1 SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONING rODE AMENDMENT - (L. Phillips) This is a continued issue regarding minimum ten feet setbacks on frontage property from previous meetings. The main concern at this point is the issue of traffic impacts or expected future traffic impacts on the main street that a house would front on. The ten foot minimum setback would be too close to the roadway if the Public Works Department needed to obtain a wider right of way. The Public Works Department would review and approve the site plan if the proposed front yard was less than 20 feet in depth. The proposed setback will be reviewed in relation to the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements. 2 somehow not "on track' in terms of what it is we are trying to do in the policies that this m� Council is trying to carry forward. Some form of summit meeting does need to be planned. He further stated that we have enough trouble tying to get the City to work with the size of the annexation and so forth. We cannot afford, as we try to deal with some of those things, to have unclear communication. Clark asked for a meeting sometime in December however, Wickstrom noted that he will be on vacation for nearly the entire month. Clark said that at the Public Works meeting with the 100th Ave issue, we told the residents we were going to close S. 244th St. He noted that Wickstrom had said we still need full Council authorization for that to occur. Clark said that a resident in the area called the Public Works Dept and someone from Public Works told this person that" this will never be closed because it's already opened and that's the way it will stay." Gill commented to the Committee that was not true - he had spoken directly with John Talbot and this was not said. Gill said that when John Talbot called and asked about why the "no outlet" sign was removed, Gill said that we had been directed by the Council Committee to locate engineering alternatives which included closing 244th, 100th and other various alternatives and that the would meet with them, show them what the impacts would be from the various alternatives so that they could have a good overall view of what options are available to them so they could make a final decision on what we would do. Gill said that John Talbot seemed to be amenable with that. Gill said that y' we will notify them at least one week in advance of when we will have another meeting of all the property owners in the area and they would be able to discuss their views. Another issue Clark noted was that during the last meeting (11/13) he had asked the question of how long the build-out would be for Top of the Hill development. He said the response from staff was 18 months. Wickstrom said that this was a guess in fact, that Clark had first suggested the 18 months. Clark denied this. Clark said that this should have been stated as nothing more than estimates. Wickstrom said that we had indicated that this was an estimate. He said we are dealing with a developer and the transition of property and 18 months is a reasonable number. Mann concurred that he felt it had been an estimate made by Wickstrom. Clark said that perhaps he was not clear on the matter. He further said that we need to have some sense of the fact that policy is being set here and it is being sent up to the Council and we have to be able to defend it. He said that the communication system is inadequate, and we still need to have that discussion. Clarks recommendation was that a meeting be set probably in late November. He asked for a special meeting following the next Public Works meeting, however Mann did not concur. Meeting adjourned: 5:00 P.M. „,. 3