HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 11/07/1995 City of
City Council Meeting
Agenda
CITY OF
p�f�IIC��
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Paul Mann
Christi Houser Leona Orr
November 7, 1995
Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF 0a SUMMARY AGENDA
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 7 , 1995
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
9
MAYOR• Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Judy Woods, President
Jim Bennett Tim Clark Christi Houser
Jon Johnson Paul Mann Leona Orr
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
.A. Employee of the Month
B. Proclamation - Human Services Month
, C. Proclamation - National Bible Week
Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 / C
-A.— 1996 Comprehensive Budget - Ordinance 7 _
1996 Property Tax Levy - Ordinance
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
_-A:" Approval of .Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
Arts Commission Appointment and Reappointment
)7: King County Solid Waste Management Agreement Addendum -
Resolution
E. Downtown Street Trees - Transfer of Funds
F. 71st Avenue Street Vacation - Transfer of Funds and
Ordinance
G. Accessory Housing - Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-3
Riverbend Golf Complex Field Improvements Project -
a J' Accept as Complete
Riverbend Golf Complex Fees
.. Asbestos Removal - Accept as Complete
_.F. Parks and Recreation Code Amendments -Ordinance
-•L Boating Regulations Code - Ordinance `. :l
M..' West Hill Plaza Rezone RZ-95-2 - Set Meeting Date
Council Absence (W0,110)
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
�y1 -A-: LID 346 Bond Sale - Ordinance
Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2
� - Kingstone Final Plat FSU-94-11
-8., M1-C Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-95-10
>✓: Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map Amendment
(Phase I - East Hill) CPZ-95-1
!) � 1�• �j pre
.-r) police �eoce La."br',d twee d Pn..th Gaw,w.ar�da#td��
�5. BIDS nvwat �ardA- -
A. 1996-1998 Street Sweeping Service
6. CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
8 . ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: A copy of the full agenda packet is available for perusal in the City Clerk's office and the Kent Library.
An explanation of the agenda format is given on the back of this page.
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) Employee of the Month
B) Proclamation - Human Services Month
C) Proclamation - National Bible Week
D) Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November " . 1995
Category Pubc Hearing
li s
1. SUBJECT: 1996 COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The August 1 public hearing on the
1996 Budget was continued tQ this date. The Budget was
discussed at the October 25 Operations Committee meeting, where
they recommended 3-0 to adopt the proposed Mayor's balan
budget. The 1996 Comprehensive udget "tals $88,447,57 9 f
which $41,5981451 comprises the eneral fund. The firs ull
year of the Meridian Annexation budget is included where
revenues and expenditures are listed separately. This con-
servative 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 sewer rate increase.
The Financial stability
is improved by providing an increase of $672, 642 to Fund
Balance Reserve, for an all time high of $2 ,447,259 . -Flriftnce -
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo, Letters, Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee 13-01 10/25/95
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $88 447 , 576
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Various
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember "seconds
to adopt Ordinre . oC � approving the 1996 Comprehensive
Budget.
DISCUSSION• y1Z
ACTION: n/1
Council Agenda
Item No. 2A
ah
Date: November 3, 1995
To: Mayor White and Councilmembers
From: May Miller, Finance Division Director
The Council has established this date as the continuation of the August 1, 1995, public
hearing for the 1996 comprehensive budget. The mayor has presented a proposed
balanced budget at the October 17, 1995, budget workshop. This budget is a
conservative hold-the-line budget without increasing taxes. The only increases are the
metro pass-through and the drainage rate increase passed by Council in 1995.
The 1996 budget includes the 1996 portion of the recently approved capital facility plan
and the first year of the Meridian Annexation budget. Both the revenue and the
expenditures for Meridian Annexation are shown separately and include the addition of
39.7 FTE's primarily for police protection. In addition, program expansion of 11.8 FTE's
will provide improved police protection for the West" Hill residences and needed
maintenance staffing as a result of previous annexations as well as other support staff.
Finally, the 1996 budget continues to strengthen the financial stability of the city by
increasing the budgeted ending fund balance reserve in the general fund to an all time
high of $2,447,259 or 5.8%. Also, the capital improvement fund balance was increased
to $531,403 for a combined governmental total of almost three million dollars, or 7.3%,
of general fund expenditures.
The budget was reviewed by the Operations Committee and recommended for approval
with technical correction at the November 7, 1995, Council Meeting. The corrections
are listed on the attached worksheet and are technical or updated information received
since the last meeting. Your approval is requested.
*Earlier memo said "East".
MILLER,MAYENE / KENT70/FN - HPDesk print .
-----------------------------------------
s.„ aject : 1996 COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET -ORDINANCE
Creator: Mayene MILLER / KENT70/FN Dated: 11/03/95 at 0947 .
TO: MAYOR WHITE AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: MAY MILLER, FINANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR
THE COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED THIS DATE AS THE CONTINUATION OF THE AUGUST 1, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 1996 COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET. THE MAYOR HAS PRESENTED A
PROPOSED BALANCED BUDGET AT THE OCTOBER 17, 1995 BUDGET WORKSHOP. THIS BUDGET
IS A CONSERVATIVE HOLD-THE-LINE BUDGET WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES . THE ONLY
INCREASES ARE THE METRO PASS THROUGH AND THE DRAINAGE RATE INCREASE PASSED BY
COUNCIL IN 1995 .
THE 1996 BUDGET INCLUDES THE 1996 PORTION OF THE RECENTLY APPROVED CAPITAL
FACILITY PLAN AND THE FIRST YEAR OF THE MERIDIAN ANNEXATION BUDGET. BOTH
THE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES FOR MERIDIAN ANNEXATION ARE SHOWN SEPARATELY
AND INCLUDES THE ADDITON OF 39 . 7 FTE ' S PRIMARILY FOR POLICE PROTECTION. IN
ADDITION, PROGRAM EXPANSION OF 11 . 8 FTE' S WILL PROVIDE IMPROVED POLICE
PROTECTION FOR THE EAST HILL RESIDENCE AND NEEDED MAINTENANCE STAFFING AS
A RESULT OF PREVIOUS ANNEXATIONS AS WELL AS OTHER SUPPORT STAFF .
FINALLY THE 1996 BUDGET CONTINUES TO STRENGTHEN THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE
CITY BY INCREASING THE BUDGETED ENDDING FUND BALANCE RESERVE IN THE GENERAL
FUND TO AN ALL TIME HIGH OF $2 , 447, 259 OR 5 . 8% . ALSO, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
F__.,TD BALANCE WAS INCREASED TO $531, 403 FOR A COMBINED GOVERNMENTAL TOTAL OF
A.,..iOST THREE MILLION DOLLARS OR 7 . 396 OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES .
THE BUDGET WAS REVIEWED BY THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL WITH TECHNICAL CORRECTION AT THE NOVEMBER 7 , 1995 COUNCIL MEETING.
THE CORRECTIONS ARE LISTED ON THE ATTACHED WORKSHEET AND ARE TECHNICAL OR
UPDATED INFORMATION RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING. YOUR APPROVAL IS
REQUESTED.
October 25, 1995
Pregnancy rid
Mayor .Tim White
Kent City Council Members
220 4th Avenue
Kent, Washington 98032
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members;
The entire staff of Pregnancy Aid of Kent wish to thank the City of Kent for
their willingness to help us serve the pregnant women of the Kent area through
the resources avaliable to them through our shelter program. Without your support
of this program, we would be unable to offer women this service,
Although our selter facility is small, we rent a studio apartment from Mr. William
Stewart, we have been able to impact the lives of over 70 people in the six
years that we have been operating the shelter. The need, unfortunately is still
great and we usually have women wno need the program before one tenant is ready
to move out. Women often wait several weeks to be able to use this facility.
Our goal this year has been to house at least eight people with at least 300
bed-nights. Through the third quarter of this year, we have already housed
nine people with a total of 255 bed-nights. We often keep women in our shelter
longer than other shelters because there just are no other shelters that house,
single pregnant women in South King County until their babies are born. We
would like to see each woman be able to get into a stable living condition when
she leaves our shelter.
The $5,000 that has been awarded to Pregnancy Aid through the Human Services
Commission and hopefully approved by the City Council for the 1996 Budget, will
be used basically to pay rent on the apartment in 1996 and to pay for utilities.
Pregnancy Aid volunteers do all of the case-management, the maintanence of the
unit and all necessary upkeep.
lie would also like to thank all the members of the Human Services Commission
for their many hours-of service to us and the other recipients of this year's
Grant. It is because of their efforts and the efforts of the City Planning
Department that Kent is known as the model for Human Service planning through-
out the State. Thank you to all involved to make this a City that welcomes
the less-fortunate.
Sincerely,
✓Jtidy Peterson
Director
Free Confidential Help Concerning Pregnancy
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1775 • Kent, WA 98035-1775 1 Location: 110 - 2nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 (206) 852-1201
�p Children's Therapy Center
10811 Kent-Kangley Road
Kent, WA 98031-7108
206/854-5660
206/854-7025 Fax
Aq "Each Child is Valuable"
14,
OF KENT
October 23, 1995
Mayor Jim White,
City of Kent,
220 4th Ave. South,
Kent,WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members,
The children and families receiving services at Children's Therapy Center thank you for
your continued support in 1995. A young girl from Kent developed from crawling on her
hands and knees to walking with a walker independently, thanks to her physical therapy
program. Children from Kent involved in our.early education program were able to make
mini-pizzas, plant a vegetable garden, create a family book for themselves, read and "re-
create" in the classroom the menu from Green EeQs and Ham and attend field trips to the
Kent Park's Indoor Park, Lake Meridian, and the Aqua Barn in Renton. All of these
activities were made possible by human services funding from the City of Kent. It also
proved to parents of these special kids that their children can enjoy activities and the
community the same as their normidly developing neighbors.
As budget deliberations for 1996 continue, thank you for your support of human services
in general and consideration of Children's Therapy Center's request in particular. Each
year you demonstrate anew your strong support for programs which help your fellow .
citizens. Your leadership in this area is applauded and very appreciated. Continue your
good works.
Sincerely,
4teve . Anderson, .
Executive Director
/km
SENIOR SERVICES
OF SEATTLE•KING COUNTY
October 24, 1995
Volunteer
Transportation The Honorable Jim White
for Seniors City Council Members
220 4th Ave S.
448-5740 Kent, WA 98032
1-800-282-5815
TDD 448-5025 Dear Mayor White and City Council Members:
Volunteer Transportation for Seniors, a program of Senior Services of
Seattle/King County, would like to thank you for your support over the past two
years and for your consideration of our 1996 funding request. By providing
critically needed transportation services to low-income, frail elderly,this program
supports our agency's mission of enhancing the quality of life of older adults,
improving their well-being, and assisting in their ability to maintain themselves
independently in their own home environment.
Volunteer Transportation for Seniors provides transportation to isolated, frail,
low-income elderly in King County who are without other transportation options.
The program utilizes volunteer drivers who use their own vehicles to transport
seniors to medical and other essential appointments, and is unique on its focus on
seniors whose physical and/or mental condition requires them to have an escort.
We provide a more comprehensive service than most other transportation
programs offer, in that our volunteers not only provide a ride but accompany the
seniors to their appointments and wait with them before taking them home again.
Thus, we are in a unique position to help seniors with disabilities such as hearing
or vision impairments, seniors who are confused, or seniors who are just too slow
and frail to be out alone.
Transportation continues to be one of the top priorities of King County seniors.
Due to delays in the implementation of Metro's ADA Paratransit Van Service, we
expect even greater demands on the Volunteer Transportation program. Our
service performance levels in Kent reflect this need. In 1994, we exceeded our
contracted annual performance goals for One-Way Trips by 46% and for Mileage
by 56%. At the end of the third quarter of 1995, we have already surpassed our
contractual goals for both mileage and One-Way trips, and have reached 92% of
our goal for Unduplicated City of Kent Clients Served. Our volunteers have
already transported Kent seniors 15,275 miles this year.
1601 Second Avenue,Suite 800, Seattle,WA 98101
A United way Agency working with Seattle/King County Division on Aging
Mayor Jim White
City Council Members
Page 2
October 24, 1995
Our ability to serve Kent seniors has increased dramatically with our successful
recruitment of new South King County drivers over the past year, and at this time
we have 22 drivers who will serve the Kent area. We have been of special help to
seniors who need to go places outside of the Kent area, such as medical facilities
in Tacoma, Seattle and Redmond.
Your funding enables us to continue meeting our program objectives: to provide
personalized, escorted, free transportation services to low-income, isolated, frail
elderly. Program statistics for 1994 show that of the 63 Kent clients we served:
83%were low-income;
7 1% lived by themselves;
60%were 75 years of age or older;
90%had disabilities.
These trends are continuing in 1995, with 85% of our Kent clients low-income
and 67%age 75 or older.
Volunteer Transportation hopes to expand its service in Kent and in all of King
County to keep up with the growing demand from area seniors. Our expansion,
however, is contingent upon increasing our revenue base. Our main funding
source is the Seattle/King County Division on Aging, which relies on dwindling
state and federal revenues. Last year we exceeded our contracted mileage
performance goal for them by 78,000 miles. Unless we find additional revenue
sources, the demand for rides will eventually exceed our ability to finance them.
Senior Services is committed to fund--raising efforts to support its programs and
services, and funding from the suburban cities has also become an important
source of revenue for us.
Your financial support enables the Volunteer Transportation Program to continue
helping with the transportation needs of Kent seniors, especially with the needs of
the frail elderly who need an escort to their appointments. Unlike other
transportation options, our volunteer drivers not only provide a ride, they offer a
helping hand and moral support which so many seniors need. I want to thank you
for considering our 1996 funding request not only on behalf of the program, but
on behalf of all the seniors we serve as well.
Sincerely,
Patricia Mc nturff
Executive Director `
Senior Services of Seattle/King County
SOUTH. KhNIC h E C E I V E C
COUNTY
O C T 2 J 1995
October 19, 1995
CHILD CARE Mayor Jim White and Kent City Counci_
RESOURCES City of Kent
a41 N.CENTRAL AVENUE Planning Department
SUITE 126 220 4th Avenue South
KENT.WA 98032 Kent, Washington 98032
206-852-1908
FAX.206-852-3181
Dear Mayor White and City Council Mern ers,
Child Care Resources would like c *hank you for your
decision to fund our agency in 1996 . Child Care Resources
was created in the spirit of community partnership . The
Human Services Roundtable, with the s--pport of the county,
many suburban cities, and United Way, designed this agency
out of the recognition that child care access, availability
and quality were important. needs for •_he county .
The City of Kent has a growing work f:;rce which includes an
increase in the number of women work_=g outside the home .
We know that there is a growing demand-for for child care . When
parents lack information about child care, options are
limited. Without our assistance, it may be impossible for
parents to find care, particularly when the majority of
providers do not advertise . Parents -_ay lack the
inforamtion they need to evaluate tee quality of the
programs they are considering. As a result, children can be
placed in inadequate care . Our trained counselors provide
verbal and written information en how to assess quality of
care .
Child care affordability is also an issue for parents . Our
counselors refer parents to subsidy programs when
appropriate . We also have a staff person from King Countv
Child Care .program on site who can he-p low income parents
sign up for child care subsidy if the-.- are eligible . The
funds provided by Des Moines and the czher south county
cities will help Child Care Resources serve the low income
population who may need to work in oraer to stay in school,
continue in a training program or in a job . Many child care
providers are, themselves, low income, so a portion of our
services to this group can be considered services to low
income families .
Child Care Resources is concerned about the quality of child
care in the Kent community . We offer =raining and technical
assistance to child care providers in an effort to improve
the environments in which the chiidre= in Kent are spending
their days .
EAST KING COUNTY EMPLOYER PARTNERSHIPS SEATTLE/NORTH KING COUNTY
15015MAINSTREET SUITE206:9ELLEVUE.WA98007 1915EA5TMADISON-SLITE305 SEP.TTLE.wA98'12 2915 ?S-MAVI$ON-SUITE 105 SEATTLE.WT 9E
We appreciate the difficult decisions that must be made by
the Committee in providing funding to the agencies offering
services to the residents of Kent and the support you offer
us in 1996 . Child Care Resources will continue in our
efforts to provide complete, current and helpful information
to your community about child care and children .
Sincerely,
�C1h-Q-
Nina Auerbach, Executive Director
WASHINGTONWowivs EtiIPLOYVENT&EDUCATION
October 17, 1995
Mayor Jim White
City Council Members
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
It is always a pleasure to thank the City of Kent for their continued support of Washington
Women's Empioyment and Education and our efforts to provide assistance to low-income Kent
residents working toward self-sufficiency.
Since 1982, the WWEE program has worked to help qualifying low-income individuals to break
through the barriers to the success we know they can achieve. Then, as they strive toward
economic independence, we have helped to provide access to opportunities for training and
employment.
In addition to support of our traditional Job Readiness Training program, we would like to thank
the Citv of Kent for its foresight in supporting our Computer Applications for Career Development
(CACD) classes as well. Through our CACD program, Kent residents gain the computer skills
necessary to be competitive in today's workplace. We are proud to report our CACD program
graduates have found employment at an average wage of$8.22 per hour, a significant achievement
toward their goal of becoming economically self-sufficient.
We are all proud of the more than 4,500 Puget Sound residents who have graduated at WWEE and
of their many extraordinary accomplishments. It is always with gratitude to those who have
provided assistance to our program that we report our achievements. In partnership with the City
of Kent and others we are working together to create a better community.
Thank you for vour trust in the resilience of the human spirit and your tmderstanding of our
responsibility to help those who are working to build a better life for themselves and their families.
We look forward to continuing our partnership with the City of Kent.
Sincerely,tMaeshman Lynn Roberts
Executive Director King County Program Manager
❑3516 SO. 47TH STREET, SUITE 205 ♦ TACOMA, WA 98409 ♦ (206) 474-WWEE ♦FAX (206) 474-3366
11841 N. CENTRAL AVE., SUITE 209 ♦ KENT, WA 98032 ♦ (206) 859-37I8 ♦ FAX (206) 850-7604
-Ai���
%►��CATHOLIC
CQMMUNITY
SERVICES .
of South King County
Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
220 4th Ave S
Kent,WA 98032
October 23, 1995
Dear Mayor White and Members of the City Council,
Catholic Community Services would like to take this opportunity to say "thank you" for
those families and individuals we serve. Kent has been a pioneer in the area of support
for all of it's citizens. Last year with the funding our agency received from the City of
Kent, our staff and volunteers were able to serve 1,876 individuals with a variety of basic
needs, including rental, utility and housing aid. During the cold weather months we
provided another 411 individuals with 1,462 bednights to homeless women, children and
men. Our mental health counselors served and additional 259 individuals with mental
health services.
It is hard to assess the impact that each of us has on another human being and yet we
know that most of the people coming to us have nowhere else to turn. We see a lot of
families who need additional services and we are able to sit down with them and help
them develop a family/individual plan which can include a budget plan, parenting
support, counseling and information and referrals to other services. The key to helping
anyone it to listen and meet the person where they are and then together work on solving
problems. We have caring staff and volunteers who are pleased to partner with a caring
city in providing service to others.
Sincerely,
.tom/✓��,�+�
Cathy Peters
Director
1229 West Smith Street,P.O.Box 398,Kent,WA 98035-0398 Phone:(206)854-0077 WATS:1-800-722-3479 Far:(206)850-2503
.............
..........
October 20, 1995
zMA
Domestic Abuse
Women's Network Mayor Jim White
Serving South 220 4th Ave. S.
King County Kent, WA 98032-5895
Referral/Shelter
Advocacy
Counseling Dear Mayor White and City Council Members:
P.O. sox 1521 The City of Kent has shown great leadership in addressing the issue of
Kent, WA 98035
Office: A 4305 domestic violence as demonstrated by its strong support of the DAWN
Community Office and DAWN's House. On behalf of the Board, staff,
Advocacy volunteers, and especially the women and children who have found
656-8423 safety, support, and strength at DAWN, Thank You. It is a pleasure to be
24 Hour Help in partnership with a city that has such a high awareness of its human
65&STOP(7867) service needs.
In 1981, DAWN began serving victims of domestic violence with a 24-
hour crisis line and a network of safe homes. Since then, the agency has
expanded rapidly in response to the tremendous need in the community.
- The past four years have been marked by particularly rapid growth. Our
community advocacy program was established in 1991 to place victim
advocates in South King County communities. In 1992 we opened a
twelve-bed shelter, and in 1994 renovated this shelter facility to increase
its physical capacity. In 1995 we added the staff and volunteer positions
that made it possible to shelter 75% more victims fleeing life-threatening
situations.
DAWN's services are open to all women in South King County. Our
services include DAWN's House, a confidential emergency shelter for
women and children, a 24-hour crisis line, support groups with child care,
a program of community outreach and education, legal advocacy, pro
bono legal clinics, and an intensive volunteer training program.
During 1994, 607 new clients received DAWN's services. DAWN's
volunteers responded to 4,833 calls on the crisis line, support group
attendance totaled 1,892, and 648 legal advocacy clients were served.
DAWN's House provided 3,952 bednights of care, safety, and supportive
services to 106 women fleeing life-threatening situations with 144 of their
dependent children. In all, DAWN staff and volunteers provided nearly
28,500 hours of direct service to abused women and children last year.
Member of the Wnmen's Fundins Alliance
Women from the City of Kent comprise a large number of DAWN clients.
In 1994, for example, 100 new women were served from the City of Kent.
There were 568 calls to DAWN's Crisis Line, support group attendance
totaled 298, and 86 legal advocacy clients were served. DAWN's House
sheltered 9 women and 13 children from the City of Kent for a total of 359
bednights.
The number of City of Kent clients served through just the 3rd quarter in
1995 is even greater; 123 new clients, 895 Crisis Calls, and 14 women
and 21 children receiving 669 bednights at DAWN's House.
Thank you for your interest in providing services to battered women and
their children. We are grateful for your consideration of DAWN's 1996
funding request.
Sincerely,
Robin Lyons
Interim Executive Director
CRISIS JAI CLINIC
October 18, 1995
The Honorable Jim White and
Kent City Council Members
City of Kent
Planning Department
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members:
Crisis Clinic operates two telephone services: the 24-hour Crisis Line and the
Community Information Line. In 1994, trained phone workers responded to
nearly 120,000 calls on the two services. Over half of the calls to the Crisis Line
dealt with mental illness, suicide, homicide, abuse and assault. Thousands of
callers were linked to emergency services. On the Community Information Line,
the majority of calls were requests for help with housing, emergency shelter,
food and financial assistance.
Thanks in part to funding from the City of Kent in 1994, we were able to offer
these essential services without cost to the caller, or worry about eligibility
criteria, arranging child care or taking time off from work.
We very much appreciate your consideration of ot;r 1996 funding request. Crisis
Clinic has a long history of providing services in this community and it is
through your generosity that these services are able to be offered. In anticipation
of our continued collaboration, I am
Sincerelv,
/xecutive
Eastgard, A1.S.W.
Director
SHE/crl
cd:kltr
1515 Dexter Avenue North Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone 206 461 3210 Fax 206 461 8368
COMMUIYfff
HEA"LTH1
October 11, 1995
The Honorable Jim White and
City Council Members
H City of Kent
220 4th Avenue So.
Kent, WA 98032
roa'�ax i'a6sin^'5°4ac^�4�'
OF,ICING GOUf4'�7�!
Dear Mayor White and Council Members:
Administration
1025 So.3rd Street Community Health Centers of King County (CHCKC) appreciates the long
Suite A standing commitment by the City of Kent to provide its low income residents
Renton,WA 98055
(206)277-1311 with access to basic medical and dental care. Thank you for your past support
Auburn Community of the Kent Community Health Center. We encourage you to continue funding
Health Center essential primary health care in your community.
105"A"Street S.W.
Auburn.WA 98001
(206)735-0166 Although Community Health Centers of King County serves all of King County,
Bothell Community outside the City of Seattle, the area with the greatest need is Kent. Significantly
Health Center more CHCKC patients come from the City of Kent than from any other
10414the 1,WA 98 Blvd. community in the region. Last year, Community Health Centers of King
Bothell,WA 98011 y g
(206)486-0658 County provided medical care to 3,408 City of Kent residents. But the need is
Eastside Community much greater. Kent Community Health Center turns away 100 to 150
Health Center individuals a month. These numbers do not even reflect the overwhelming
Medical
16315 N.E.87th St.B-6 demand for dental care among low income Kent residents.
Redmond.WA 98052
(206)882-1697
Dental Through continued support from the City of Kent, Community Health Centers
16345 N.E.87th St.C-2
Redmond,wA 98052 of King County will make an even greater difference in the health of ow
1206)883-8000 income city residents. In 1996, CHCKC will break ground on the new Kent
Federal Wav Communitv Community Health Center. This new facility will expand the agency's ability
Health Center to provide medical care to Kent residents and provide the only dental clinic in
33431 - 13th Pl.So.
Federal Way,WA 98003 the area dedicated to serving low. income and uninsured men, women an
Medical children.
(206)296-9S90
(206)874-7634
Dental Kent is growing. Its low income population is also growing. For a healthy
(206)874-7646
community, please continue to support primary care at the Kent Community
Kent Community Health Center.
Health Center
403 East Meeker Street
Kent.WA 98031 lncerel
('_06)852-2866 y,
Renton Community
Health Centers//�C
149 Park Avenue N.
Suite 6
Renton.WA 98055 Jayne B. Leet
(206)226-5536 Executive Director _
TDD Access
South Kin,Countv: ,.,.
(206)852-2867
East King County:
('_06)867-8926
0��i A United Way Agency -We care jbrY)tl. All of"You.
ommunity Service cent...
rater
(KENT FOOD BANK)
0 525 North 4th '
Kent, Washington 98031
(206) 859-3438
October 24, 1995
Mayor Jim White
City Council Members
220 S 4th Ave
vent , Vash 99032-5995
Dear Mayor White and Council members :
I am writing to thank you for your ongoing support of the
Kent Community Service Center (Kent Food Bank) .
We furnish food and clothing to residents of the Kent are
in need . We also furnish some emergency funding to
assist in heat , shelter and emergency situations for these
residents . We are fortunate to have continu d support .
from churches , organizations and individuals in the
community . With continued. support and encouragement of
the City we hope to continue these services . There is
an ever increasing need for these services .
Thank you for your support .
Sincerely ,
Mar Lou Becvar
Executive Director
• Kent Youth and Family Services
232 S. 2nd, Suite 201 Kent, Washington 98032 -
October 24, 1995
The Honorable Jim White and
Kent City Council Members
City.of Kent
220 4th Ave South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Dear Mayor White and Council Members:
On behalf of Kent Youth and Family Services, please accept our deepest appreciation for the
continued support the City of Kent has provided to this agency.
The Kent Human Services Commission has recommended 1996 funding of $57,972 to
K.Y.F.S. for services to Kent residents. This allocation will help support three programs.
These are youth and family counseling, a family counselor to provide intervention services at
Kent Junior High and support for the program at Watson Manor, our teen parent housing
facility.
We realize the difficult decisions you and the members of the Human Services Commission
must face, given the continual increase in requested funding for programs that serve the
community.
With this allocation, the board and staff of this agency will insure the provision of the best
possible services to residents of the City of Kent, who might not otherwise receive these
services. On behalf of those clients, we extend our thanks and appreciation.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Mourer
Executive Director
cc: Lin Houston, Human Services Manager
•�� (206) 859-0300 FAX 859-0745 TDD 859-0699 (�
South
King
County Multi-Service Center "People Helping People"
1200 South 336th St.,P.O.Box 23699,Federal Way,WA 98093-0699/Tel.(206)838-6810,Fax(206)874-7831,TDD(206)661-7827
10/13/95
Mayor Jim White
Kent City Council Members
220 4th Ave. S.
Kent,WA 98032
Dear Mayor White:
I am writing to you and the members of The Kent City Council to thank you for your past support
of the housing and homeless services provided by our agency to residents of your City.
I would like to give a brief synopsis our the services provided by our agency to residents of south
King County, and especially those who live in the Kent area zip codes.
Our FAMILY STABILIZATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES encompasses two main areas:
Housing and Emergency Services.. Our Housing Services represents the forefront of
homelessness prevention and support for housing stabilization in south King County. This service
provides a range of living situations from emergency to transitional to permanent low income
housing through 61 units located in Kent, Federal Way, and Sea-Tac. During the fiscal year 1994-
95, 327 Kent area residents were assisted through our housing component. Our Emergency
Services includes the provision of food, clothing, family advocacy, financial assistance, food stamp
outreach and information and referral. In the Kent area we provided these services to 1,230
residents.
The LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)provides
emergency and energy assistance, energy education and furnace repair/replacement services to
households at or below 125%of poverty guidelines during the winter months. For fiscal year
1994-95, 840 Kent households received energy assistance. The Kent area represented the largest
numbers of households served in all of south King County with White Center being the second.
Our ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM offers either basic skills, English as a Second Language,
G.E.D. preparation to those 18 years and over as well as work place literacy to area businesses.
Last year we provided work place literacy to 21 employees of a local Kent areo space business.
w, A United Way Agency.... ((��,(/!''' -
(015 ! A Community Action A�,enc,....
As the STATE OFFICE OF THE LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM (LTCOP),
the agency through its sub-contractors is responsible for policy making, advocacy, and complaint
resolution on behalf of elderly residents, and their families, residing in long term care facilities.
Statewide 4,256 complaints were successfully handled; 982 of them in all of King County.
Again, our sincere thank you for the commitment and continuing support that the City of Kent has
made to human services.
' &S7' ,rely'
1 4�6
Dini Duclos
Executive Director
VALLEY CITIES
COUNSELINGAND CONSULTATION
Administration,
Adult& Older Adult
Services
2704"I" Street NE
Auburn,WA 98002
(206)854-0760
FAX: 854-0763
October 30, 1995
Mayor Jim White and City Council Members
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Child &Adolescent Kent, WA 98032
Services
2705 "I" Street NE
Auburn,WA 98002 Dear Mayor White and City Council Members:
(206)854-0066
FAX: 854-2626 Valley Cities Counseling and Consultation's Board of Directors, staff and I
would like to thank you for considering the 1996 continued funding request
for the Survivor's Support and Therapy Program. Funding by the City of
Kent in 1995 has assisted over 40 City of Kent families traumatized by
childhood or adult sexual and physical assault to receive much needed mental
health services. Services include individual and family therapy, group
therapy and psychiatric evaluation and medication management. These
services are in high demand for citizens of all the cities in South King
County. The City of Kent is to be commended in affording its residents the
Combined Services 33301 1st Way South opportunity to receive services many would otherwise by unable to afford.
Federal Way,WA 98003
(206)661-6634 Such mental health treatment helps these women recover from the trauma of
FAX: 661-6652 sexual and physical assault, improve their self-esteem and reduce the
intergenerational effects of sexual assault and family violence. With
treatment, these women can get back to more productive lives, provide more
VTTY: 735-3354 positive parenting, better protect their children from the possibility of abuse,
and, in general, live a happier and better quality of life. The funding
provided will help us in meeting these important goals.
These services are one part of a continuum of care needed in South King
County. We utilize services provided by others such as South King County
Marilyn LaCelle, Sexual Assault Resource Center, DAWN, and Kent Valley Youth Services.
Executive Director
Valley Cities, in turn, provides services not offered by others.
CC:bb(chris6sicirytrm.95)
A United Way Agency
Since 1967
PAGE 2
Again, it is our hope to reach many more people in such need. Your
contributions help. Thank you for your support in meeting the needs of your community.
Sincerely,
Marilyn LaCelle
Executive Director
Chris Coleman
Counseling and Consultation Services Director
CC:bh
-338�.:Gcrn Vd.wV
?nx 997
,H7,
. ^6i P,.:.0770
CHILDREN'S
HOME SOCIETY
Iva shi ng for
October 25, 1995
Honorable Jim White, Mayor
Kent City Council
City of Kent
220 4th Ave. S
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mayor White and City Council Members,
Thank you for your continued support of our work at Children's Home Society of
Washington. This year, at our Kent and Auburn sites, we served approximately 2,000 South King
County residents with an array of Family Support and Child Development services.
I have enclosed, for your information, a fact sheet on the families who "graduated" from
the Families First program this year. As you know, the City of Kent in participation with other
South County cities and King County assisted in the planning and implementation of this program.
It is my pleasure to let you know of the successful achievements of families who participated.
Because of these positive outcomes and the support we have received from our
community, as demonstrated by your ongoing support, we have been selected to receive another
five-year grant. This will enable us to continue this successful program for at least five more
years.
Once again let me say thank you for your partnership with us. Because of that partnership
families previously homeless have safe nurturing homes; unemployed adults have secure, stable
employment; children previously receiving no health care or only emergency care are receiving
preventative well baby care, immunizations and have a single health care provider. Family
relationships have been enhanced through the availability of counseling, parenting classes and
comprehensive support services. Children are developing at their optimum level and are entering
Kindergarten ready to learn.
As one of our parents said, "All I needed was someone to believe in me, to give me the
ball, and let me run with it." So, on behalf of all of our families, I wish to say thank you for your
generous support, for your dedicated staff, and for all you do to help our children and families
thrive.
Sincerely,
' f n
Peg MazU en
CB]LDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
FAMILIES FIRST
A Comprehensive Child Development Program
Families First, a federally funded research and demonstration program began serving families in
October of 1990. On October 12, 1994, 68 families completed the Program. Families First
families and staff are proud of what has been accomplished by program participants to date:
OF THE 68 FAMILIES WHO COMPLETED THE PROGRAM:
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
85% OF THE FAMILIES ACHIEVED 90% OF THE GOALS THAT WERE RATED AS
"PRIORITY GOALS"
CHILDREN ACHIEVED THEIR GOALS IN COGNITIVE,LANGUAGE,
PERCEPTUAL, MOTOR, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH CARE
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT:
Average "earned" family income: at enrollment: $9,865 now: $31,103.
% of families working: at enrollment:29%families now: 52% families
CURRENT EDUCATION/TRAINING:
% of adults curre;Wy enrolled in College Degree Programs
full-time students 28%
% of parents who have completed degree programs 22%
Completed Associate of Arts or Sciences(AA) degree 16%
Completed Bachelors of Arts Degree 6%%
% of adults who have completed Vocational Training 39%
% of adults who have completed HS/GED 25%
Finding: When families have support and access to educational and employment opportunities that
are in aligmnent with their interest, skills and personal goals; they purse higher education and
seek career-oriented employment.
HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN
Average Birth Weight (During the 5 year Program) 71bs/14oz
Median Birth Weight 71bs/11 oz.
Year 1 Birth Wt. Hi:111bs/5oz. Lo: 31bs.
Final Year (5) Hi:91bs.6oz. Lo: 6lbs. 8oz.
There is a direct/positive relationship between family home/health visits and increased prenatal
care received. �-
90% of the children are appropriately immunized; 85% of the preschool children receive regular
(on schedule) well baby/well-child care.
Finding: There is a direct/positive relationship between tracking and reminding families and health
care providers of"immunizations due" and increase in children receiving immunizations on
schedule.
FAMILIES ARE HEALTHIER AND FEELING SUCCESSFUL
On a self-sufficiency survey of the 68 families that are graduating, the families rated in the top
(90%) in all areas of self sufficiency.
All of the preschool children completed 5 years of Early Childhood Development services
including regular developmental assessments and ECE/Head Start classes and will enter
kindergarten ready to learn.
OF THE 52 FAMILIES WHO LEFT FAMILIES FIRST PRIOR TO OCTOBER
6 Left the area and the researcher did not track-
(3 disappeared, 2 moved to Mexico and 1 to Colorado to rejoin family)
+Of the 46 who were tracked (they participated for 2-4 years in the program):
55% are currently employed (income data not available until research completed-1996)
15% are in degree programs(near completion) at local Community and Technical Colleges
7% are teen parents who returned to their parents' home for support and are in High School
completion or GED programs.
4% are young parents (15-20) who relinquished custody of their child to a relative
10% committed to remaining at home until children enter school
9% engaged in stabilization phase with housing, relationships,jobs.
TOTAL PROFILE
120 ORIGINAL FAAE[LIE,S
54% are currently employed
23% in degree programs
20E-235-7422 k. C. Z. A. R. G.
F. u
tU-'s1-1595 14 : 11
King Mayor Jim White
County City of Kent
Sexual 220 4th Ave S
Assault Kent, WA 98032-5896
Resource October 24, 1995
Center
Dear Mayor White and City Councilmembers,
1995 marks 19 years of service from King County Sexual Assault Resource
Education, Center(KCSARC), to residents of Kent. Support from the city has been
Information critical to provide stable and high quality services.
and Counseling
for Adults and As we look ahead, we anticipate growing community awareness in the issue
Children of sexual assault and subsequent need for our services. Kent residents
(in addition to residents of Auburn and Federal Way) require a very high
volume of KCSARC services; In the first nine months we have assisted 105
Kent residents who were victimized by a sexual assault.
Kent residents receive the following services at no cost:
o 24 hour crisis intervention, information and referral
o Legal advocacy for adults, teens and children through all aspects
of the criminal justice system.
o Medical advocacy and medical evaluations for children
o Parental support and case management
o Therapy for children
o Peer counseling and advocacy for adults
KCSARC also responds to community requests for education and provides
professional training and consultation. There Is a fee for these services.
Thank you again foryour concern about sexual assault and your willingness
to support services for Kent residents.
Sincerely,
P.O. Box 0
Renton,WA 057
:�" ary E ell n Stone
206-226-506 !TTY Executive Director
Fax 206-235-7472
24-hi. Crisis Line:
206-226-7273 or
1-800-825-7273
Women's Fundln�;
Alliance Member
'I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, relating to 'budgets
and finance and adopting the final 1996
fiscal year budget .
WHEREAS, the tax estimates and budget for the City of
Kent, Washington, for the 1996 fiscal year have been prepared and
filed as provided by law, and the budget has been printed and
distributed, and notice has been published in the official paper
of the City of Kent setting the time and place for hearing, and
that notice stated that all taxpayers calling at the Office of
the City Clerk would be furnished a copy of the 1996 budget;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1 . BudQet Adoption. Pursuant to RCW
35A. 33 . 075, the budget for the 1996 fiscal year, as summarized on
Exhibit A and as set forth in the 1996 preliminary comprehensive
budget, as amended by Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated in
this ordinance by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is
hereby adopted in the amounts and for the purposes established
y
in that budget as the final budget for City' s 1996 fiscal year.
�i
'I
Section 2 . Transmittal . The City Clerk shall transmit
jia complete copy of the final adopted budget to the Division of
Municipal Corporations in the Office of the State Auditor and to
the Association of Washington Cities .
i
Section 3 . Adjustments . City Administration shall
'i administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize
adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A. 33 . 120 .
Section 4 . 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 5 . Effective Date . . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of
, publication of this ordinance .
i
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
i
2
i
I
1
i
ii
I 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
budget.ord -
3
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
1996 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT
BUDGET ORDINANCE EXHIBIT
Inc (Dec) Beginning Endinc
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND 41,416,657 41,598,451 (18i, 794) 2,629,053 2,447,259
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street 4,212,605 4,441,918 (229,313) 499,461 270, 148
Youth/Teen Programs 429,080 484,123 (55, 043) 128,260 73,217
Capital Improvement 4,157,721 4,565,000 (407,279) 938, 682 53'_,403
Criminal Justice 1,395,633 1,424,595 (28, 962) 300,316 271,354
Environmental Mitigaticn 421,693 486,910 (65,017) 259, 319 194, 30-
Community Block Grant 436,550 436,550
Other Operating Projects 133,858 142,694 8,836) 8, 836
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted 1,6680715 1, 835,373 (166,658) 216, 658 50, 000
Councilmanic 2,138,175 2,138,175
Special Assessment 2,485,423 3,195,477 (71o, 054) 2, 690 535 _, 98C,481
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Street Projects 3,105,793 3,105,793
Parks Projects 1,258,410 1,263,658 (5,248) (=,248)
Other Projects 953,735 1,128,518 (174,783) 207, 783 33, 00C
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water 7,241,037 7,622,486 (381,451) 3,345,284 2, 963 ,833
Sewerage 16,136, 502 15,056,411 1,080,091 5,439,932 6, 519, 923
Golf Complex 3,078,122 2,734,392 343 , 730 301, 551 645,281
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental 1,869,849 1,791,119 78,730 1, 983 ,076 ' 2,061, 806
Central Services 4,605,318 4,584, 904 20,414 25,540 45, 954
Fire Equipment 458,693 1,447,584 (988,891) 1, 171,338 182,447
Insurance 4,879,167 5,380,464 (501,297) 3 ,368,034 2, 866,737
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 246,000 i99,396 46,604 2, 259, 711 213061315
Economic Development Carp 19,496 36,995 (17,499) 34, 939 17,440
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 102,748,432 105,100,998 (2,352,556) 25, 808,207 23,455,651
LESS:
Internal Service Funds 6,503,712 6,503,712
Other Transfers 10,149,700 10,149,700
TOTAL BUDGET 86,095,020 88,447, 576 (2, 352,556) 25,908,207 23,455, 0651
EXHIBIT =
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
1996 COMBINED OPERATING STATEMENT
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET
Inc (Dec) 3eginning crdina
in Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND 41,316,534 41, 528, 562 (212, 028) 2,629, 053 2,417,025
Law Contract for Indigent Counsel 20,000 (20,000) 2C'300)
Property Tax latest information 85,818 85, 812- 95, 318
Portion of growth mgt position 44, 179 (44, 179) (44, 179)
Miscellaneous budgetary corrections 16, 877 (161877) ( 6, 377)
Correct City portion of grant 300 (300) �300)
Adjust Teen Programs Transfer 14,305 14,305 - ,305
Adjust City Arts Transfer (5,2cg) 5,248 ;, 2=?
Boat grant not awarded ;6, 219) 6,2"_9 ---
ADJUSTED GENERAL FUND 41,416,657 41, 598 ,451 (181, 794i 2,629, 053
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street 4,212, 605 4,441, 918 (229, 313) 499,461
Youth/Teen Programs 429,080 469, 818 (40, 738) 128,260 3 , _ 2
Adjust Teen Programs Transfer _4,30- (__,_OS) -
Adjusted Youth/Teen Fund 429, 08C 484, 123 129, 260
Capital Improvement 4,174,000 4, 565, 000 (3911000) 901,000 510,000
Valley Comm Repayment complete (16,279) (16,279) (16,279)
Increased sales tax estimate for 95 37,682
Adjusted Capital Improvement Fund 4,157,721 4, 565, 000 (407,279) 938,682
Criminal Justice 1,449,574 1,475, 836 (26,262) 300, 316 274,C54
Miscellaneous budgetary corrections 2,700 i2,700) 2,700)
Reclassify revenue as transfer in of 5300
Boat grant not awarded (53,941) (53, 941)
Adjusted Criminal justice 1,395,633 1,424, 595 (28, 962; 300,316 -- -- -- -
Environmental Mitiaaticn 421, 693 486, 910 (65,017) 259, 318 -- -• =0-
Community Block Grant 436,550 436, 550
Other Operating Projects 133,858 186, 873 (53,015) 53, 015
Portion of growth.mgt position (44, 179) 44,179 (44, 179)
Adjusted Other Operating Projects 133 , 853 _42, 594 (8, 936) 8,836
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted 1, 835,373 1, 835,373 216,658
Change levy to reduce fund balance (i66,658)
Adjusted Voted Debt Service 1,668, 715 - , 83=, 373 (166,658) 216, 658 _0, 0CC
EXHIBIT
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
1996 COMBINED OPEP.PITING STATEMENT
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRELIMINARY BUDGET
Inc (Dec) Beginning Enc.
in -i- d Fund F:nc
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
Councilmanic 2,138,175 2, 138, 175
Special Assessment 2,485,423 - , _°51477 (7'_0,054) 2,690, 535
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Street 'Projects 3,105, 793 3 , 105, 793
Parks Projects 1,258,435 1 , 258,435
Adjust City Arts Transfer (5,248) 'S, Z42i
Add Paths & Trails allocation 5, 223 5,223
Adjusted Parks Projects 1,258,411- 1,263,6_8 --
Other Projects 953,735 1, 128, 518 (174,7c3) 207,783 -3 , OOC
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
'dater 7,241, 037 7,0622,488
Sewerage 16, 136,SC2 15, 056,--1
Golf Complex 3,078, 122 2,734,392
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental 2,001,301 1,791, 119 2i0,:82 _,983,076 2,"_93. -
Saturday Mkt loan correction (131,452)
Adjusted Equipment Rental 1,869,849 1, 791,119 %8,730 1 , 983,076 2,061, 806
Central Services 4,605,318 4, 584, 904 20,-_4 (7- ,a-) 6,367
Adjust beginning fund balances 39, 087 39, 08 ,
Adjusted Central Services 4, 605,3'--8 4,-=E4, 904 2G,-_- 25, 540 -
Fire Equipment 458,693 1,447,584 988,891i 1, 171,338 -92,447
Insurance 4,879, 167 5,380,464 f501,29i) 3,368, 034 2, 866,737
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 246,000 199,396 4c`,6J4 2,259,711 2,3C6, 31S
Economic Development Cora -9,496 306, 995 i7,-99) 34, 939
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 102, 748,432 1015, 100, 988 (2,:5_, `556) 25,908,207 23 ,4=`• 651
LESS:
Internal Service Funds 5,503,712 o', SJ3, 712
Other Transfers 10,149,700 10, 149,700
TOTAL BUDGET 86,095,020 89,447,576 (2,352, 556) 25,908,207
1996 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
The 1996 projected budget was developed based on the following
assumptions :
Salaries and Benefits
For all non-settled Union and Non-Union groups* ,
the Cost of Living wage increases were based on
90% of the CPI rate of 3 . 2% which is 2 . 9% .
Settled Union groups were given wage increases
according to their contracts . The estimated
increases in Retirement Benefits were
approximately 5% .
No changes were anticipated in Social Security
Health, Disability or L & I rates .
Central Services
All areas projected an increase of 5% in 1996
with the exception of Lazer Direct Billing, with
an expected increase of 10% .
Insurance
Property and Equipment insurance were projected to
increase by 6% . Liability and other insurance
were estimated to increase by 5 and 13%
respectively.
Utilities
No changes were expected in Washington Natural
Gas or water. A 3 . 5% increase was projected for
garbage, a 5% increase with Puget Power and a 5 . 2%
increase in sewer. Drainage rates will increase
but were already incorporated in the prior year
carryover.
Information Services
The Computer and Telephone services are expected
to increase by 5% in 1996 .
Equipment Rental
Gas rates were projected at a 5 . 41 increase .
Propane and Diesel rates are expected to rise by
5 . 5% . Equipment rental rates are budgeted to rise
by 5% .
These general assumptions were used to develop the baseline budget . Each
Department then prepared and presented their 1996 budget requests to the
Mayor' s office and decisions were made in accordance with the needs of
the community and the financial restraints facing the city.
With the addition of the Meridian Annexation, the 1996 budget process
development was prepared separately from the regular budget in order to
isolate the additional costs specific to the growth. Finally, some
program changes were incorporated into the Preliminary 1996 Budget .
* Clarification to 1996 Preliminary Budget Document
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November T, 1995
Category Public Hearings
1. SUBJECT: 1996 PROPERTY TAX LEVY
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set for a public
hearing on the 1996 Property Tax Levy. At their October 25
meeting, the Operations Committee recommended approval of the
1996 Tax Levy Ordinance for the general fund and for the voted
debt issues. Per RCW 84 .52 . 010, tax shall be levied in speci-
fic dollar amounts. Official assessed valuation information is
still pending .from King County. Finance Director May Miller
will provide a brief update.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and worksheet
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0) 10/25/95
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
OPEN HEARING:
PUBLIC INPUT•
CLOSE HEARING:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACT ON:
Councilmember m moves, Councilmember seconds
to adopt Ordin ce No. 32q_'� fixing the property tax levy for
1996 .
DISCUSSION• Yl�o
ACTION.
Council Agenda
Item No. 2B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent , Washington, fixing the tax levy
for 1996 .
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84 . 52 . 070, the City of Kent
must, on or before the thirtieth day of November in each year,
certify to the county assessor the amount of taxes levied upon
property within the City for City purposes, provided that the
county assessor has certified assessed values at least twelve
working days before November 30 ; and
WHEREAS, the County has not, at this time, certified
assessed values as required by RCW 84 .48 . 130 and is not expected
to provide its certification prior to December 6 , 1995 ; and
WHEREAS, the City is relieved from its statutory
obligation to provide its property tax certification if the
County fails to meet its deadline; and
WHEREAS, the City nevertheless desires to establish and
certify the amount of taxes levied upon property within the City
for City purposes while reserving its right to adjust that
certification at the first regularly scheduled council meeting
held after receiving the certified assessed values from the
County; and
WHEREAS,. pursuant to RCW 84 . 52 . 010 and WAC 458-12-365 ,
taxes herein shall be -levied in specific dollar amounts; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1 . Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing
recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2 . Levy. There is hereby levied against the
property -in the City of Kent, Washington, an assessed value for
the City' s 1996 municipal tax in the following amounts for the
following funds :
A. For the General Fund, for the purpose of paying the general
expenses of municipal government :
Levy per $1, 000 of
assessed. valuation
Fund (estimated) Amount
General Fund 2 . 73487 11, 522 , 799
2
i
B . For Voted Bond Interest and Redemption Fund, for the purpose
of paying debt service in the following amounts for the
following funds :
Levy per $1, 000 of
assessed valuation
Fun (estimated) Amount
Public Safety . 13223 557, 120
Senior Housing . 07583 319 , 500
General Obligation Refunding . 18529 780 , 695
Section 3 . Limitation on Levv. The application of the
general fund levy shall be consistent with and not result in a
tax revenue in excess of the limitation imposed by RCW 84 . 55 . 010 .
Section 4 . Reservation of Rights . Pursuant to RCW
84 . 52 . 105 , the City reserves its right to adjust its certified
property tax assessment at its next regularly scheduled council
meeting following receipt of the County' s certified assessed
values .
Section 5 . Adjustments . Administration shall
administer the Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize
adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A. 33 . 120 .
Section 6 . Severability. If any section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid
3
i
- 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 7 . Effective Date . This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of
publication of this ordinance .
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
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 .
4
I
f
i
�i
Ij
III 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.
i
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
levy.ord
5
PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON
CHANGES
1993 1994 1995 1996 FROM PERCENT
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 1995 CHANGE
ASSESSED VALUATION
BASE 3,891,977,069 3,849,032,079 3,858,188,500 4,019,095,282 160,906,782 4.2%
ANNEXATIONS 48,658,615 110,027,544 61,368,929 126.1%
NEW CONSTRUCTION 46,705,110 44,399,000 52,852,670 84,165,940 31,313,270 59.2%
ASSESSED VALUATION
TOTAL 3,938,682,179 3,893,431,079 3,959,699,785 4,213,288,766 253,588,981 6.4%
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES:
GENERAL FUND 10,124,967 10,884,340 10,385,879 11,522,799 1,136,920 10.9%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
FIRE APPARATUS 44,981
PUBLIC SAFETY 1,198,208 606,810 605,910 557,120 (48.790) -8.1%
SENIOR HOUSING 698,886 208,550 350,650 319,500 (31,150) -8.9%
93 GO REFUNDING 872,670 873,133 780,695 (92,438) -10.6%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
TOTAL 1,942,075 1,688,030 1,829,693 1,657,315 (172,378) -9.4%
TOTAL TAX LEVY 12,067,042 12,572,370 12,215,572 13,180,114 964,542 7.9%
LEVY RATES:
GENERAL FUND 2.56 2.80 2.62 2.73 0.11 4.4%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
FIRE APPARATUS 0.01
PUBLIC SAFETY 0.30 0.16 0.15 0.13 (0.02) -11.8%
SENIOR HOUSING 0.18 0.05 0.09 0.08 (0.01) -15.7%
GO REFUNDING 0.22 0.22 0.19 (0.03) -15.8%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
TOTAL 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.39 (0.07) -14.5%
TOTAL 3.05 3.23 3.08 3.13 0.05 1.6%
The estimated 1996 general fund tax levy rate is 2.73487.The formula for calculating the levy rate is
limited to 106% of the last three years'highest regular levy plus annexations at the current year's rate
and new construction at the previous year's rate. The formula excludes omitted assessments(they are taxed at
the rate in effect for the year that they should have been included), and administrative adjustments.
CCC PRPTAX.W01 03-Nov-95
REGULAR PROPERTY LEVY CALCULATION
106%LIMITATION CALCULATION(RCW 84.55.010)
Estimated Assessed Valuation :
4,019,095,282 Last Year's Assessed Valuation +1.5%
84,165,940 New Construction added
110,027,544 Annexations
4,213,288,766 Total Estimated Assessed Valuation
10,385,879 Last year's in lieu of Highest of three most
recent years due to library
1.06 x 1.06
11,009,032 106%Levy
84,165,940 Local new construction
0 +State Public Service New Construction
84,165,940 =Total New Construction
2.62 x Prior year levy rate ( if projecting 96, then 95's rate)
220,515 =New Construction Levy
11,009,032 1.06 Levy
220,515 +New Construction Levy
0 -Omitted Assessment Levy
11,229,547 =Levy Ceiling (Less annexations and omitted assessments)
4,213,288,766 Divided by assessed value
2.66527 =New Year Levy rate
110,027,544 Annexation assessed value
2.665 x New Year levy rate
293,253 =Annexation Levy
0 +Omitted assessment levy
11,229,547 +Levy Ceiling (Less annexations and omitteds)
11,522,799 =Maximum New Year Levy based on 106% limit
0 + Refund Fund
11,522,799 =Maximum New Year Levy based on 106% limit+refund fund.
STATUTORY LEVY CALCULATION
4,213,288,766 Assessed value (excluding omits)
3.100 X maximum statutory rate
13,061,195 =Maximum 1995 levy ( Excluding Omitted Assessment Levy)
0 +Omitted Assessment Levy
13,061,195 =Maximum 1995 Levy based on Statutory Levy
11,522,799 Maximum Regular 1995 levy (the lesser of the two limits)
2.73487 Rate/thousand valuation
Annexation per King County as of 10/10/95, an approximate amount.
* New Construction per King County 10/25/95.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . city Council Action:
Councilmember V`�� moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through ,N be approved. 14evm
M 3 AI Ye rd
a �pwuc�D
Discussion h J ye wjofed cf w as
J
Action
u
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
October 17, 1995.
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.
Approval 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
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
October 17, 1995
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7: 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present: Councilmembers 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, Parks Director
Hodgson, Finance Director Miller, and Human Resources Director
Viseth. Councilmember Bennett was not in attendance.
Approximately 40 people were at the meeting.
PUBLIC Trade Exchange URdate. Barbara Ivanov, Executive
COMMUNICATIONS Director of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, noted
that the International Trade Exchange is scheduled
for November 1 'and 2 . She outlined the educa-
tional opportunities and noted that there are 45
confirmed exhibitors. She further noted that
there are over 160 confirmed International
participants with the largest group coming from
mainland China, and also that Indonesia will have
a delegation of 30.
Scott Jackson from Tradec provided the Council
with a formal letter of invitation and a detailed
itinerary. He noted that there are two specific
time frames in which Council participation would
be greatly appreciated, which are the opening
ceremonies on Wednesday morning, November 1, and
the community celebration with the ribbon cutting
for the first foreign trade zone location in the
Kent Valley and the establishment of the Kent
Trade and Transportation Corridor.
Jackson explained that the overriding objective
of this project is to make sure that the Trade
Exchange directly affects Kent and Kent' s objec-
tives to be a premier destination for two way
trade in the Puget Sound area and the State of
Washington. He noted that there are a record
number of Kent companies participating and that by
working with the Mayor and Council, the Chamber of
Commerce has been able to make sure that the
Sister City Relationships, including Yangzhou,
have been adequately covered and that Yangzhou
will be participating as an International exhibi-
tor as well as a buying delegation for this show.
He noted that there will be a foreign trade zone
designation at Alexander Trading, which is the
first general designation being developed between
the Port of Seattle and the Kent community with
Alexander Trading serving as the first operator.
He added that this will give definition to the
Trade and Transportation Corridor. He said that
1
October 17 , 1995
PUBLIC the City' s support is very much appreciated and
COMMUNICATIONS that the active participation of the Mayor and
Council is very much needed for these two days.
He also noted that any one in the community is
welcome to be a part of the ribbon cutting
ceremony and are asked to call the Chamber of
Commerce, if interested.
Natural Medicine Economic Development Task_ Force
Report. Mayor White explained that about a year
ago he had gotten involved in natural medicine,
and that in recognizing the impact of natural
medicine and those involved in this type of
medicine, he had asked Merrily Manthey to put
together a task force to take a look at some of
the implications it might have on the community.
Ms. Manthey introduced members of the task force,
and explained that the task force has been looking
at the trend which has been underway this last
year particularly in King County as well as
throughout the nation. She noted that Dr. David
Eisenberg, a Harvard professor of medicine, did a
study which showed that more than one-third of all
Americans use some form of alternative complemen-
tary natural medicine, and that he defined it as
the type of health care that is not ordinarily
available in medical schools or U.S. hospitals.
Manthey also noted that Dr. Eisenberg' s survey
discovered that citizens using alternative care
were spending 13 billion" dollars out-of-pocket,
not reimbursable, to get this type of care. She
also noted that the study found that citizens were
requesting it to be a part of their insurance pro-
grams. Manthey noted that the King County Council
had unanimously passed a motion on February 27
endorsing the establishment of a natural medicine
clinic in King County and requesting the County
Executive to include funding for the clinic in the
1996 Executive Proposed Budget. She explained
that this motion then led to the County Executive
forming a special group to put together a plan
which was presented to the County Council in
August and noted that the plan describes how the
County will be the first governing body to dedi-
cate public funds to bring natural medicine to the
public who are not able to receive it through any
other means. Ms. Manthey stated that the task
force has been developing an action plan for the
City.
2
October 17, 1995
PUBLIC Dr. Maurice Werness, a Family Practitioner/
COMMUNICATIONS Naturopathic in Seattle, noted that 80% of what is
seen in hospitals today are chronic, degenerative
illnesses such as heart disease, arthritis, and
cancer. He stated that conventional medicine has
had little to offer these clients other than
either surgery or lifetime pharmaceuticals. He
explained that natural medicine offers the oppor-
tunity and possibility for these individuals to
learn how to heal the illnesses and then prevent
them later in life. He noted that the only alter-
native to the crisis in medicine and illness in
our country is a way of practicing medicine that
teaches prevention. He explained that Kent has
the opportunity to do this by creating a natural
medicine wing in the hospital that will draw
people to come in where they learn a healthy
lifestyle and heal themselves. He offered his
support in what the City is trying to do and
encouraged them to make some profound changes in
the way medicine is practiced in this country.
Manthey noted that Valley Medical Center has been
working with the task force, even though they may
or may not be involved in having a natural medi-
cine wing at this stage.
Pam Snider, Chair of the Naturopathic Medicine
Dept. of Bastyr University, expressed her enthusi-
asm and support on behalf of Bastyr University for
this project. She noted that wellness and health-
care are important issues to the American public
today and that in the State of Washington there is
considerable groundbreaking activity going on in
combining natural medicine with conventional medi-
cine. She noted that the public demand is growing
rapidly and that Bastyr University would like to
be of any service to the City that they can be.
Mayor White explained that he has asked the task
force to continue looking at this project and to
come back to the Council with some recommendations
as to how the City might be involved in natural
medicine.
Regional Justice Center Update. Wendy Keller,
Project Manager, informed the Council that a copy
of the executive summary is available, and that
the project is on time, even ahead of schedule
with different parts and pieces, and is still
3
October 17, 1995
PUBLIC within budget. She noted that the project con-
COMMUNICATIONS tinues to earn interest because not as much cash
flow has been spent as predicted and that the
scope of the project has not been altered. Keller
explained that 80% of the slabs and everything
that could have been damaged by the winter rains
is now in the ground. She noted 'that the paving
for the temporary roads and side road are done and
that the summary allows everyone to know where all
the pieces of the project are from the inside.
She stated that a construction schedule was ac-
cepted which took the project through the end of
September. She noted that a joint planning effort
has been going on between the City, the County and
the District Court in regard to the justice center
and uses or needs for courts from now until when
the Regional Justice Center opens, from when it
opens to the year 2001, and from beyond. She
explained that they have also been looking at
juvenile detention needs and the City of Kent' s
future detention needs, so that more courthouses
and jails are not sited unless needed. She noted
that the Council would probably be looking at some
recommendations immediately after the Regional
Justice Center opens up and for the short term.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR F be approved. 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 3 , 1995.
STREETS (BIDS - ITEM 5A)
LID 346 - S. 212th Sidewalks and Street Lighting,
Russell Road to West Valley Highway. The bid
opening for this project was held on October 10
with 5 bids received. The low bid was submitted
by Signal Electric, Inc. , Kent, Washington, in
the amount of $160,858 . 50 . The Engineer's esti-
mate was $181, 678. 00. The project consists of
installing cement concrete sidewalks, lighting
standards and luminaries, conduit and other
related appurtenances. MANN MOVED that the LID
346 - S. 212th Sidewalks and Street Lighting
contract be awarded to Signal Electric Inc. for
the bid amount of $160, 858 . 50. Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
4
October 17, 1995
ANNEXATION (OTHER ,BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Meridian Annexation Aerial Manning Contract The
Public Works Committee has recommended that upon
the City Attorney' s concurrence with the contract
documents, the Mayor be authorized to sign the
Meridian Annexation Area Aerial Mapping Contract
with Nies Mapping Group, Inc. , Bellevue,
Washington. MANN MOVED that the Meridian Annexa-
tion Area Aerial Mapping Contract be awarded to
Nies Mapping Group, Inc. for the contract amount
of $36,715. 00, subject to the City Attorney's
concurrence with the language. Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
ZONING Meridian Annexation Comprehensive Plan Amendments
CPA-95-1 and Initial Zoning AZ-95-3 On
September 25 and 26, 1995, the Planning Commission
held public hearings on both the Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Map Amendments for the Meridian
Annexation area. Following their deliberations__
on October 2 , 1995, the Commission voted to
forward their recommendation to the City Counci-1.
Tonight's hearing is the first of two public
hearings to be held by the City Council pursuant
to State law; the second hearing is scheduled for
November 21, 1995.
Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department ex-
plained that after the Boundary Review Board and
the City Council made the final decision on this
annexation, the Planning Department prepared
alternatives for public review on zoning and
planning in the area. He noted that an open
house was held on August 24 which was very well
attended, and that different alternatives were
reviewed and based on that, alternatives were pre-
pared for the Planning Commission and the public's
recommendation. He noted that the Planning
Commission looked at three alternatives for both
the Comp Plan and zoning, and their recommendation
most closely follows the third alternative. He
explained that the plan shows the majority of the
area being designated single family at varying
densities, the most common being SF6, with some
lower densities. He added that there are two
commercial nodes at 132nd and Kent-Kangley and .at
152nd and Kent-Kangley where there is existing
commercial development. He said the recommended
5
October 17, 1995
ANNEXATION zoning follows the Comprehensive Plan recommenda-
ZONING tion, and the zoning and Comp Plan are basically
compatible with the existing land use pattern
there now. He said the only major change is in
areas at 132nd and 152nd where multi-family zoning
exists but has not been developed with multi-
family, and the designation has been changed to
either commercial or higher density single family.
He commended the Planning Commission on their
efforts.
O'Neill noted that eight letters were received
between the time the Planning Commission closed
their hearing and when they undertook their
deliberations, and that the Commission asked that
the letters be submitted to the City Council for
the public record. WOODS MOVED to make these
letters, and letters received tonight from David
McGrew and Marie Lewis, a part of the record. Orr
seconded and the motion carried.
Mayor White declared the public hearing open.
Edward Pawlowski, 27727 106th S.E. , said that his
area did not ask to be annexed to Kent, and did
not get to vote on it. He asked not to be
annexed. Marie Lewis, 25840 135th Lane S.E. , read
a letter regarding her property and suggesting a
change in zoning enabling the building of afford-
able housing on the lake. Paul Morford, P.O. Box
6345, Kent, read a letter he had written to the
Mayor on January 18, 1995, regarding the annexa-
tion of property on the corner of 120th Avenue
S.E. and S. E. 240th. In the letter Morford
stated that the property is currently zoned single
family 7200, and asked whether he would have rea-
sonable assurance that it would be zoned single
family 5000, as that would be the most 'compatible
to King County zoning. He noted that he had
received a favorable response to the letter, and
that he has had discussions with the Planning
Department about this. He said he believes the
recommendation for the property on 116th is for
commercial, and asked that the zoning on his
property be kept as close to King County' s as it
was, which would be 5000. He added that 7200
would be a loss in their zoning.
George Webb, 26524 128th Avenue S.E. , voiced
concern about the Meridian Meadows Wetlands and _
Stormwater Storage Pond. He said many people are
6
October 17 , 1995
ANNEXATION concerned about the zoning, and that they feel it
ZONING should be designated open space on the Compre-
hensive Plan. He felt that R1. 5. 0 should be
decreased to RA, one unit per acre. He asked the
Council to take this into consideration, and noted
that it has been done in other areas of the
annexation. David Spencer, 27848 152nd Avenue
S.E. , owner of Shady Park Grocery and the auto
repair shop next door, said the Neighborhood
Commercial zoning for his area does not allow for
the auto repair shop to be rebuilt if it should
burn. He noted that the property has been com-
mercial since 1920, and asked the Council to
consider General Commercial zoning which allow him
to replace or improve the building. Dean Conti,
21121 S.E. 206th, Renton, pointed out his property
on the map, and noted that it is proposed for
commercial zoning. He explained that the Planning
Commission adopted his proposal over the staff' s
and noted that his property has significant wet-
lands which should be protected. He proposed
office commercial zoning and noted that it has
good access off Kent-Kangley and that a good
buffer already exists. He said that if his pro-
perty is zoned as he proposes, he would be willing
to sell part of the property at a reasonable price
or deed it to the city for use as a park, noting
that the city would then have permanent control
over the wetlands. Herb Noji, owner of a com-
mercial greenhouse at 12525 S.E. 248th, said the
County zoning was SR9 . 6 and that the area could
support a higher density of 7 . 2 . He noted that
there is a great deal of public land along 248th,
and that in order to expand Clark Lake Park in the
future, the density should be higher than 9 . 6.
Gary Widener, 27220 154th Avenue S.E. , said he has
requested Community Commercial zoning to be
squared off in his neighborhood. He explained
that the properties bordering 152nd are Community
Commercial, and provided a diagram illustrating
how an enterprise would fit in. He said this
would be a good asset for Kent and would provide
revenue. Brenda Houston, 22901 114th Way S.E. ,
noted that her grandmother, Frances Houston, lives
at 15304 S. E. 273rd, and does not want to leave
the area. She distributed copies of a map and
letters and noted that it is a safe neighborhood,
and said that the wishes of the residents of the
neighborhood should be considered, since it will
change their lives. Frances Houston said she is
7
October 17, 1995
ANNEXATION very happy where—Sfie is. ORR MOVED that Houston' s
ZONING letter be added to the record. Woods seconded and
the motion carried. Daniel Walton, 27223 154
Avenue S.E. , stated that their family has had no
choice and asked the Council not to deny them
their individual choices. Tom Sharp, 11126 S.E.
256th, noted that he owns property at 120th and
240th, and asked for parity with the County
zoning. He noted that the County and the City
calculate public access roads differently, and
that his property may be down-zoned. He said most
residents of the annexation area were assured they
would not be down-zoned, but that his would be.
He requested parity and asked why his property is
to be down-zoned. Jack Evans, 13710 S.E. 259th,
spoke in support of Community Commercial zoning
at 152nd and Kent-Kangley. He noted that
Mrs. Houston would not have to move, and said
that a larger commercial area is needed at that
location. He asked that zoning at 272nd and 152nd
be squared off so that a substantial project can
be located there in the future, rather than small
piecemeal development. Brenda Houston noted that
there is commercial zoning in Covington, only a
half-mile away and that more commercial zoning is
not needed. Gary Widener stated that the revenue
generated by businesses in Covington would not go
to Kent, and said commercial zoning would be
advantageous for the city. Dean Conti submitted
a diagram and WOODS MOVED that it, as well as the
documents from Widener and the letter from
Morford, be made a part of the public record.
Orr seconded and the motion carried.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing.
Houser seconded. Mayor White noted that a second
public hearing will be held at a later date. The
motion then carried.
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Top of the Hill Final Plat FSU-94-2 . AUTHORIZA-
TION to set November 7 , 1995, as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat appli-
cation made by Baima & Holmberg, Inc. The City
Council approved a recommendation from the Hearing
Examiner for the Preliminary Plat on September .6,
1994 . The plat contains 8 . 74 acres, consists of
42 single-family residential lots, and is located
8
October 17, 1995
PLATS on the north side of the SE 244th Street, approxi-
mately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue SE.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Kingstone Final Plat FSU-94-11. AUTHORIZATION to
set November 7, 1995, as the date for a public
meeting to consider a final plat application made
by T.C.A. The preliminary subdivision was ap-
proved in King County and upon the East Hill/
Ramstead Annexation, the final plat fell under
Kent' s jurisdiction. This plat contains 21. 34
acres, has 69 lots, and is located. between SE
271st and SE 268th and between 114th Avenue SE and
117th Avenue SE.
PUBLIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
SAFETY Harassment Crimes. ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3243
which brings the City' s criminal code into con-
formity with state law by adding a new section to
the code which makes harassing and stalking an
individual a crime.
FRANCHISE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Heath Tecna Franchise Agreement. Heath Tecna
Aerospace Corporation is selling its Kent facili-
ties and asks that the Council give its consent to
Heath' s assignment of its interest in an existing
street use franchise with the City of Kent. By
its terms, the franchise does not allow assignment
without Council' s prior approval. Heath asks
Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a Consent
Agreement together with a second agreement that
verifies that the franchise is still in effect and
that no franchise terms have been violated to
date. MANN MOVED that the Mayor be authorized to
sign the Heath Tecna franchise assignment agree-
ments. Woods seconded and the motion carried.
PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
RECREATION Kiwanis Tot Lot No. 2 Project. ACCEPTANCE of
Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 Project as complete, and
release of retainage to Parkwood Services, upon
receipt of state releases.
FINANCE (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
1996-2001 Capital Facilities Plan. This public
hearing was continued from August 1, 1995, to this
date. As required by the Growth Management Act,
the City must adopt a Six-year Capital Facilities
Plan. This proposed plan designates certain
9
October 17 , 1995
FINANCE capital facilities for implementation in 1996-2001
in order to meet state GMA concurrency require-
ments within established and projected budgets.
May Miller, Finance Division Director, noted that
many plans already exist in the City such as the
water plan, the sewer plan, transportation, parks,
automation and a fire equipment replacement plan
and that this one document pulls all of them
together in one place. She explained that in the
future when a new development is planned, every-
thing will be done at the same time so that when
it is finished there will be new roads, water,
sewer, and a park. She noted that the City of
Kent has gone beyond the required transportation,
water, sewer and drainage and has added parks,
cultural arts, and the recreation fields.
Miller explained that some criteria had to be used
for balancing since there were more requests than
revenue. She noted that the debt service was
funded for all of the existing capital projects,
then the fund balance was increased so that there
would be a reserve balance for all of the unex-
pected projects which may come up. She noted that
consideration was then given to the building,
ground and safety projects in maintaining the
facilities already in existence, and finally
setting aside some money for land for future
parks and facilities.
Miller noted that the project totals $171, 555, 000
over six years which is just the plan and not the
budget. She noted that only the 1996 portion of
the plan will be put into the operating budget and
that the plan provides over $100, 000 for trans-
portation corridors, sidewalks, asphalt overlays,
water & sewer drainage, and golf projects which
are funded with revenue bonds, LID' s, grants, and
some of their own revenue from water, sewer,
drainage and utilities. She noted that the Parks
Plan includes some improvements to the aging parks
system, and that there is also a plan for a voted
bond issue in the future for a possible performing
arts center, community youth center, or cultural
center and athletic complex. She explained that
these are just planned out for the future but that
significant work would have to be done before
they would become a reality. She noted that
Councilmanic bonds are also scheduled for 1997-98
10
October 17 , 1995
FINANCE for some of the other automation, telephone needs
for the City to keep it efficient, and for some
needed shop space. She stated that the burn props
which have been requested for the last seven years
will be included in the funding for this year and
that funds are also included for maintenance and
repair of all of our existing buildings to extend
their maximum life. She also noted that one addi-
tional capital facility position will be funded
from the sales tax revenue which will do cash flow
planning, closing the projects in a timely manner,
and keeping the level of service current as is
required by Growth Management. She explained that
Growth Management has added responsibility to the
cities because in the past they could just do
plans which didn't have to be concurrent all at
one time and didn't have to be budgeted, but the
new requirement says they have to be concurrent
and have to be balanced within revenue. She noted
that a public hearing was held on August 1, a
workshop was held on October 3 , the Operations
Committee had this before them on October 11 and
recommended approval, and tonight is the final
public hearing. Ms. Miller recommended that
Council adopt the 1996-2001 plan and the resolu-
tion, and add the 1996 portion to the preliminary
budget.
Mayor White 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 Resolution No. 1446, which
establishes the City's 1996-2001 Capital Facili-
ties Plan and combines the 1996 element into the
preliminary budget. Orr seconded and the motion
carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through September 29 and paid
on September 29 , 1995, after auditing by the
Operations Committee on October 11, 1995 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
9/29/95 160046-160656 $1, 1031316. 29
11
October 17, 1995
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for payroll for
September 16 through September 30, 1995, and paid
on October 5, 1995:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/5/95 Checks 206461-206784 $ 253, 581. 56
Advices 27911-28311 499 , 384.32
$ 752,965. 88
REPORTS Council President. Woods noted that she had
attended the Festival of the Rivers and presented
Mayor White with a Stewardship Award in recogni-
tion of outstanding stewardship and educational
endeavors in the Green-Duwamish Watershed. Mayor
White congratulated all involved.
Planning Committee. Orr announced that the next
meeting will be held at 4 : 00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 7.
EXECUTIVE At 8:25 p.m. , the meeting was recessed to an
SESSION executive session of approximately 20 minutes.
(Litigation
and Labor
Negotiations)
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Brenda Jac ber, CMC
City Cler
12
)1�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November !J. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ARTS COMMISSION APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appoint-
ment 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White --
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCALLPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
MEMORANDUM
TO: JUDY WOODS, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYO
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1995
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT TO KENT ARTS COMMISSION
I have recently appointed 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.
I have also reappointed Leigha Conner to continue serving as a member of the Arts Commission. Ms.
Connor's new term will continue to 10/31/99.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JWJb
cc: John Hodgson, Parks Director
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November '}. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
ADDENDUM
2 . SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, uthor' ion for the Mayor to sign the Addendum to
the King Count nterlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management
and adopt i of Resolution No. I`�47 concurring with this
action. This addendum formally recognizes the County Council' s
interjurisdictional Regional Policy Committee as the Solid
Waste Interlocal Forum.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution, Public Works memorandum, Public Works
minutes
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. 3D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent,
Washington, authorizing the Mayor to
execute an addendum to the Solid Waste
Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal
Agreement with King County.
WHEREAS, the County and the City executed interlocal
agreements on July 1, 1988 and January 1, 1988 , in which the
respective responsibilities of the parties were established for
solid waste management and for the creation of a solid waste
interlocal forum; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan King County Council has
designated its Regional Policy Committee as the successor to the
Solid Waste Interlocal Forum; and
WHEREAS, the Suburban Cities Association by a resolution
dated June 16, 1993 , has also designated the Regional Policy
Committee as the successor to the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum; and
WHEREAS, the County has proposed an Addendum to its Solid
Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal Agreement, which is
attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference,
that memorializes the various parties intent to designate the
Regional Policy Committee as the successor to the Solid Waste
Interlocal Forum. NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
Section 1 . The above listed findings and recitals are
found to be true and correct in all respects .
Section 2 . The City agrees with the proposed addendum to
the existing Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement and Forum Interlocal
Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
Section 3 The Mayor is authorized to sign the addendum
under the authority of this resolution.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _ of 1995 .
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this
day of 1995 .
JIM WHITE, MAYOR .
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
ADD ZENDUM
to
SOLD WASTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
and
FORUM INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Addendum is entered into between King County, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington and the City of
Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
hereinafter referred to as ''County'' and ''City'' respectively, who
have previously executed interlocal agreements for solid waste
management and the Solid Waste interlocal Forum. This Addendum
has been authorized by the legislative body of each jurisdiction
pursuant to formal action as designated on the signature pages .
PREAMBLE
The County and the City have executed interlocal agreements
(hereinafter called ''the Agreements'' ) on July 1, 1988 , and
January i , 1988 , in which the respective responsibilities of the
parties for solid waste management and establishment of a Solid
Waste interlocal Forum ( "the Forum'' ) have been designated . Since
the date of execution of the Agreements , the Regional Governance
Summit of elected officials representing the County and the
cities proposed and the voters adopted King County Charter
amendments which established a minimum of - three regional policy
committees of the Xing County Council . These committees , which
were modeled after the Solid Waste interlocal Forum, are
comprised of a mix of representatives of suburban cities and
Seattle as well as T{_ng County Ceuncilmembers . One of the three ,
the Regional Policy Committee , has been deemed to meet the
1 - EXHIBIT-,a-
Addendum to
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
and Forum Interlocal Agreement
characteristics of membership, staffing and relationships to the
parties to the Agreements which were intended for the Forum. By
Motion 9297 , the King County Council has expressed its intent
that the Regional Policy Committee of the King County Council be
designated as the successor to the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum
and serve the purposes cf the Forum described in the Agreements
to which this document is an Addendum. This intent was also
expressed by the suburban cities in Resolution 1 adopted by the
Suburban Cities Association on June 16 , 1993 .
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Addendum is to designate the Regional
Policy Committee of the King County Council which was established
by the King County Charter amendment approved by the voters on
November 2 , 1992 as the designated Forum pursuant to the
Agreements .
II. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Addendum, the definitions established
in the Agreements shall apply.
III . FORUM
The Regional Policy Committee of the King County Council
shall be established as the designated Interlocal Forum pursuant
to the Agreements . Effective immediately, the Regional Policy
Committee shall assume the responsibilities for the designated
Interlocal Forum which are defined in the Agreements . The terms
2 -
Addendum to
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
and Forum Interlocal Agreement
and conditions specified in the Agreements by which the parties
shall discuss and/or determine policy and development of a
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan as shall apply to the
parties and to the Regional Policy Committee, except as specified
below.
A. Section VI . MEMBERSHIP, of the Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum Agreement is hereby repealed. Membership of the Regional
Policy Committee shall be as specified in the King County
Charter.
B . Section VII , MEETINGS, of the Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum Agreement is hereby repealed. Unless otherwise provided,
the rules and procedures of the Metropolitan King County Council
adopted by ordinance shall govern all procedural matters related
to the business of the Forum.
C. Section VIII , BYLAWS, of the Solid Waste Interlocal
Forum Agreement is hereby repealed.
D . Section IX, STAFFING AND OTHER SUPPORT, of the Solid
Waste Interlocal Forum Agreement is hereby repealed.
IV. SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The King County Solid Waste Advisory Committee formed
pursuant to RCW 70 . 95 . 165 shall continue pursuant to its
statutory functions and, in addition, shall advise the Forum on
solid waste matters .
- 3 -
Addendum to
Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
and Forum Interlocal Agreement
V. DURATION
This Addendum shall become effective on the date of
execution and shall remain in effect through June 30, 2028 .
VI . NOTICE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each
party on the date set forth below:
CITY KING COUNTY
Mayor King County Executive
Date Date
Pursuant to Resolution No. Pursuant to Motion No.
Clerk - Attest Clerk - Attest
Approved as to form and legality Approved as to form and legality
City Attorney King County
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Date Date
:kb \admin\ila\MODILA.DOC
4 -
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 23, 1995
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstromi�
RE: King County Interlocal Agreement
for Solid Waste Management - Amendment
King County has interlocal agreements for management of solid waste with each City
in the County. These agreements provide for the County to assume long term waste
management planning, transfer and disposal responsibilities, and for the cities to work
with the County through a solid waste interlocal forum, as well as providing recycling
and garbage collection services within their jurisdictions.
The enclosed amendment to those interlocal agreements would formally recognize the
role of the King County Council's interjurisdictional Regional Policy Committee as
the Solid Waste Interlocal Forum.
ACTION: Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the King
County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management and also, to
adopt Resolution # concurring with this action.
adjacent to it. Clark said what we would like to do now is go back.to staff, ask them to
try and male that approach, at the very least, to make sure that 100th is not a straight
"shot". We can temporarily close 244th but we cannot leave those people at risk.
Clark moved to temporarily close S. 244th Street, that motion being contingent upon
approval of Police and Fire for their respective roles in the community; that we come
back and revisit this issue of access on S. 244th Street 18 months from this time and
that directions are given to staff that 100th Ave. be so designed that it cannot be a direct
access arterial thru and that other access routes tying Top of the Hill be provided in
whatever plan is involved in that particular process.
Mann seconded the MOTION.
Discussion: Brubaker noted that the developer of Top of the Hill was not in attendance
and we don't know if 18 months is an appropriate time frame.
Committee concurred with the motion.
King County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management - Amendment
Wickstrom stated that there was an interlocal group that overviewed the development
of the Comp Plan and the County wants that group to become one of their committees.
Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the King
County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management and also, to adopt the
resolution appropriately numbered concurring with this action.
Downtown Sidewalk - Street Trees
Wickstrom said the trees on Harrison St. and 1st Avenue were not saveable and as a
result we had to remove them and this added a significant amount of work. to the
contract. The total cost is $57,000. We have some left over money in one of our
project funds; we want to transfer that money out of there to pay for this additional
work In response to Clarl., Wickstrom said that all trees are being grated. There was
opposition the first time when we reconstructed the sidewalks; we left some large
openings to give the trees some breathing and root growing room. Since then, we have
had our landscape architect design a grate system that worl.s along with a special type
of soil which allows the root to grow into the ground without heaving the sidewalks up.
He said the problem was that these tree roots were all surface roots and needed to be
pruned so bad that the tree wouldn't survive or it would be subject to a wind blow over,
5
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November !J, 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN STREET TREES - TRANSFER OF FUNDS
2. A significant additional expense has
been incurred in the removal and replacement of approximately
34 street trees in the Downtown Sidewalk Replacement ro 'ect.
to
P 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� a5 fecom fflended
?u h l�c We-(AS C&M nn,"-tte e.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works memorandum and Public Works minutes
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: $ S l OOo
SOURCE OF FUNDS: , Ile& l�/e,'�.-� 4.w
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 23, 1995
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom �V�1
RE: Downtown Sidewalk Rehab Contract
As I discussed with the Council at the October 3rd workshop and the subsequent Harrison
Street tree issue via my memo of October 17th (copy attached) we have incurred a
significant additional expense associated with having to remove and replace approximately
34 street trees which were not anticipated in the above referenced contract. The existing
project budget can't cover this unanticipated expense of approximately $57,000. As such,
we are requesting council authorization to transfer said amount for the unencumbered
remaining funds within the East Valley Highway (1 92th-1 80th) project fund (R68) to the
sidewalk fund (R33).
ACTION: Recommend to Council the authorization of said fund transfer.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 17, 1995
TO: Mayor a City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Downtown Sidewalk Rehabilitation Phase II
This is to inform you that the 1 st Avenue tree situation is now repeating itself on
Harrison Street. We had originally anticipated saving the trees along the north side
of Harrison from 4th Avenue to 2nd Avenue but upon exposure of their root systems,
our consultant arborist and landscape arc'nitect advise us that this is not possible.
The root systems are exceedingly shallow and as such, extensive root pruning is
required for which the trees either wouldn't survive or because of the loss of their
upper root structure, be subject to wind blow over. Further, to save the trees would
require extensive tree openings in the sidewalk area (no tree grates). Similar such tree
openings are a problem present with the merchants and their patrons and lastly, we
would be back ever, three to five vears replacing the sidewalk again.
Based on the above, -Nve instructed our contractor to remove these trees,and replace
them with an acceptable new tree. Please be aware that the costs associated
therewith were not included in the original project budget. As such, we will be
seeking Council approval per a budget adjustment and ves, there are unencumbered
funds available for this in one of our other project funds.
CC: Brent McFall
Tim Harris
)ohn Hodgson
Linda Johnson
adjacent to it. Clark said what we would like to do now is go back to staff, ask them to
try and make that approach, at the very least, to make sure that 100th is not a straight
"shot". We can temporarily close 244th but we cannot leave those people at risk
Clark moved to temporarily close S. 244th Street, that motion being contingent upon
approval of Police and Fire for their respective roles in the community; that we come
back and revisit this issue of access on S. 244th Street 18 months from this time and
that directions are given to staff that I00th Ave. be so designed that it cannot be a direct
access arterial thru and that other access routes tying Top of the Hill be provided in
whatever plan is involved in that particular process.
Mann seconded the MOTION.
Discussion: Brubaker noted that the developer of Top of the Hill was not in attendance
and we don't know if 18 months is an appropriate time frame.
Committee concurred with the motion.
King_County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management - Amendment
Wickstrom stated that there was an interlocal group that overviewed the development
of the Comp Plan and the County wants that group to become one of their committees.
Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the King
County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management and also, to adopt the
resolution appropriately numbered concurring with this action.
Downtown Sidewalk - Street Trees
Wickstrom said the trees on Harrison St. and 1st Avenue were not saveable and as a
result we had to remove them and this added a significant amount of work to the
contract. The total cost is $57,000. We have some left over money in one of our
project funds; we want to transfer that money out of there to pay for this additional
work. In response to Clarlc, Wicicstrom said that all trees are being grated. There was
opposition the first time when we reconstructed the sidewalks; we left some large
openings to give the trees some breathing and root growing room. Since then, we have
had our landscape architect design a grate system that works along with a special type
of soil which allows the root to grow into the ground without heaving the sidewalks up.
He said the problem was that these tree roots were all surface roots and needed to be
pruned so bad that the tree wouldn't survive or it would be subject to a wind blow over,
5
which left us no choice. There isn't enough room in the sidewalk to do it without grates
and still provide an area to walk. 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 Kiefer Interim Funding Agreement with City of Tacoma
Kiefer 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....."
Kiefer 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
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November !J. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 71ST AVENUE STREET VACATION - TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND
ORDINANCE
2. SUMMARY STA EMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, thorization to deposit mewiey-- approximately
$8,900$; acquired from the 71st Avenue Street Vacation into
School Sidewalks Project Funds rather than into the Street
Operating Budget and approval of Ordinance No. Z 6
implementing the street vacation.
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. 3F
Tames Street - Paul Mann
Mann asked why we are never considering widening James St and create another lane.
Wickstrom will again review the cost of doing this.
71st Street Vacation - Don Wickstrom
"`yyy Wickstrom stated that we are coming back for approval of the final adoption of the
ordinance on vacating a portion of 71st Avenue near 180th and West Valley Highway.
We will be receiving about $8,900 for a small amount of right of way being vacated. He
asked that this money go into school sidewalk project funds rather than, the street
operating budget.
Committee unanimously recommended that the money acquired from the street vacation
on 71st Ave be transferred into school sidewalk project funds.
Meeting adjourned: 6:15 P.M.
_ 7
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent.. Washington,
relating to the vacation of streets, vacating a portion of 71 st
Avenue South, an existing public street, lying between So. 180th
and 181 st Streets in the City of Kent.
WHEREAS, application was filed with the City of Kent by various owners of
property abutting the applicable portion of 71st Avenue South, an existing public street,
lying between So. 180th and 181 st Streets in the City of Kent, King County, Washington;
and
WHEREAS, the Kent Planning Director processed this petition and secured technical
facts pertinent to the question of this vacation along with a recommendation as to approval
or rejection by the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council fixed a time when said petition would be heard
and the hearing was held with proper notice on August 1, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers of the Kent City Hall; and
WHEREAS,the Public Works Department and Planning Director recommended that
the City Council approve the application upon the applicant's fulfillment of certain
conditions; and
1
WHEREAS, after the public hearing on August 1, 1995, the City Council approved
the vacation so long as the applicant first fulfilled all the conditions recommended by staff
and approved by Council; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has now fulfilled all of the conditions imposed by
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the street sought to be vacated is: (1) an
open, dedicated street and presently being used as a street; (2) not abutting on a body of
water and therefore not suitable for acquisition for port purposes, boat moorage or launching
sites, park, viewpoint, recreational or education purposes, or other public use; and (3) a
vacation which is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the preparation of an ordinance vacating
the portion of said street; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The forgoing recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. That portion of 71st Avenue South lying between So. 180th and 181st
Streets in the City of Kent as described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated
herein by this reference, is hereby vacated.
Section 3. No vested rights shall be affected by the provisions of this ordinance.
2
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the
time of its final passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED the day of 1995.
APPROVED the_day of 1995.
PUBLISHED the _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
STV AC#10.ORD
3
ROAD VACATION
1�egn� ZtS� P. 9S � )
That portion of the U-turn route as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of 8, Sft 1 81 South Corporate Limits of
Tukwila to Foster Interchange right-of-way plans, being a portion, of the Henry Adams Donation Claim
No. 43 in Section 36, Township 23 North, Rage 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying South
and East of the following described line:
COMMENCING at a point 30 feet South of, when measured at right angles to U-turn route centerline
Station 4+30;
THENCE South 880 16' 31" East, 35.30 feet parallel to and 30 feet South of said U-turn route
centerline to a point on a curve the radius point of which bears South 20' 23' 03" East and the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING of herein described line;
THENCE Northeasterly along the.arc of a curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 68.00 feet,
through a central angle of 221 06' 32" and an arc length of 26.24 feet;
THENCE South 880 16' 31" East, 55.36 feet to a point of curvature;
THENCE Northeasterly and Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 feet,
through a central angle of 891 58' .15" and an arc length of 1 17.77 feet;
THENCE North 01 ° 45' 14" East, 172.84 feet to a point of curvature;
_ THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 29.00 feet, through a
central angle of 340 08' 54" and an arc length of 17.28 feet to a point on a line 30 feet East of when
measured at right angles to U-turn route centerline and the terminus of herein described line.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 7 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ACCESSORY HOUSING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-3
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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 31 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-aAW-avhed�-draft Accessory Housing
Regulations.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, regulations, Planning Commission minutes
of June 26, 1995, and Planning Committee minutes of October 17,
1995
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission/Planning 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
CITY OF
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390 Jim White, Mayor
dRvu��
MEMORANDUM
November 1, 1995
TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR, AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: BETSY CZARK, PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION -
ACCESSORY HOUSING REGULATIONS - (#Z;�7_A-95-3)
The draft accessory housing regulations that will be reviewed at the Council's November 7th
meeting are attached. These regulations were presented to the Council at its October 3rd meeting.
At that time the Council directed the Planning Committee to review the regulations and make a
recommendation to Council. The Planning Committee has recommended the attached regulations
with only one change from the previous version. The parameters on the size of an accessory unit
for new construction is now limited to 40 percent of the principal unit. In the prior version there
was no distinction between the size of an accessory unit incorporated in new construction versus
adding an accessory unit to an existing house. This restriction was attached to reduce the -risk of
single family houses being built and used essentially as duplexes.
As you are aware, the Washington Housing Policy Act (Senate Bill 5548) requires all cities of
more than 20,000 people to allow accessory. housing (a.k.a. mother-in-law units) in single family
zones. The deadline for cities to enact an accessory housing ordinance was December 31, 1994.
Kent missed this deadline and has yet to adopt an accessory housing ordinance. Keep in mind that
we are not developing accessory housing regulations simply because it is state-mandated: Before
Senate Bill 5548 was adopted, the Report of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Single Family
Neighborhoods published by the City of Kent Planning Department in 1989 and the Growth
Management Countywide Policies adopted in June of 1992 mandated the City to remove
regulatory barriers to accessory units. The Housing Element in Kent's newly adopted
Comprehensive plan also requires that the City implement an accessory housing ordinance.
The attached draft regulations incorporate the input of the Planning Committee, the Planning
Commission, and Kent citizens. The Commission has had two workshops and two public hearings
on accessory housing. The Commission's concerns regarding the size and parking requirements
of accessory units are reflected in the attached ordinance. Staff has also both informed and
received input from Kent citizens regarding accessory housing. A Mayor's Forum discussing
accessory housing and the ordinance played for over a month on cable channel 28. On May 3,
1995 the Planning Department also facilitated a focus group of Kent residents to discuss how
"U,th AVE. SO. IKENT.%% ASH IArTONINV,'-sHgS/TF.LFPhIUNE '_fl6iliq_tt011%F AS=s<v-111 __
Accessory Housing Regulations - #ZCA-95-3
November 1, 1995
Page 2
accessory housing can fit, into Kent neighborhoods. The comments of these citizens are
represented in the attached draft ordinance.
In short the draft regulations allow accessory housing in all single family dwellings, new or
existing, under certain conditions. They also allow an accessory unit to be created within, added
to, or detached from the principal dwelling unit. . However, one of the two units must be owner
occupied for at least six months a year. Also, if the accessory unit is detached from the main unit
its size is limited to 800 square feet or 33 percent of the of the size of the principal unit,
whichever is smaller.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Lin Houston, Human Services Manager
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
BC\Acceshsg.ord\ahsgord.2cc
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Draft Accessory Housing Regulations
Planning Department File Number
ZCA-95-3
Definition
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) 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.
Comment: The Ordinance can dictate whether the AD U can only be created within the principal
unit or can also be added to, and/or detached from the principal unit. Allowing all three
scenarios provides greater flexibility and more feasible options for the creation of an AD U.
Intent
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; and
To make homeownership more affordable because it will be easier to buy both new and existing
homes with the help of an accessory apartment, and
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; and
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; and
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; and
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; and
To make better use of existing public investment in streets, transit, water, sewer, and other
utilities.
Standards and Criteria
1. One ADU per dwelling unit is allowed out-right within all R1, single family residential
zones, and single family dwellings within the city.
Comment: The potential and desirability for more than one AD U per single family
dwelling unit is low. This criteria allows AD Us in single family houses which are in non-
single family districts since approximately 13 percent of Kent's single family units are in
non-single family districts. The central element of this criteria is allowing AD Us as a
principally permitted use in single family zones in Kent.
2. An ADU may be established in a new or existing single family dwelling by the creation
within, addition to, or detached from the principal dwelling.
Comment: Designing an ADU into the construction of a new single family house
allows some people to qualify for mortgage loans and to make monthly housing payments.
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 legal until the owner files a
statement with the title of the property recorded with the King County Records and
Elections office. This statement shall be agreeable to the City Attorney's Office.
Comment: Owner occupancy is generally desired by neighbors to ensure
neighborhood stability and property maintenance. Requiring a statement with the County
Records and Elections office will assure that all potential purchasers of the property are
aware of the guidelines for maintaining a legal ADU in the residence.
6. If both the ADU or the principal unit ceases to be owner occupied for more than 6 months,
the ADU permit shall be considered revoked and the unit shall cease to be used as an
ADU.
7. The size of an ADU contained within or attached to an existing single family structure
shall be limited by its 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, whichever is smaller. A legal
guest cottage, as defined by Kent Zoning Code, 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.
Comment: The existing structure, lot size, and setbacks will limit the size of an attached
ADU. This does not put more limits on the size of an attached ADU than exists for an
addition to the same single family home. However, to assure that a detached AD U
structure is not built to an equal or greater size than the principal unit, a size limitation
is proposed for detached units. In addition, Kent Zoning Code allows guest cottages which
are an accessory, detached dwelling without any kitchen facilities. If such a unit can
comply with all the code and other requirements of the accessory housing ordinance, it
should not be denied that status because of its size.
8. One offstreet parking space per accessory unit is required in addition to the required
parking for the single family home. The Planning Director may waive this requirement
where there are special circumstances related to the property and its location (e.g.,
proximity to transit, adequate onstreet parking, etc..). The surface of a required ADU
offstreet parking space shall comply with Kent City Code 15.05.090.C.
Comment: Parking is often perceived as a potential problem by neighborhoods who
envision many cars parked on the street. By requiring an off-street parking space this
potential problem can be mitigated. City Code 15.05.090.C requires that offstreet parking
be paved with asphalt or equivalent material, to be approved by the city engineer.
Therefore, if the city engineer approves, the required ADU offstreet parking does not have
to be asphalt.
9. Every effort shall be made to avoid additional entrances or other visible changes on the
street facade of the house which indicate the presence of an ADU.
Comment: This is to maintain the dwelling's single family appearance. It also allows the
flexibility for a second entry on the street facade in cases where a side or rear entrance
is impractical.
10. A permit application must be completed and approved for all ADUs. The Planning
Department shall determine the application requirements for an ADU permit.
11. ADUs existing prior to the adoption of the accessory housing ordinance may be found to
be legal, if 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 described in Kent City Code.
12. 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.
Comment: Informational notification of an ADU serves two purposes. This information
not only lets them know that AD Us are legal now, but also allows them to help enforce the
requirements of their neighbor's ADU.
3OAcceshsg.a ra\araft2 cc.ord
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 AMENDMENT #ZCA-95-3 Betsv Czarkl
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 six 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
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Page 4
ACCESSORY HOUSING ORDINANCE - #ZCA-95-3
Betsy Czark, Planner, said several meetings have been held on this issue so she would not
review the ordinance in its entirety, but would discuss the basic potential changes since the May
22, 1995 meeting. She said the two changes involved surface parking and the size limitation of
the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
Ms. Czark said the proposed ordinance has no size limitation for an attached unit, other than by
the normal setback requirements, and a detached unit is limited to 800 square feet or 33 percent
of the principal unit, whichever is smaller. She explained 33 percent was used because other
jurisdictions used anywhere from 30 to 40 percent. A size limit is recommended for detached
ADU's so that a person with a large lot could not put two full sized houses on that single lot.
When asked if ADU's would be allowed a zero lot line considerations, discussions continued
regarding possibly excluding ADU's from the development standard.
Chair Morrill opened the public hearing.
Rodger Anderson, Seattle-King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115 Avenue NE,
Kirkland testified that he was pleased that Kent is also allowing accessory housing and wanted
to know if the Commission had considered allowing a grace period for non-complying proper-ties
to meet the permit requirements. Mr. Anderson said Federal Way recently adopted a one year
grace period. Ms. Czark said this concept was proposed at a Planning Commission workshop.
Commissioner Stringham added he felt the reason the grace period was not pursued was because
in the City of Seattle, only one person applied. Mr. Harris said staff would look favorably on
a one year grace period.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept accessory units as written by the Planning Department
with the exception of the size, to be 40 percent or less, with a one year grace period to comply
with necessary permits necessary. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion.
Commissioner Stringham asked if the 40 percent for meant for detached units or attached units.
Commissioner Nuss said it would apply to both. Commissioner Nuss read a statement to
supports the 40 percent of the principal square footage limitation for accessory units. She gave
reasons as depletion of the housing variety and affordability for students and seniors.
Commissioner Nuss said her decision was based on several ADU's she has visited throughout
western Washington.
Comments continued concerning the 40 percent limitation for ADU's. Commissioner Swingham
added that market demand would dictate the percentage, and no limitations on attached ADU's
would allow further flexibility and smaller units could still be built. Commissioner Nuss debated
that there is enough multifamily housing and all that would separate an ADU from a duplex is
that an ADU must be owner occupied in one unit. Commissioner Heineman agreed with
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZCA-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 1995
Page 5
that an ADU must be owner occupied in one unit. Commissioner Heineman agreed with
Commissioner Nuss' position, stating that removing the limitation of the size of the ADU creates
a duplex, and that staff's original size limit was 50 percent of the principal unit's square footage,
the same as King County's limit. Commissioner MacIsaac added that every structure is different
and that the City should allow as much flexibility as possible for attached units.
Ms. Czark confirmed that staff's original recommendation was 50 percent, but removed the
limitation on attached units per the Commission's request.
The motion was restated. Commission Nuss MOVED to accept staff's recommendation on
accessory housing, #ZCA-95-3, Accessory Housing Ordinance, as written, with the exception
of the size limitation to be changed to 40% or less of the principal unit, with a one year grace
period, in order to comply with necessary permits.
Commissioner Pattison asked for a ten minute recess to review the report. A recess was
declared at 8:10 pm.
The motion was DEFEATED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Nuss, Heineman Nay -
Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Dahle, Stringham, MacIsaac, Pattison, Chair Morrill.
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept staff's recommendation with the exception of
adding language allowing a one year grace period. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED the
motion.
Discussion: Commissioner Nuss said she wished to go on record as saying this is an abuse of
our citizens and students ability to establish affordability.
The motion CARRIED. Vote: Yea - Commissioners Dozier, Epperly, Dahle, Stringham,
MacIsaac, Pattison. Nay - Commissioners Nuss, Heineman. Abstained - Chair Morrill
GOOD OF THE ORDER - There were no items.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. The motion CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja s P. Hams
ecording Secretary
#ZCA-95-2 Cluster Housing & Related Development Techniques
#ZC4-95-3 Accessory Housing Ordinance
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November T 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accepe as complete4the Field
Improvements Project at the Riverbend Golf Complex, and
release retainage to Golf Landscaping 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. 3H
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November $, 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX FEES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Acceptance of new golf fees as proposed
by the Golf Advisory Board for the Riverbend Golf Complex.
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of memorandum to Parks Committee regarding
proposed fees
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff Parks Committee and Golf Advisory Board
(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
CITY OF KENT
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks Committee
FROM: John Hodgso , irector of Parks
DATE: October 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Fees at Riverbend Golf Complex
Staff has met with the Golf Advisory Board and S.S.M.D. regarding fees at the
Riverbend Golf Complex. We have discussed and are recommending the following:
Winter Golf Card: (1 8-holecourse only). This would allow unlimited golf Monday
through Friday from November 1, to February 29. Our objective is to increase weekday
play at the 18-hole course.
• Cost: $300.00 Seniors 62 and over/resident card holder
$350.00 All other golfers
Fee Increases: effective April 1, 1996 the following fees would be increased:
Current Proposed
• Range balls Small bucket 2.00 2.50
• Large bucket 4.00 4.50
• Mini Putt Youth/Senior 2.50 3.00
• Adult 3.50 4.00
• Par 3 Senior/Junior 4.00 5.00
All other golfers 5.00 6.00
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November !j. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ASBESTOS REMOVAL
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accepts complete Athe 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.
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 '}. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PARKS AND RECREATION CODE AMENDMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 32-y7
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 water-
craft, which provisions have been incorporated into a new
boating regulation code adopted concurrently with this
ordinance.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO_svl� YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
. ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
II
I�
». I
j.
I
li
ORDINANCE NO.
i.
�j
�i
I
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter
4 . 01 of the Kent City Code relating to "Parks
and Recreation" repealing certain sections
and redefining penalties for violations of
certain provisions of the Chapter.
WHEREAS, the City Council, concurrently with this
Ordinance is considering a new Chapter to the Kent City Code
relating to boating regulations, and
I'
WHEREAS, the new boating regulations contain provisions
which are duplicated in Chapter 4 . 01 , and therefore, provisions
of Chapter 4 . 01 need to be repealed, and
WHEREAS, the penalty provisions in Chapter 4 . 01 make
every violation of the Chapter a misdemeanor, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make certain
violations of Chapter 4 . 01 civil infractions, NOW THEREFORE,
`ea,96 cc-We
I,
i
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION 1 . Sections 4 . 01 . 070 and 4 . 01 . 200 of the Kent
City Code are hereby repealed in their entirety;
SECTION 2 . Section 4 . 01 . 220 of the Kent City Code,
entitled "Penalties" is hereby amended to read as follows :
Sec. 4 . 01. 220 . Penalties .
fnisdeffleane� l 1 e �y-�3a � (, year ±ft '
L 1-. .-0 A ! ($c nnn nG),
� F � 6r-3�6�fft6�-zj3air
vr-be h.
A. Civil Penalty. Except as provided in
Subsection B a violation of any provision of this Chapter shall
constitute a civil violation for which a monetary penalty may ba
assessed in the amount of two-hundred-fifty dollars (5250 00) .
Each separate day, or portion thereof , during which any violation
occurs shall constitute a separate violation . .
B . Misdemeanor. Any person who violates Sections
4 01 020 or 4 01 040 of this Chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five thousand
dollars (55 000 00) or by imprisonment not to exceed one year, or
2
by both such fine and imprisonment Each separate day or portion
thereof during which such violation occurs shall constitute a
separate violation.
SECTION 3 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force. a date more than 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 A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
3
li PASSED day of 1995 .
i�
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
Prkreg.ord
4
�/V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November �. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: BOATING REGULATIONS CODE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3249
establishing a new chapter to the Kent City Code entitled
"Boating Regulations" relating to boating on lakes within the
City of Kent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks 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. 3L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, establishing a new
Chapter, 4 . 06 , to the Kent City Code entitled
"Boating Regulations" relating to boating on
lakes within the City of Kent .
WHEREAS, the City will be annexing an area known as the
Meridian annexation area to the City of Kent effective January 1,
1996 ; and
WHEREAS, included in the Meridian annexation is Lake
Meridian which experiences substantial boating and other water
recreational activity; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have boating regulations to
adequately protect the public with regard to such boating and
water recreation at Lake Meridian and upon the annexation of the
new area to the city, King County regulations will no longer be
applicable to water recreation at Lake Meridian; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the
public ' s best interest to adopt a comprehensive boating
regulation code for the City; NOW THEREFORE,
load "pda4u m
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION 1 . There is hereby added to the Kent City
Code, a new Chapter, 4 . 06 , entitled "Boating Regulations" to read
as follows :
CHAPTER 4 . 06 . BOATING- REGULATIONS .
Sec . 4 . 06 . 010 . Application of regulations.
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to
all watercraft and related uses in and upon all lakes within the
geographical boundaries of the City of Kent . The provisions of
this chapter shall be construed to supplement United States laws
and state laws and regulations when not expressly inconsistent '
therewith.
Sec. 4 .06 . 020 . Definitions .
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms
shall have the meaning ascribed in this section:
A. "Authorized emergency watercraft". means any
authorized watercraft of the City' s police or fire departments,
the United States government, and State of Washington authorized
patrol boats or watercraft .
B . "City" means the City of Kent .
2
C. "Obstruction" means any matter which may in any way
blockade, interfere with or endanger any watercraft or impede
navigation including but not limited to rafts, log booms, trees ,
lumber, and other similar material or objects .
D . "Oil" means any oil or liquid, whether of animal ,
vegetable or mineral origin, or a mixture, compound or
distillation thereof .
E . "Operator" means a person who is in control or in
charge of a vessel or watercraft while it is in use .
F . "Owner" . means the person who has lawful possession
of a watercraft or obstruction by virtue of legal title or
equitable interest therein which entitles him or her to such
possession.
G. "Person, " when necessary, means and includes
natural persons, associations, copartnerships and corporations,
whether acting by themselves or by a servant , agent or employee;
the singular number, when necessary, means the plural, and the
masculine pronoun includes the feminine .
H. "Pier" means any pier, wharf, dock, float , gridiron
or other structure to promote the convenient loading or unloading
or other discharge of watercraft, or the moorage of watercraft .
I . "Police" or "Police department" means the Police
Department of the City of Kent .
J. "Restricted area" means an area that has been
marked in accordance with and as authorized by the law or
regulations of the City, to be used for certain designated
3
�r
11
purposes such as swimming and aquatic events or otherwise closed
to use by watercraft , the method of marking and designation of
which shall have been made by the City in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter.
K. "Skin diving" means any free swimming person and/or
any .person who uses an artificial or mechanical means to replace
his or .her air, including self-contained underwater breathing
apparatus (SCUBA diving) , snorkel tube equipment and free diving
gear.
L. "Watercraft" means every description of boat,
vessel, personal watercraft or similar craft :
1) twelve feet or greater with a beam of four feet
or more or
2) equipped with motor power meaning motor
propulsion machinery or an internal combustion engine regardless
of length or beam, used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water, or required to be registered by the Boat
Safety Act of 1971 . PROVIDED THAT this definition shall not
include authorized emergency watercraft or other authorized
watercraft or craft used for public safety or emergency and
rescue purposes .
M. "Water ski" means all forms, manners or means of
person or persons being towed behind a motor boat, including, but
not limited to, skis, tubes or surfboards .
4
Sec. 4 . 06 . 030 . Motor powered watercraft prohibited - Exception
Except on lakes otherwise specifically provided for in
this chapter, no motor powered watercraft shall be operated on
any lake within the City.
Sec . 4 . 06 . 040 . Negligent operation.
No person shall negligently operate any watercraft in a
manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or
property or at any rate of speed greater than will permit him or
her in the exercise of reasonable care to bring the watercraft to
a stop within the assured. clear distance ahead.
Sec . 4 . 06 . 050 . Reckless operation.
No person shall operate any watercraft in a reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or limb, or damage the property
of any person. A violation of this section shall constitute a
misdemeanor as defined in this chapter .
Sec . 4 . 06 . 060 . Required distance from power craft .to swimmers
and row boats.
It is unlawful for any motor powered watercraft to be
operated while the propeller is engaged within fifty feet of any
swimmer or any row boat , canoe or other water conveyances .
5
Sec. 4 . 06 . 070 . Dumping trash in lakes prohibited.
The dumping, depositing, placing or leaving of any
garbage, ashes, debris, brush or other material into any lake, is
prohibited.
Sec . 4 . 06 . 080 . Floating objects adrift.
All watercraft, or any other article of value found
adrift in any lake in the City, may be taken into possession and
removed by the police or other authorized City official or agent
and shall be subject to reclamation by the owner thereof, on
payment by him or her to the City of any expenses incurred by the
City and in case of failure to reclaim may be sold or disposed of
according to law.
Sec. 4 . 06 . 090 . Sunken watercraft.
When any watercraft or obstruction has been. sunk or
grounded, or has been delayed in such manner as to stop or
seriously interfere with or endanger navigation, the police may
order the same immediately removed and if the owner, or other
person in charge thereof, after being so ordered, does not
proceed immediately with such removal, the police or other
authorized city official or agent may take immediate possession
thereof and remove the same, using such methods as in his or her
judgment will prevent unnecessary damage to such watercraft or
obstruction, and the expense incurred by the City in such removal
shall be paid by the owner or other person in charge of such
6
watercraft or obstruction; and in case of failure to pay the
same, the City may maintain an action for the recovery thereof .
Sec . 4 . 06 . 100 . Intoxication.
A. It is unlawful for any person who is under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic or habit-forming
drugs to operate or be in actual physical control of any
watercraft .
B . It is -unlawful for the owner of any watercraft or
any person having charge or control of such to authorize or
knowingly permit the same to be operated by any person who is
under the influence of intoxicating liquor, narcotic of habit-
forming drugs .
C. Whenever it appears reasonably certain to any
police officer that any person under the influence of, or
affected by the use of, intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic
drug is about to operate a watercraft in violation of subsection
A above, said officer may take reasonable measures to prevent any ,
such person from so doing.
D. A violation of this section shall constitute a
misdemeanor as defined in this chapter.
Sec. 4 . 06 .110 . Incapacity of operator.
It is unlawful for the owner of any watercraft or any
person having charge or control of such to authorize or knowingly
permit the same to be operated by any person who by reason of
7
If
tI
II
Ili physical or mental disability is incapable of operating such
i
I
I watercraft under the prevailing circumstances .
l
ISec . 4 . 06 . 120 . Accidents .
The operator of watercraft involved in an accident
!I resulting in injury or death to any person or in damage to.
property shall immediately stop such watercraft at the scene of
such accident and shall give his or her name, address, and the i
name and/or number .of his or her watercraft, and the name and
i
address of the owner, to the person struck or the operator or
occupants of the watercraft collided with or property damaged, j
I and shall render to any person injured in such accident
reasonable assistance .
I
I �
jj Sec . 4 . 06 .130 . Accident reports.
l The owner or operator of any watercraft shall file a
i
ii written report within forty-eight hours with the police i
department of any accident involving death or personal injury
requiring medical treatment or property damage in excess of two
'' hundred dollars in which such watercraft shall have been -involved
on any lake of the City.
ii
{i
I� Sec. 4 . 06 .140 . overloading.
I' A. No watercraft shall be loaded with passengers or
I
j� cargo beyond its safe carrying capacity nor carry passengers in
I
�I
'I
8
1
it
�I
an unsafe manner taking into consideration weather and other
existing operating conditions .
I� B . Whenever it appears reasonably certain to any
police officer than any person is operating a watercraft loaded
beyond its safe capacity, said officer may take reasonable
measures to prevent any such. person from so operating the craft .
Sec . 4 . 06 .150 . Watercraft operation within or bordering park
property.
No person shall have, keep or operate any boat, float,
raft, or watercraft in or upon any lake, within the limits of any
park property, or 'launch the same at any point upon the shores
thereof bordering upon any park property, except at places set
apart for such purposes by the parks and recreation department
and so designated by signs .
Sec . 4 . 06 .160 . Restricted areas .
In the interests of safe navigation, life safety and
the protection of property, the city may designate restricted
areas and the purpose for which same shall be used on any lake
authorized for watercraft use . No person shall operate a
n
watercraft within a restricted area; provided, . that this section
�! shall not apply to watercraft engaged in or accompanying the
I
j activity to which the area is restricted, nor to patrol or rescue
I craft or in the case of an emergency.
n
I'
I
9
i
I!i
i
I
Sec. 4 . 06 .170 . Swimming.
j; Swimming in the waters of the City shall be confined
I
to : I
A. Restricted swimming areas, or 1
'. B. To within a distance of fifty feet from the shore,
l or a pier except when the swimmer is accompanied by a watercraft
j relative to water skiing or related watercraft activities .
u
I
Sec . 4 . 06 .180 . Skin diving.
Skin diving shall be prohibited in all lakes in the
I
'I City .except as necessary for public employees and their agents or
i
other authorized personnel to perform their duties or in the case
of an emergency. kk
Sec. 4 . 06 .190 . Water skiing.
Water skiing is prohibited on all City lakes in the
i
City except for Lake Meridian which shall be regulated as
I
follows :
A. No watercraft which has in tow a person on water
H skis, tube, surfboard or similar contrivance shall be operated or
i
propelled in the waters of the City unless such watercraft is
occupied by at least two competent persons .
kB . It is unlawful to water ski within one hundred
i
I+ yards of shore . Water skiers may start at and return to shore by
I
means of the most expeditious route . For purposes of starting at
V
�! 10
i
ii
I'
i
I .
i
'I
I�
I'I
and returning to shore, water skiers may temporarily exceed the
,i I
speed limit of eight miles per hour.
C. No operator of a watercraft shall have in tow a
;i
jj person on water skis, tube, surfboard or similar contrivance from
i
sunset to sunrise-
D. All persons being towed by watercraft shall wear
an adequate flotation device .
E . All watercraft having in tow or otherwise
assisting a person on water skis, tubes, surfboards or similar
contrivance shall comply with Sections 4 . 06 . 040 , 4 . 06 . 050 and
i
4 . 06 . 060 .
F. Regulations stated in subsections A and D of this
section shall not apply to watercraft used in water ski
tournaments, competitions, expositions, or trials therefore,
which have been duly authorized by the City.
Sec . 4 . 06 .200 . Lake Fenwick - Motor-powered watercraft prohibited
- Exception.
It is unlawful to use or operate any watercraft with
i motor power on 'Lake Fenwick, except electric fishing trolling
motors, and except as necessary for public employees and their
agents or construction company employees to perform their
authorized duties or in case of an emergency.
i;
I
i
�j 11
I'
I,I
,I
II
I
Sec. 4 . 06 .210 . Lake Meridian - Motor powered watercraft
ifrestrictions .
The following rules and regulations are adopted for the
j� use of motor-powered watercraft on Lake Meridian:
A. It is unlawful to use or operate any watercraft
1powered by motor power on Lake Meridian, except that watercraft
j with the following engines will be permitted: j
�I 1 . Water-cooled outboard engines of stock
manufacture or stock manufactured inboard engines with outboard
drive units (inboard - outboards) which vent all exhaust gases
through the lower drive unit in conjunction with cooling water
and/or vent at a point on the drive unit which is under water at
all times ; or watercooled direct drive inboard engines equipped
with a muffler or silencer of sufficient size and capacity, to
effectively muffle and reduce noise . This includes both
propeller and jet propulsion watercraft .
i 2 . Air-cooled outboard or inboard engines of
I
stock manufacture rated by the manufacturer at ten horsepower or
I
!I less .
if 3 . Electric fishing trolling motors .
It is unlawful to operate any watercraft powered
i
by engines which are worn, damaged or modified in such a manner I
as to permit the noise level of exhaust gases or air intake
j; devices to be increased above seventy-four decibels on the dB (A)
:f
' scale is prohibited.
it
I�
12
i
.I
i
I!
i I
I; C. Water skiers are prohibited from starting or
stopping within 200 feet of the City-owned shoreline of Lake
Meridian Park which includes the swimming beach and boat
launching areas of the park.
D. Water skiing will be limited to the hours of 9 : 00
a .m. to 6 : 00 p .m.
E . No watercraft shall operate in excess of eight
miles per hour after 6 : 00 p .m. until the hour of 9 : 00 a .m. and
not . in excess of thirty-five miles per hour from 9 : 00 a.m. to
6 : 00 .m.
p i
F. Watercraft exceeding speeds of eight miles per
i
hour shall remain at least two hundred feet from the shoreline
and one hundred feet from other watercraft and swimmers and shall
proceed around the lake in a counterclockwise direction.
G. Craft towing persons on water skis, tubes,
surfboards, or similar contrivance shall carry a competent
observer in addition to the driver or operator.
i
H. All persons on water skis, tubes, surfboards or
similar contrivance will wear a United States Coast Guard
approved personal flotation device .
!i I . All boats operating on Lake Meridian shall carry a
United States Coast Guard approved life preserver or throwable
cushion in good condition for each person in the craft .
I I
J. All persons in watercraft towing persons on water
skis, tubes , surfboards , or similar contrivance will remain
seated at all times .
13
I �
i
I�
ii
I
I
K. Motor-powered watercraft operating after sundown I
shall be equipped with and have lit proper running lights .
i
I I
L. Reckless operation as specified in Section
I' 4 . 06 . 050, as amended. All watercraft shall be operated in a
f
proper manner and there shall be no stunting, burning doughnuts
or squirreling allowed in order that the lives and property of
others be protected.
M. Negligent operation as specified in Section
! 4 . 06 . 040 as amended.
i
N. The anchorage or moorage of unoccupied watercraft
is prohibited except when tied to a pier or dock with the
permission of the owner of the pier or dock.
O. No remote controlled watercraft powered by
internal combustion engines shall operate before 9 : 00 a.m. or
I
after 6 : 00 p.m.
P . Any violation of this section constitutes a
misdemeanor as defined in this chapter.
Q. Skin diving is prohibited except as ,necessary for
i
public employees and their agents or other authorized personnel
it
I
to perform their duties or in the case of 'an emergency.
'I
Ii Sec. 4 . 06 .220 . Equipment and numbering.
' I
All watercraft shall carry the equipment required by
any applicable United States laws as now or hereafter amended,
and shall be numbered or designated in accordance with any
applicable United States laws as now or hereafter amended.
I
14
I! �
Sec. 4 . 06 .230 . Life preservers and running lights .
Federal regulations covering equipping of watercraft
�I with life preservers for each passenger, and also use of running
I�
lights for night operation, shall be strictly complied with.
ii
I'
Sec . 4 . 06 . 240 . Oil .
No owner, operator or other person in charge of any
watercraft, and no person along or upon the shore of the waters
of the City, shall spill, throw, - pump or otherwise cause oil of
any description to be or float upon the waters of the City. Any
person causing oil to be upon the waters of the City as aforesaid
shall remove the same and upon his or her failure to do so, the
same may be removed by the City or other appropriate agency and
the expense thereof shall be paid by and recoverable from the
person causing said oil to be upon the water. The payment of
such sum or the maintenance of an action therefore, shall -not be
deemed to exempt such person from prosecution for causing such
oil spillage .
I'
Sec . 4 . 06 .250 . Nuisances .
Sunken watercraft, refuse of all kinds, structures or
pieces of any structure, timber, logs, piles, boom sticks,
!I
lumber, boxes, empty containers and oil of any kind floating
uncontrolled on the water, and all other substances or articles
jj of a similar nature, are hereby declared to be public nuisances i
and it is unlawful for any person to throw or place in, or cause
i
Ij 15
I
it
it
i,
II
I
I
or permit to be thrown or placed, any of the above named articles i
or substances in any lake in the City, or upon the shores thereof
or in such position that same may or can be washed into said
lakes of the City, either by storms, floods, or otherwise . Any
i
person causing or permitting said nuisances to be placed as
aforesaid shall remove the same and upon his or her failure to do
so, the same may be removed by the City or other appropriate
agency and the- expense thereof shall be paid by and recoverable
from the person creating said nuisance . In all cases such
nuisances may be abated in the manner provided by law. The
I
abatement of any such public nuisances shall not excuse the
person responsible therefore from prosecution hereunder.
Sec . 4 . 06 .260 . Public health.
All watercraft entering or in any lake in the City
shall comply with the applicable public health laws and
i
regulations of the United States, the state of Washington and its
political subdivisions .
i
i
Sec. 4 . 06 . 270 . Liability for damages .
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to
release any person owning or controlling any watercraft, pier,
II' obstruction or other structure, from any liability for damages,
l
and the safeguards to life and property required in this chapter
shall not be construed as relieving any person from installing
I,
and maintaining all other safeguards that may be required by law.
16
i
it
I
j
I
II
II Sec . 4 . 06 .280 . Authorized emergency and patrol watercraft.
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to
the operation of any and all watercraft on any lake in the City
except that they shall not apply to any emergency and patrol
watercraft performing the authorized duties for which such
emergency and patrol watercraft were established.
Sec . 4 . 06 .290 . Directing traffic, emergency powers .
.The police are hereby authorized to direct all
watercraft traffic either in person or by means of visible or
audible signal in conformance with the provisions of this
chapter; provided, that where necessary to expedite watercraft
traffic, or to prevent or eliminate congestion or to safeguard
persons or property, such officers and other authorized officers
of appropriate governmental agencies or authorities, may direct
watercraft traffic as conditions may require, notwithstanding the
provisions of this chapter.
Sec . 4 . 06 .300 . Penalties .
A. Civil Penalty. Except as provided in Subsection B,
a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall
constitute a civil violation for which a monetary penalty may be
assessed in the amount of two-hundred-fifty dollars ($250 . 00) .
Each separate day, or portion thereof, during which any violation
is occurs shall constitute a separate violation .
I
I
17
1
i,
i
I'
B . Misdemeanor. Any violation of any provision
established in this chapter as a misdemeanor shall constitute a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5, 000 . 00) or by imprisonment not to exceed one year, or
by both such fine and imprisonment . Each separate day or portion
thereof during which such violation occurs shall constitute a
separate violation.
Sec . 4 . 06 .310 . Authority of officers to board watercraft
Commissioned officers of the City are hereby given the
authority to board any watercraft found underway on any lake of
the City for the purpose of inspection and enforcement of this
chapter.
Sec. 4 . 06 .320 . Interlocal cooperation.
Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from
entering into interlocal agreements with cities and towns for the
administration and enforcement of this chapter.
Sec . 4 . 06 . 330 . Enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the police department to
enforce all sections of this chapter.
SECTION 2. Sever ability. 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
18
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 January, 1, 1996, a date more than 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 A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 1995 .
APPROVED day of 1995 .
_. 19
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
boatreg.ord -
20
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 1. 1995
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WEST HILL PLAZA REZONE RZ-95-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to set November 21, 1995,
as the date for a public meeting to consider the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation of approval for a rezone application
(RZ-95-2) by Harmit S. Lamba. The property is located at
24606 - 24700 Military Road S.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO y YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
1 1
Kent City Council Meeting
n Date November 1. 1995
�eml0-//, ) Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: COUNCIL ABSENCE t
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Councilmember Paul Mann has requested
an excused absence from the November 7, 1995, City Council
meeting, as he will be unable to attend.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Councilmember Mann
4. RECOMMENDED BY:
(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. 3N
MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: PAUL MANN, COUNCILMEMBER
DATE: OCTOBER 31, 1995
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL EXCUSED ABSENCE
I would like to request an excused absence from the November 7, 1995 City Council meeting . I
will be unable to attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
PM.jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November "}. 1995
Category Other Business
�v
1. SUBJECT: LID 346 BOND SALE `1
S
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their October 25, 1995 eting, the
Operations Committee recommended adoption of a Bo d Ordinance
and authorization for the Mayor to sign a purcha a contract in
the amount of $518, 162 for LID 346 bonds. The and proceeds
will be used to provide long-term financing for 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
assessment to property owners of 5. 50 percent. The Finance
ni rar-+-o= and Dick King of -
chnrt prPca;}
3 . EXHIBITS: Lehman Brothers pricing information, bond ordinance,
and purchase contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:Finance Staff
(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
to adopt Bond dinance No. authorizing the Mayor to sign
a purchase contract with Lehman Brothers for LID 346 bonds.
DISCUSSION: nn
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
^95 -ram:=, LE1,r9HrI nPOTHEFS SEATTLE - CIT'( F I<E IT
EHNLAN BROTHERS
MEMORANDUM
To: May Miller
FROM: Richard B. KingQJ�
i
DATz: October 31, 1995
SUBJECT: LID No. 346 Proposed Pricing
Key
I have received input from our underwriters, and I have
spokinteren to rates underwriters
ndtor rwrite s at LID Ban
and SeaFirst to get their thoughts on the appropriate
According to Jim Nelson, his firm likely will not be in our selling group. Candidly, both of the
banks would prefer this outcome, since it will provide each with additional bonds! The re-
offering yields listed below assume we will purchase bonds at a 2% discount from the City, which
John Hillman seemed to think would be acceptable. Your final assessment roll typically includes
money for issuance costs, so this approach should work. We will be able to offer bonds to
prospective investors at a price of par, or 100% of their face value.
Preliminary Re-Offering Yields
Maturity Yield
Maturity Yield
1996 4.00%
2001 5.00%
1997 4.2'5
2002 5.10
1998
4.50 2003 5.20
�_l
1999 4:70 ,
2004 530
1— 2005 5.40 L.
2000
The average interest rate with this scale of re-offering yields is 5.00%, which would provide an
assessment rate of 5.50%. With regard to our proposed underwriting discount, we would suggest
2.0%, or $10,363. The largest component of the discount is the takedown, which represents the
sales commissions paid to the salespersons marketing the issue. Measured as a percentage of the
principal amount, a larger issue would have a smaller underwriting discount.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Finally, and most importantly, Happy
Halloween.
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE relating to Local Improvement District
No. 346; fixing the amount, form, date, interest rates,
maturity and denominations of the Local Improvement
District No. 346 Bonds; providing for the sale and
delivery thereof to Lehman Brothers Inc. in Seattle,
Washington; and fixing the interest rate on Local
Improvement District No. 346 assessment installments.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
as follows:
Section 1. Authorization and Description of Bonds. The total
amount of the assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 346
(the "District") in the City of Kent, Washington (the "City") ,
created under Ordinance No. 3186, passed October 4, 1994, was
$674 , 120. The 30-day period for making cash payments of
assessments without interest in the District expired on June 4,
1995, and the total amount of assessments paid in cash was
$155, 958, leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment
roll in the sum of $518, 162 . Local Improvement District No. 346
Bonds (the "Bonds") shall, therefore, be issued in the total
principal sum of $518, 162 . The Bonds shall be dated November 1,
1995, shall mature on November 1, 2007, and shall be numbered from
1 to 103 , inclusive, in the manner and with any additional
designation as the Bond Registrar (collectively, the fiscal
agencies of the State of Washington located in Seattle, Washington,
and New York, New York) deems necessary for the purpose of
identification. Bond No. 1 shall be in the denomination of $8, 162
0207832.01 -
and Bonds Nos. 2 to 103 , inclusive, shall be in the denomination of
$5, 000. 00 each. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a
360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds shall bear
interest, payable annually on November 1 of each year beginning
November 1, 1996, in accordance with the following schedule:
Bond Numbers Interest
(inclusive) Amounts Rates
-
1 to 11 $58 , 162
12 to 23 60, 000
24 to 36 65, 000
37 to 49 65 , 000
50 to 62 65, 000
63 to 71 45 , 000
72 to 79 40, 000
80 to 87 40, 000
88 to 95 40, 000
96 to 103 40, 000
Section 2 . Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds
shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and
interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by
the'Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register") . Such Bond Register shall
contain the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and
the principal amount and number of each of the Bonds held by each
owner.
Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner
provided thereon and surrendered to the Bond Registrar. The
transfer of a Bond shall be by the Bond Registrar's. receiving the
Bond to be transferred, cancelling it and issuing a new certificate
in the form of the Bonds to the transferee after registering the
name and address of the transferee on the Bond Register. The new
certificate shall bear the same Bond number as the transferred Bond
but may have a different inventory reference number or control
0207832.01
-2-
number. Any transfer shall be without cost to the owner or
transferee. The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to transfer F
any Bond during the 15 days preceding any principal payment or
redemption date.
Section 3 . Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest
on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the Local Improvement
Fund, District No. 346 (the "Bond Fund") , and from. the Local
Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in
lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the
Bonds shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the registered
owners on the interest payment date at the addresses appearing on
the Bond Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the
interest payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable
upon presentation and surrender of the Bonds by the registered
owners at either of the principal offices of the Bond Registrar, at
the option of the owners.
Section 4 . Redemption Provisions. The City reserves the
right to redeem the Bonds prior to their stated maturity on any
interest payment date, in numerical order, lowest numbers first, at
par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption,
whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Bond Fund to pay
the Bonds so called and all earlier numbered Bonds over and above
the amount required for the payment of the interest payable on that
interest payment date on all unpaid Bonds.
All Bonds redeemed under this section shall be canceled.
Section 5 . Notice of Redemption. The City shall cause notice
of any intended redemption of Bonds to be given not less than 10
0207832.01
-3-
nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of any
Bond to be redeemed at the address appearing on the Bond Register
at the time the Bond Registrar prepares the notice, and the
requirements of this sentence shall be deemed to have been
fulfilled when notice has been mailed as so, provided, whether or
not it is actually received by the owner of any Bond. Interest on
Bonds called. for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed
for redemption unless the Bond or Bonds called are not redeemed
when presented pursuant to the call . In addition, the redemption
notice shall be mailed within the same period, postage prepaid, to
Lehman Brothers Inc. at its principal office in Seattle,
Washington, or its successor, and to such other persons and with
such additional information as the City Finance Division Director
shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a
condition precedent to the redemption of Bonds.
Section 6 . Failure to Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not
redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or call date, the
City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same
rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or call date
until that Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or
until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the
Bond Fund and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice
of that call to the registered owner of each of those unpaid Bonds.
Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be
printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form
consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law,
0207832.01
-4-
shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of
whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the
City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or
printed thereon.
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the
following form, manually signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be
valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of
this ordinance:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the fully registered City of
Kent, Washington, Local Improvement District No. 346
Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance.
Washington State Fiscal Agency
Bond Registrar
By
Authorized Signer
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be
conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly
executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the
benefits of this ordinance.
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds
ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before
the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are authenticated
or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those
Bonds nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and,
when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on
the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on
behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing
0207832.01
-5-
of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds,
although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of
issuance of the Bond.
Section 8 . Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or
cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office,
sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds
which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The
Bond . Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to
authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred in accordance with the
provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's
paying agent for the Bonds and to carry out all of the Bond
Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City
Ordinance No. 2418 establishing a system of registration for the
City's bonds and obligations.
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its
representations contained in the Bond Registrar's Certificates of
Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the
owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not
the Bond Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as
depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act
as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any
committee formed to protect the rights of Bond owners.
Section 9 . Bonds Negotiable. The Bonds shall be negotiable
instruments to the extent provided by RCW 62A. 8-102 and 62A. 8-105 .
Section 10. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on
Bonds. The City covenants that it will take all actions necessary
to prevent interest on the Bonds from being included in gross
0207832.01
-6-
income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take
any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or
other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Bonds at any
time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the
Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax
purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to the extent the
arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code") , is applicable to the Bonds,
take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having
complied) with that requirement in connection with the Bonds,
including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the
City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable
arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under
Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds from being
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City
certifies that it has not been notified of any listing or proposed
listing by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that it is a
bond issuer whose arbitrage certifications may not be relied upon.
Section 11. Use of Bond Proceeds. The accrued interest on
the Bonds received from the Bond purchaser shall be used to pay
debt service on the Bonds on the first interest payment date. The
principal proceeds of the Bonds shall be used to pay costs of
completed construction of the improvements in the District and to
pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. Until needed to pay those
costs, the City may invest principal proceeds temporarily in any
legal investment, and the investment earnings may be retained in
the Bond Fund and be spent for the purposes of that fund, and
0207932.01
-7-
earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement may be used
for those tax or rebate purposes.
Section 12 . Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. Lehman
Brothers Inc. of Seattle, Washington, has presented a purchase
contract (the "Bond Purchase Contract") to the City offering to
purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in the
Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on
file with the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this
reference. The City Council finds that entering into the Bond
Purchase Contract is in the City's best interest and therefore
accepts the offer contained therein and authorizes its execution by
City officials .
The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be
delivered to the purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase
Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper &
Shefelman, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding
the Bonds printed on each definitive Bond. Except as provided in
the Bond Purchase Contract, bond counsel shall not be required to
review and shall express no opinion concerning the completeness or
accuracy of any official statement, offering circular or other
sales or disclosure material issued or used in connection with the
Bonds, and bond counsdl's opinion shall so state.
The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do
everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Bonds to the
purchaser, including without limitation the execution of the
Official Statement on behalf of the City, and for the proper
application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof.
o2mas2.oi
-8-
Section 13 . Temporary Bond. Pending the printing, execution
and delivery to the purchaser of definitive Bonds, the City may
cause to be executed and delivered to the purchaser a single
temporary Bond in the total principal amount of the Bonds. The
temporary Bond shall bear the same date of issuance, interest
rates, principal payment dates and terms and covenants as the
definitive Bonds, shall be issued as a fully registered Bond in the
name of the purchaser, and otherwise shall be in a form acceptable
to the purchaser. The temporary Bond shall be exchanged for
definitive Bonds as soon as they are printed, executed and
available for delivery.
Section 14 . Fixing Interest Rate on Assessments. The
interest rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the
special assessments in the District is revised and fixed at the
rate of % per annum.
Section 15. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance
shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its
0207832.01
-9-
passage and five (5) days following its publication as required by
law.
By
JIM WHITE, Mayor
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Special Counsel and Bond
Counsel for the City
Passed the day of , 1995 .
Approved the day of 1995.
Published the day of , 1995.
I certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and
F approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk
0207832.01
-10-
$5189162
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
LOCAL IMTROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 346 BONDS
BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT
November 7, 1995
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned (the "Underwriter") hereby offers to enter into this Bond
Purchase Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement") with the City of Kent,
Washington(the "City"), which upon the City's acceptance hereof will be binding upon
the City and the Underwriter. This offer is made subject to the City's acceptance by
execution of this Bond Purchase Agreement and its delivery to the Underwriter on or
before 11:59 P.M., Pacific Standard Time, November 7, 1995, and, if not so accepted,
will be subject to withdrawal by the Underwriter upon notice delivered by the
Underwriter to the City at any time prior to the acceptance hereof by the City. All
capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall be as defined in Ordinance No.
, adopted by the City Council on November 7, 1995 (the "Ordinance") and the
Official Statement (as hereafter defined).
1. Purchase and Sale. Subject to the terms and conditions and upon the
basis of the representations, warranties and agreements hereinafter set forth, the
Underwriter hereby agrees to purchase from the City for offering to the public, and the
City hereby agrees to sell to the Underwriter for such purpose, all (but not less than all)
of the City's $518,162 Local Improvement District No. 346 Bonds (the "Bonds"). The
Bonds shall be dated November 1, 1995; shall mature on November 1, 2007.; shall be
issued in fully registered form; shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each (except
Bond No. 1, which shall be in the denomination of $8,162); shall be numbered
consecutively from 1 through 103; shall bear interest at the rates set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto, such interest being payable on November 1, 1995, and annually
thereafter on each November 1 to the date such Bonds mature or are redeemed; and
shall be subject to redemption in numerical order (lowest numbers first), on any
interest payment date, at the price of par plus accrued interest, if any, to the date fixed
for redemption, in such amounts as the Finance Division Director has money in the
Bond Fund over and above amounts required to pay currently maturing installments of
interest on the Bonds. The aggregate purchase price of the Bonds shall be the purchase
RBF.'"53040.025
price set forth in Exhibit A hereto, plus interest accrued (as described in Exhibit A) on
the Bonds from their date to the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined).
2. The Official Statement and Authorizing Instruments. The Bonds shall
be otherwise as described in the Official Statement of the City, dated the date hereof,
relating to the Bonds, which, together with all appendices thereto, and with such
changes therein and supplements thereto that are consented to in writing by the
Underwriter, is herein called the "Official Statement," and shall be issued and secured
under the Ordinance. The City authorizes the use of the Official Statement in
connection with the public offering and sale of the Bonds. The City also approves the
use by the Underwriter, before the date hereof, of the preliminary Official Statement,
dated October 27, 1995, relating to the Bonds, which together with the appendices
attached thereto, is herein referred to as the "Preliminary Official Statement," in
connection with the public offering of the Bonds.
Promptly after the acceptance hereof by the City, the City shall cause to be
delivered to the Underwriter copies of the final Official Statement (together with the
appendices attached thereto) dated the date hereof.
The City hereby authorizes the Underwriter, and the Underwriter agrees at its
own expense, to file one copy of the Official Statement, together with any supplement
or amendment thereto, with at least one of the nationally recognized municipal
securities information repositories designated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and two copies of the Official Statement (with any required forms) to the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") or its designee pursuant to MSRB
Rule G-36 no later than ten business days following the date hereof.
3. Public Offering. The Underwriter agrees to make a bona fide public
offering of all the Bonds initially at the public offering prices (or yields) set forth on
the cover page of the Official Statement, provided that the initial public offering prices
(or yields) may be changed, from time to time, by the Underwriter as it deems
necessary in connection with the marketing of the Bonds.
4. Representations, Covenants and Warranties. The City represents,
covenants and warrants to the Underwriter that:
(a) The Ordinance and this Bond Purchase Agreement are legal, valid
and binding special obligations of the City enforceable against the City in
accordance with their terms except as enforceability may be limited by
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws
affecting creditors' rights or contractual obligations generally and by the
exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and no authorization or
approval is required for the execution and delivery of the Ordinance or this
Bond Purchase Agreement by the City, except such authorizations or approvals
2
as shall have been obtained at or prior to the Closing, copies of which shall be
delivered to the Underwriter at the Closing.
(b) Except for the omission of such information that is dependent
upon the final pricing of the Bonds for completion, the Preliminary Official
Statement was, as of its date, true and correct in all material respects and did not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact
necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
(c) The Official Statement is and at all times subsequent hereto up to
and including the Closing Date will be, true and correct in all material respects
and does not and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state any material fact necessary to make the statements and information
therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading.
(d) The City has duly authorized and approved the execution of the
Official Statement by the Mayor or his designee, including any amendments
thereto under the terms of this Bond Purchase Agreement.
(e) The City covenants and agrees to cause sufficient quantities of the
Official Statement to be delivered to the Underwriter to enable the Underwriter
to comply with the requirements of MSRB Rule G-32, without charge, within
seven business days of the date hereof and, if the Closing Date is less than
seven business days after the date hereof, upon request of the Underwriter, in
sufficient time to accompany any confirmation requesting payment from any
customers of the Underwriter.
(f) The City further covenants and agrees that if, after the date hereof
and until 25 days after the Closing Date, any event shall occur as a result of
which it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to make the
statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were
made when the Official Statement is delivered to a purchaser, not misleading, or
if it is necessary to amend or supplement the Official Statement to comply with
law, the City shall notify the Underwriter and provide the Underwriter with
such information as it may from time to time request, and to forthwith prepare
and furnish, at its own expense (in a form and manner approved by the
Underwriter), a reasonable number of copies of either amendments or
supplements to the Official Statement so that the statements in the Official
Statement as so amended and supplemented will not, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made when the Official Statement is
delivered to a purchaser, be misleading or so that the Official Statement will
comply with applicable law.
(g) The City will advise the Underwriter promptly of the institution of
any proceedings known to it by any governmental agency prohibiting or
otherwise affecting the use of the Official Statement in connection with the
offering, sale or distribution of the Bonds.
(h) When delivered to The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") for
the account of the Underwriter and paid for in full in accordance with the terms
of this Bond Purchase Agreement, the Bonds (i) will have been duly authorized,
executed, issued and delivered by the City, and (ii) will constitute valid, legally
binding special obligations of the City except as enforceability may be limited
by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws
affecting creditors' rights or contractual obligations generally to the extent
constitutionally applicable and by the exercise of judicial discretion in
appropriate cases.
(i) As of the time of acceptance hereof and as of the Closing, and
except as disclosed in the Official Statement, to the knowledge of the City, no
litigation is pending or is threatened in any court that (i) seeks to restrain or
enjoin the issuance, sale or delivery of any of the Bonds, (ii) contests or affects
the validity of the Bonds, the Ordinance, this Bond Purchase Agreement, the
special assessments levied against property in Local Improvement District No.
346, the City's pledge of such special assessments to the payment of the Bonds,
the City's Local Improvement Guaranty Fund or the City's pledge of such fund
to the payment of the Bonds, (iii) contests in any way, the completeness,
accuracy or fairness of the Official Statement, or (iv) in any material respect
might affect adversely the transactions contemplated herein, in the Ordinance or
in the Official Statement.
0) The City will furnish such information, execute such instruments
and take such other action in cooperation with the Underwriter as they may
reasonably request to qualify the Bonds for offer and sale under the Blue Sky or
other securities laws and regulations of such states and other jurisdictions of the
United States as the Underwriter may designate, except the City shall not be
required in connection therewith or as a condition thereof to execute a general
consent to service of process or to qualify to do business as a foreign
corporation in any state.
5. The Closing. At 8:00 A.M., Pacific Standard Time, on November 21,
1995, or at such other time or on such earlier or later business day as shall have been
mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter (the "Closing Date"), the City
will deliver to the Underwriter the Bonds, duly executed and authenticated, through the
facilities of DTC in New York, New York or such other place to be mutually agreed
upon by the City and the Underwriter, and shall deliver to the Underwriter the
documents mentioned in Section 6 hereof, at such place in Seattle, Washington, as may
4
be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Underwriter. The Underwriter will accept
such delivery and pay the purchase price of the Bonds as set forth in Section 1 hereof
by certified check or by wire in immediately available federal funds. The payment and
delivery of the Bonds, together with the delivery of the aforementioned documents, is
herein called the "Closing". The Bonds shall be made available to the Underwriter at
the offices of DTC at least one business day before the Closing for purposes of
inspection, and are to be left with DTC for safekeeping until release at Closing. The
Underwriter acknowledges that .the City is to have no responsibility for such
safekeeping of the Bonds.
6. Closing Conditions. The Underwriter has entered into this Bond
Purchase Agreement in reliance upon the representations and warranties herein and the
performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, both as of the date hereof and as
of the Closing Date. The Underwriter's obligations under this Bond Purchase
Agreement are and shall be subject to the performance by the City of its obligations to
be performed hereunder and under the documents mentioned in this Section 6, at or
prior to the Closing, and also shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The representations and warranties of the City contained herein
shall be true, complete and correct in all material respects at the date hereof and
on the Closing Date, as if made on and as of the Closing Date.
(b) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive three
copies of the final Official Statement manually executed on behalf of the City
by the'Mayor; provided, that as promptly as practicable after the Closing Date,
such reasonable number of certified or conformed copies of the foregoing as the
Underwriter may request.
(c) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive a copy of
the Ordinance certified by the City Clerk as being a true copy thereof.
(d) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive a
certificate from the City's Finance Division Director stating that the Official
Statement was, as of its date, true and correct in all material respects and did not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact
necessary to make the statements and information therein contained, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
(e) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive the
approving opinion of Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Bond Counsel to the City, as
to the Bonds, dated the Closing Date and substantially in the form included in
the Official Statement as Appendix A, and an opinion, dated the Closing Date
and addressed to the Underwriter, of Perkins Coie, counsel to the Underwriter,
in a form acceptable to the Underwriter.
5
(f) At or prior to the Closing, the Underwriter shall receive such
additional certificates, instruments and other documents as the Underwriter may
reasonably deem necessary to evidence the truth and accuracy as of the time of
the Closing of the representations of the City and the due performance or
satisfaction by the City at or prior to such time of all agreements then to be
performed and all conditions then to be satisfied by the City.
7. Termination of Contract. In recognition of the desire of the City and the
Underwriter to effect a successful public offering-of the Bonds, the Underwriter shall
have the absolute right to terminate this Bond Purchase Agreement by notification to
the City if at any time at or prior to the Closing an event occurs that, in the reasonable
judgment of the Underwriter, materially and adversely affects (i) the market price or
marketability of the Bonds or (ii) the ability of the Underwriter to enforce contracts for
sale of the Bonds. If the City is unable to satisfy the conditions contained in this Bond
Purchase Agreement or if the obligations of the Underwriter shall be terminated for
any reason permitted by this Bond Purchase Agreement, this Bond Purchase
Agreement shall terminate and neither the Underwriter nor the City shall be under a
further obligation hereunder, except as set forth in Section 8 hereof.
8. Expenses. The City shall pay or cause to be paid from the proceeds of
the Bonds or other funds of the City available to it, the expenses incident to the
performance of its obligations hereunder, including, but not limited to: (a) the fees and
disbursements of the Bond Registrar in connection with the issuance of the Bonds; (b)
the fees and disbursements of Bond Counsel and any other experts or consultants
retained by the City in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby; and
(c) the cost of printing the Preliminary Official Statement and the final Official
Statement.
The Underwriter shall pay the cost of delivering the purchase price of the Bonds
in immediately available federal funds and all other expenses it incurs in connection
with their public offering and distribution of the Bonds, including the fees and
disbursements of its counsel.
9. Notice. Any notice or other communication to be given to the City under
this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by delivering the same in writing to the
City, 220 Fourth Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032, Attention: Finance Division
Director with a copy to the City Attorney, and any notice or other communication to be
given to the Underwriter under this Bond Purchase Agreement may be given by
delivering the same in writing to Richard B. King, Senior Vice President, Lehman
Brothers, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7101, Seattle, Washington 98104.
10. Entire Agreement. This Bond Purchase Agreement shall constitute.the
entire agreement between the City and the Underwriter and is made solely for the
benefit of the City and the Underwriter (including the successors or assigns of the
6
Underwriter). This Bond Purchase Agreement shall become effective when accepted
by the City in writing as heretofore specified, shall constitute the entire agreement
between the City and the Underwriter and may not be amended or modified except in
writing. No other person shall acquire or have any right hereunder by virtue hereof. All
the City's representations, warranties and agreements in this Bond Purchase Agreement
shall remain operative and in full force and effect, regardless of (a) any investigation
made by or on behalf of the Underwriter, (b) delivery of and payment for the Bonds
hereunder, and (c) any termination of this Bond Purchase Agreement.
LEFDAAN BROTHERS INC.
Richard B. King
Senior Vice President
Accepted and agreed to as of the date first above written:
CITY OF KENT
King County, Washington
Jim White, Mayor
ATTEST:
Brenda Jacober, Clerk
( SEAL )
7
Exhibit A
DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN TERMS
OF THE BONDS
Principal Amount: $518,162.00
less original issue discount:
less underwriter's discount:
Purchase Price:
*plus accrued interest from November 1, 1995 to the Closing Date.
Bond Numbers, Interest Rates, Yields and Prices:
Interest
Bond Nos. Principal Amount Rate Yield Price
1-11 $58,162
12-23 60,000
24-36 6500
37-49 652000
50-62 65,000
63-71 455000
72-79 40,000
80-87 407000
88-95 401000
96-103 4%000
A-1
ViN
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November � . 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT FSU-94-2
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider an
application for the Top of the Hill Final Plat. The subject
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, and 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 moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve Staff' s recommendation of approval for the Top of
the Hill Final Plat with 18 conditions, and to authorize the
Mayor to sign the final plat mylar.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
—r
CITY OF �y' S� '!
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
Jim White, Mayor
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 upon $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.
"0=ih 4AF,. O Kr?r ACAtil li.m ON O'No I"itio , IEl
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 104th
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 along both sides of the plat street; street lighting;
landscaping; storm drainage; street channelization; utilities and
appurtenances.
The plan shall show clearly how stormwater runoff will be
controlled from all properties in a manner that will not adversely
impact off-site properties.
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
southdrly side of the roadway centerline to provide a minimum 24-
foot wide roadway across the entire frontage of the subdivision;
and necessary pavement transitions to the existing portion of
Southeast 244th Street to the west of the subdivision.
In addition the subdivider shall install "No Parking" signs 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.
2
Top of the Hill Final Plat #FSU-94-2
November 2, 1995
Page 3
;rome+eRt—pant eR the southerly side of the—feadv'�ay
tFans4:ens to the e .-tiRg peFtteRef Se utheast Zit nth 91re ,t to the
west ef the subdivisi.-H.
in . dditie the subdivider shall+estall "NE) ParlEing"
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:
1 . 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.
The l-. shall She I I, hew StGFFA.. ate. FuReff .,ill be
,eeRtFelled f.eFn all pFepeFtiesin a FAaRf9eF tha, will �net
V L
6. The subdivider shall provide the necessary easements for all 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
Top of the Hill Final Plat #FSU-94-2
November 2, 1995
Page 4
accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing subdivisions."
2. A tree plan for the general site, including any areas which may be
dedicated for additional right-of-way, showing all trees six inches in
caliper or greater shall be submitted for approval to the Planning
Department.
3. Dust generated. during construction activities on all lots shall be
controlled by wetting dust sources such as areas of exposed soils,
washing truck wheels before they leave the site; and installing and
maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track
out on public rights-of-way is a violation subject to fines from the
Department of Ecology, the City of Kent, and/or the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Authority.
4. Development on all lots shall protect solar access to properties to the
north of each lot according to the calculations identified in the Kent
Zoning Code Section 15.08.234.
5. Existing buildings on proposed lot lines must be removed or moved to
conform to Uniform Building Code Table 5-A.
MP/mp:su942fp.mem
4
S 89'18'22" E 606.07
IU5 30 72 41 55.60' 556D 55.60' 55 GO' 51,33 fG�9 N G7 I+1'.❑1'
\ CJ TTRAC
{m w \J� 111(nPEN
n w Viz'
21 20 19 0 18 a P 17 16 15
14
/Y
-
22
C19 111E 55.60' 5560 55.60 5560 21.93 C16 13
�I N CID\L C15
+I 643 . SE 242ND PLACE
I 77 zp, W C21 N 89'18'2Y' w 255.a9' - C14 /i�
Ip N T11
G: 23 zs" iue c1i 1So_i wt
C22 7S 36.07' 61.00' 61 OD 61.00 36.42' / 12
t CI CIf' CIJ
N 89'21'33" W
95.04 C23 4aa N 89'w'
950:
f'0 24 LU
34 s o- 35 0 36 0 37 0 38 r 11
0
Lu
IQ z z z z I;^
I N 89'21'33'� w w� n w e
95A0' Q U N 89'10 H
o o _j l N 66 00' 51 00' 61.00 61 00 65.25 .al
25 o 0- Im 62.3B' 5200' 87.84' S200 61.D,,
N 89'17'4e w 10
-'� 9500' (n z v
N 89'21'}3' W .T.- 1 .m W w w w o Z Ic
8000 0 33 " '� 32 "N TRACT 'A' N a91G-n:
r
(OPEN SPACE) 40 39 O 9500'-
0
1z z 9
26
.JL C' 11\ C24
N 7825.29' E 32.31 5200 97.84
. _ �. C_3 , C9
N-7
83.j1. C27 C25 Ca CB 99
89'1J'S9WSE 243RD STREET
27 25501
86
C29 12747 12754 '0. C7 8
C29 C6
1
-3 �0 C30 3740 4004' 4496' 32.6I' C5
C31 C2 5
�
28 i, w W z
o a �" 7
f so,
6
29 0 30 8 a s o 5
515 z P31 w 4
f
o (n w z J 5'PRIVATE DRA Jn E
EASEMENT
�s 6259 5963 65.00 w a 70.00' 6142' N a9'1 759' W 79J7
1t N 89'T7'59' w 187.22 Q o -rr 8o"i7 5-q w 123]5' -- - 60 OV- 931'.
5' DRAINAGE ESM'T z
P 0 5 PRrvnIE OR,INAGE
OI EASEMENT
c O1 I o'. N w
� w 41 - o o w
9 Uo i� III _ 3 2 w
IO' ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
EASEMENT - RECORDING NO. z o 1
+ ~ oo 9506220719 25' 25 10 ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION z
z E4SEMENT - RECORDING N0.
9506220719
S32
_ - ----100.02'
90 00' 2.01
,0 125.04' ' S 39-17'59' E o ISLA DO
1VE TABLE 5 891759'E
IS I LENGTH I DELTA I SE 244TH ST
'5.00 39.2^' 90'02'15'
e5.D0' 39.'
O.OU 47.(
5.0o 13'. TOP OF THE HILL FINAL PLAT #FSU-94-2
'�O DO' 30.1
+O 00' 29.
•r111(j 34.55 24'na?1 DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT.
10 Go 16.95' 12'08 28
S(i UU' 47 19' 90'09'- FIELD SURVEY CONTROL WAS BY CLOSED LAND SURVEYOR'S CER I'
500' 85.52 90'D606" TRAVERSE LOOPS. MINIMUM CLOSURE OF
DOORS WAS 1:22 000. IN ACCORDANCE
%96°' 21'15'i4 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAI 11-11$ PLAT CI
9G' 1U.UY 07'10'5I'.1 wTH WAC 322-130 OF SECTION 20 TOWNSHIP P NOPtH c
^.Ay 7+)J 20-13T1 DISTANCES ARE SHOWN CORVEC TLY m
.., Y Or. RA-,I OF PFAR NG: AS SHOWN THEREON HILL BE SET "
September 20 , 1994
C0MsMUNITY The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were
DEVELOPMENT no comments from the audience and WOODS MOVED to
BLOCK GRANT close the public hearing. Orr seconded and the
notion carried. ORR MOVED to adopt the 1995
Community Development Block Grant Program as
revised, including the contingency plans for
estimated entitlement changes , as recommended by
the Planning Co < < ittee. Woods seconded and the
notion carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR: - ITEM 3D)
Amendment to 1994-1996 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) .Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement. APPROVAL of P.mendment No. 1 to the
1994-1996 CDBG Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
dated June 21, 1993 , and authorization for the
Mayor to sign this Amendment and forward it to
King County.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E)
Amendment to 1994-1996 Home Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement. APPROVAL of Amendment
No. 1 to the 1994-1996 HOME Interlocal Coopera-
tion Agreement dated June 21, 1993 , and authcri-
zatlon for the Mayor to sign this Amendment and
forward it to Kina County.
ANNEXATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
ZONING Everson Annexation Zoning. ADOPTION of
Ordinance No. 3184 designating zoning for the
Everson Annexation.
PLATS (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Top of the Hill Preliminary Plat SU-94-2 .
This date has been set to consider the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation for conditional
approval of an application by Baima & Holmberg,
Inc. for a 42-lot single family residential
prelininary subdivision. The prcoerty is
located on the north side of SE 244th Street,
approximately 600 feet west of 104th Avenue SE.
Matt Jackson of the Planning Department noted
that area is approximately 8 . 74 acres, and
explained that approximately 7 . 25 acres was
rezoned to R1-5 . 0 on March 15 , 1994 . He added
that the Hearing Examiner recommended condi-
tional approval of the preliminary plat on
7 �.
September 20 , 1994
PLATS August 17 , 1994 - He noted that the conditions
are contained in the agenda packet. He ex-
plained that 38 of the lots are zoned Pi-5 . 0
and 4 are zoned R1-7 . 2 .
Martin Durkan , Jr. , 22401 Sweeney Road, Maple
Valley, representing the owner and the engineer,
noted that the working relationship with the i
Planning Department on this project has been
positive. He stated that the 5 , 000 sa. ft . lots
will provide medium-level homes to people who
would not qualify for a larger lot or larger
home, and will bring affordable homes to Kent
without having nulti-family' units .
There were no further comments from the audi-
ence. ORR MOVED to accept the findings of the `
Hearing Examiner and to adopt the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation of approval with
nineteen (19) conditions of the Top of the Hill
preliminary subdivision . Woods seconded and the
notion carried.
i
HER BUSINESS - ITE_M_ 4B)
Rachael Preliminary Plat SU-94-4 ._ This date has
been set to consider the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation for conditional approval of an
application by Brad Plemmons/Teresa Hutchens for
a 12-lot single family residential preliminary
subdivision. The property is located west of
Fifth Avenue - S . , approximately 100 feet South Of
West Crow Street.
ORR'MOVED to accept the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and to adopt the Hearing Examiner ' s
recommendation of approval with twenty (20)
conditions of the Rachael Place preliminary
subdivision. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Harvey 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 Sentember 6 , 1994 .
The subject property is 2 . 25 acres in size and
is located north of S . 252nd Street, between
22nd Avenue S . and 25th Avenue S . Council
g
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November %J 1995
Category other Business
1. SUBJECT: KINGSTONE FINAL PLAT FSU-94-11
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; map; Office of he Zoning and
Subdivision Examiner (Building and La d Development, File
No. S90P0045) Findings; and King Cou ty Ordinance No. 10341
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, C mmission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL MPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember_ moves, Councilmember secon se 44
to approve Xtaff' s recommendation of approval for the Kingstone
Final Plat with conditions according to King County Ordinance
No. 10341 and File No. S90P0045, and to authorize the Mayor to
sign the final plat mylar.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION• ► 1 !`
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
CITY OF M'LD�
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390 ,Tim White, Mayor
V-r-
�T�n
MEMORANDUM
November 2, 1995
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: KINGSTONE FINAL PLAT #FSU=95-11
On April 8, 1992, the King County Council approved the Kingstone Preliminary Subdivision
(King County Building and Land Development File No. S90P0045), a 69-lot single family
residential 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 and
contains 21.34 acres.
Now that the plat is located in Kent, it requires final plat approval by the Kent City Council.
Consequently, an application for final plat approval was filed by T.C.A., Inc. on August 16,
1995.
Pursuant to Section 12.04.400 of the Kent Subdivision Code, a meeting of City staff was held
on April 20, 1994 to review the Kingstone final plat. At this meeting it was the decision of City
staff that the proposed final plat was consistent with the requirements of the Kent City Code
(Subdivision Code) Section 12.04.400 (A) (1) and (2) relative to overall density of the
subdivision and the provision of adequate subdivision improvements.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Kingstone Final plat No. FSU-94-11 according
to the conditions referenced in Building and Land Development File No. S90P0045 and King
County Ordinance No. 10341.
JPH/mp:c:fpfsu94.I I
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
'0-'[h AVF.SO-, i KENT.\�ASH INGTO,A TELEPHO)VE FAX
FSU-94-11 - PAGE 1 OF 3
Kin,!ZsStone
20
20' 20'
43 44 1law
45 115 WATER
52 o ESUT
270th ST.
N S.E.
I N N ID _ 9010' N
? , _ - 1'16 E O N 88'48'44
160.00' N N 86 m
N186'11'1fi_ E — o o, I1000'
139.94N w 80- CJ9 U] o
I > 73.42•
65.71'
GOB 53 _ n 'D - N 88'48'44 }�
o 54 55 ^ 110.00' 1
IIE _
N ,50� B935,
a� Z oI o 0 g9�3
w o �\' N 88"48 44 .4
_ 59 h- 50.58' 65.25' 20' 20' _ 1
N 86'1 1'16 E 1 16.12' m 7D 1 10.00' I
a _
Iv '0 0816 Z 18
TRACT C p 61 p A
0
.- DEDICATED TO O_ C\ g0' O 1 V
�+ THE CITY OF KENT O i 56 I
I^ o_ N 80-00.00" R
y\ 56 •£ Io U 114_s;
a s po. 62°8 0 w 15
'.o. �00
\o G <O 85'06'31..
3 I1-03 L-p4 o. a 57 ? - io2.11.
I ZO
J c� j6 Oo: ..
I 4- �a ,r a •0� 14 �
g4� ' c C42 1 ap•
I� 9. �O' �\ 16 1S'<'• 46'R G'1g N•5&•
12'EASEMENT
POWER
I 50403044 �B' 6 E 6ti 08 3 a �6 C27 Z C28 J C4 S3..
9soao3aaaa s41 0�2 N 1 0. G o ?J0
62 0 S�j• 152p' 0) N y g.
CID
N 0g 9 aa. 15,
N o
I 10
a�•� 0 E
I wo:w � 0p \ � 5�•0 Z
63 g2!is
c� 2 _
'f O �,� 9 4 1 4.
Z CAST o 10 00. �4 6Q5�5} 43
s l 2
N ��, \29'R i 6 40
o N g 1 y d
n TRACT D N gg 2 Ul
c221 a SfDEWA K g
1 DEDICATED TO CEASEIAENT
Z 0
THE CITY OF KENT
I 1 � .49'34
3 N g0 E
I > w \ 122.36' .
IR p0•p0" E cT 1 srR
1 l4 N 7� _T2' ^' b LO'1
02 8 rn
n U
I Z 4 CJ4 46'R L� J0�J Si..
m 5a C15
h �5 �, rn.
5 a ry o p 7
ry
Zw q. 6
I Ps S.
254.08' 65.02' 104.85' 45.96' 54.26'
IEE 1
N 89'13'29" V S. LN- S.E. 1/4, SEC, 29-22-5 603.94'-CORNER.ER.
FSU-94-11 - PAGE 2 OF 3 KingsStone
L�
1 12.00' - -128.76' 90.00' 85.00' 21.93'\ 1 17 9.�' `
o 4, w
v
3p� 32 0 0 31 r m
00' 0 30 rn /
j TRACT A
L15 N DENCA THE TIED
1 To' PRIVATE CI1 29 O.y OF KENT
SO. ESMT. 33 J L rC C09
LOB/ ab �56
W V /
27.65' o ��` r0: 28 0
0 0l 34 to s.j Y p0� o yy o
O �I ESMT Op 6A; ro G
m N \00
46'R 1 �652 CO, SIR �-G16� p� 3 �. 27
sIDEWALH
EASEMENT
p0'0/ 10�
TRACT B 35 <
DEDICATED TO
THE CITY
OF KENT N
0 0/ 38
65'Op, /Z / h a. N cP. �: —21.12' /r't
00., / 7 26
-7-20' E ��
C19 w n N 770
LID' S.D ESMT 0'/ N67SF25• ~ '} 16
n I � / `SOp. 14.89. 0 1" E \o. w
I 20' uTtLlrv� 78'45
/ 0p-"It, �� N 21 o�
.5< o
ESMT 4 Z o l IU a 25 ,SOVESMTE—
=� m 50 m 38 o c 1
N 89.30.53" _
15.26'-, 110.05-
h �.
2 ry rn
49 I t o oo' ^ 24 N u
f' I 10 PRIVATE N N
5 N~ SD ESMT 39 6 a I N 88'48'44" Wcz7 N za �1W a, 11000,
46'R C2C o IiO N 86'11'16'
rs,R 48 W - 10.00' 0 23
I--12' PUGET POWER n _ In O
EASEMENT L02 N to
9504030448 n
N 84'08'05" W 7 "iz 40
0 1 N B8'48'44" W
_j O
(, I\SIOEwALH 1 I1.g1• � 110.00'
N� N EASEMENT O N 86.11'16 E - b
I W O
I / 47 z o 1 0.00' ^ 0 22
N 20' 20' `29RN 8t29'3T yy �1 41 N 88'48'44" W
142.01— �lw o 110.00' .
N 86'11'16"
0
N E 'n l 00 46 o I t O.00' 0 21 o f
H W a N ip ,c
l 111.85' (.r] 140.84'
86'11'1 fi' E �o NI` 42 N 88'48'44 W
w 72.62' _ �ol 11o.0O'
51 68.22, 'G'I
e o W oo N 86.11't6 E o
tO110 W - 110,00' ;. 0 20 0
I a ...+ z o I o 0
o6
o 0 4-4m 45 b - 10 PRIVATE 20' 20'
111.85' n Z o o ryl" S.D. ESMT. 43 N 88'48'44 W
52 a 20' 20' O �, Gti. 1 TO 00'
O 83.43'
Ic c,�o 2,2 36.Bo o 7t.89' 0 19
' ST.
N 86*11'16 E� - ---� 290.10' o
_ - t 39.94' - 55 SE c?
0 54 SEC
Nn
53 J� E. �6Aq SHEET `
QP of VAS/ O�
TRACT C �
`� 9l i
SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 = o_ T
GRAPHIC SCALE + o
50 0 25 50 -_ O r q 22962
SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 FOR NOTES sf��C15iEQH' HER 1,
FSU-94-11 - PAGE 3 OF 3
w _ KingsStone
m
20
a LEGAL DES(
O
----- — — — _ — _ _ — — _ _ _ THOSE PORTIO!
Z QUARTER OF I
S.E. 270th Sl'. o SOUTHEAST OL
CORNER _ N 88'51'42" W 22 NORTH, RA
19 200.23' �-- DESCRIBED AS
BEGINNING AT
0 29: THENCE N
N 88'51'42" W 200.24' 603.94 FEET I
'
171 55.02' CI
.98' oti 7024 00'46'03" EAS
c NORTH LINE
N 1 I ° °J 29, THENCE S:
50' 1 150' FEET TO THE r
18 n I DEDICATEDTRCTTO 30 THE EAST LINE
I I THE CITY OF KENT TO THE SOUTH
^ ALONG SAID 51-
s EAST 130 FEEL
CUARTEF OF Ti
W N 88'51'42" W WEST, ALONG
MERIDIAN PERSOUTHWEST OU
PLAT OF LITTLE BEND 120,25'
VOL. 166/71-72 17 [i7 "' 3-- I I SAID SOUTH LI:
z Z z I I o 60 0
N 88'51'42" W NOTES:
1 120.27' W 1 FIELD D
18 ccwl I o o ANGULAR
61 «.1 TOTAL ST
I I
tO a 2 FULL RE
FLAT N 88"51'42" w OF EASE!SP
15 Z I . I 12C.29' THE SL'E
�I I p (V i 3 THERE S
y :1 ^� 62 0 o mN SOL'THEAc.
o w a. THERE S.
O �I C04 N 88•51'42" W a n SOUTHEA`
cq I w u 7 20.30'
E" =
�I I (rf 5- ALL LAN[
I o 3 WERE F01
W 14 I a 63 o N FOR THE
0 TUDOR S-
a a Q INFORMAT
N 88'51'42" W v J
I12<.20 Q
o o LEGEN
13 84
I O -
111 � I I N 88'51'42' w W3 (M; M
POD 127,54'
-
u
I Ra 65
0/ 3 1 l0 00 'AI 29 R O~..
Jr o I S/ O0, a l ��� s
9 / 60 7y A�G. Z '
v I Gp9
O 88 SJOEWALK
EASEMENT
o I d LINE .
I I LOi LINE DIREC
N 88'49'38" W N88'40.38" W 68 1 L 1 IN 8913
( 84.47' .R C 46OC' 69 L02
w S1 .
N 88'S0
/ 69 LDJ i N OJSt
8 ry 87 N\ CURVE
o U I \.r z 46'R LOT CURVE RADW`
CL C01 1000-00
I / TR. E CO2 25.00
1. TR. E C0
1 J 25.,. G
Lu SAW SEW. 62 C04 105000
WATER ESM*T. I CO 6J C05 1050.00
SMTry 64 COG 1050.DO
94093 65 707 1050.DO
50, 65 C08 55 00
65 C09 46 007 B9 I CIO 6 O
LOt V CII 0
9 28' L02 C12 54.26' 125.40' 75.0 5000
50
~
46.00 -
5. lN., S.E. I/a, SEC 29-22-5 N 88'60'0T W 200.40' 69 `CIS
32 11 _ ...
March 26, 1992 Introduced by Audrey Gruger
1 Ord92.7 Proposed No. 91-302
I
2
3 ORDINANCE NO. — 1 1 1
4
AN ORDINANCE concurring with the recommendation
of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner to
5 approve, subject to conditions (modified) , the
Preliminary Plat of KINGS STONE, Building and
6 Land Development File No. S90P0045.
7
8 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
9
This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein
10
the findings and conclusions contained in the revised report of
11
12 the zoning and subdivision examiner dated March 11, 1992, which
was filed with the clerk of the council on March 26, 1992, to
13
14 approve, subject to conditions (modified) , the preliminary plat
of Kings Stone, designated by the building and land development
15
division file no. S90P0045 and the council does hereby adopt as
16
its
17 action the recommendation(s) contained in said repot.
i8
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this bl day of
_
19 �.
19
20 y�
P SSED THIS '"'DAY OF 19 .
21 KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
22 f
23 i, I t i 4 l
24 Chair —
25
26
ATTEST: I
/
27
Clerk of the Council
28
29
30
31
32
33
March 11, 1992
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
300 Prefontaine Building
110 Prefontaine Place South P
Seattle, Washington 98104 5 ' ��
REVISED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. S90P0045
Proposed Ordinance No. 91-302
. Proposed Plat of KINGS STONE
Generally between S.E. 271st Street and S.E. 268th
Street (if both roads were extended) and generally
between 114th Avenue S.E. and 117th Avenue S.E.
(if extended)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's Preliminary: Approve, subject to conditions
(modified)
Division's Final: Approve, subject to condition
(modified)
Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions
(modified)
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary
Report on Item No. S90P0045 was received by the Examiner on
July 22, 1991.
PUBLIC HEARING•
After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's
Report, examining available information on file with the
application and visiting the property and surrounding area,
the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as
follows:
The hearing on Item No. S90P0045 was opened by the Examiner at
1:35 p.m. , August 6, 1991, in Room No. 2, Building and Land
Development Division, 3600 - 136th Place S.E. , Suite A, Bellevue,
Washington, and adjourned at 4:22 p.m. The hearing continued at
9:18 a-m. , August 13, 1991, and closed at 12:06 p.m.
After issuance of a Report and Recommendation on October 4, 1991,
the Examiner received a request for reconsideration from the
applicant dated October 8, 1991. A Notice of Reconsideration was
issued by the Examiner on October 14, 1991, pursuant to which
additional documents were received into the hearing record
through February 28, 1992.
Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and
entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording
of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and
Subdivision Examiner.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 2
FINDINGS, CONCIUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the
record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the
following:
FINDINGS•
1. General Information:
STR: 29-22-5 and 28-22-5
Location: Generally between S.E. 271st Street
and S.E. 268th Street (if both
roads were extended) and generally
between 114th Avenue S.E. and 117th
Avenue S.E. (if extended)
Zoning: SR-9600
Acreage: 21.34
Number of Lots: 70 (Revised)
Typical Lot Size: Ranges from 4,700 to 16,775 square
feet
Proposed Use: Detached single-family residences
Sewage Disposal: City of Kent
Water Supply: City of Kent
Fire District: #37 - Kent
School District: #415 - Kent
Application Date: May 14, 1990
2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the King
County Building and Land Development Divisions Preliminary
Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner for the
August 6, 1991 public hearing are found to be correct and
are incorporated herein by reference. Copies of the
Building and Land Development Division Report will be
attached hereto for submittal to the County Council. The
BALD Staff recommends approval of the application subject to
conditions.
3. The applicant, Schneider Homes, Inc. of Tukwila, Washington,
proposes to develop 21.34 acres into 70 single-family lots
for residential use. The site design for this proposed plat
is largely dictated by the physical constraints of the
property. There are three wetlands on site, one each in the
northwest, northeast, and southwest corners of the parcel.
In addition, the site is traversed by a steep ridge which
runs from the northwest corner towards the southeast and
slopes downward to the west. Finally, site design options
are significantly impacted by the proposed arterial road
layout for this area, certain key elements of which have yet
to be specifically determined.
4. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued for
this project on July 16, 1991. The MDNS contains conditions
relating to wetlands, transportation, and drainage. The
wetlands conditions require protection of the three wetland
areas located on the site, except for the northeast corner
of the northeast wetland, which will be filled to create the
right-of-way of 116th Avenue S.E. This filling of a wetland
area will be mitigated by a 1: 1 replacement at other
locations on the site.
The SEPA drainage conditions require flows from the eastern
basin which enter the Socs Creek system to be detained to
achieve a non-erosive release rate. The conditions relating
to the westerly flowing drainage basin focus on the
conveyance constriction created by the existing culvert
beneath 114th Avenue S.E. , which severely restricts the
release of run-off from the site. The SEPA conditions also
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 3
seek to maintain the existing hydrology of the wetlands
after the site is developed.
5. Maximum slopes on the site demonstrate a 30% to 35%
gradient. Moreover, soils on the site are of the Alderwood
classification, which are considered to be erosional at
slopes in excess of 15%. Accordingly, exposed slopes on the
site would be subject to erosion during wet weather periods.
In response to these concerns, the applicants geotechnical
study recommends that plat construction be limited to the
dry months of the year. The recommended conditions
incorporate this restriction.
6. As stated above, there are three wetlands on the Kings Stone
property. The Tract A wetland in the northeast corner and
the Tract B wetland in the northwest corner are each about
six-tenths of an acre in size on site. The Tract B wetland
in the southwest corner is nearly an acre in size. All
three wetlands extend off-site, With Tracts A and D each
being part of a substantially larger off-site wetland
system. As a consequence, both Tracts A and D have been
designated Class 2 wetlands, whereas the Tract B wetland
which lies largely within the Kings Stone site has been
designated Class 3-wetland.
The Tract A wetland receives run-off from the eastern
portion of the Kings Stone site and conveys it to the north
via a seasonal creek which is part of the Soos Creek system.
Tract B is considered a closed depression which overflows to
the south into the Tract D system. Thus, Tract D eventually
receives run-off from the entire western portion of the
site, which it releases to the west through the culvert
under 114th Avenue S.E.
7. The major drainage issue with respect to this plat focuses
upon the 12-inch culvert which lies under 114th Avenue S.E.
directly west of the site. This culvert allows water to
release from the Tract D wetland westerly into the drainage
system for Tudor Square. This 12-inch pipe has a calculated
capacity of 4.7 cfs, which is less than required to convey a
2-year storm under current undeveloped conditions. During a
major storm, water backs up behind the culvert into the
Tract D wetland; under extended storm conditions, water
overtops 114th Avenue S.E. and floods to the west.
SEPA Condition No. 3.b. requires Kings Stone to detain run-
off within the westerly basin to achieve a release rate
which will not exceed 70% of the pre-developed, 2-year/24-
hour design storm. As an alternative, the applicant is
permitted to consider replacement of the 12-inch culvert
under 114th Avenue S.E. The problem with this alternative
is, however, that the record demonstrates that the
downstream conveyance system is currently inadequate to
handle major storm events. Tudor Square now experiences
major flooding at the intersection of S.E. 269th Street and
lllth Place S.E. Further downstream, run-off passes through
a wetland into the Mill Creek_ system and eventually into the
Kent Regional Facility. The evidence indicates that both
Mill Creek and the Kent Regional Facility are at capacity
with respect to accommodating existing flows. In short,
upsizing the culvert underneath 114th Avenue S.E. probably
is not an acceptable option in terms of its downstream
impacts.
Other options which have been considered by the applicant's
engineer and the BALD staff include leaving the culvert as
it presently exists and working with the neighboring
Kings Stone
S90P0045 Page 4
proposed plat of Kangley Downs to raise the road level of
114th Avenue S.E. in order to create more storage within the
Tract D wetland. A second option which would not require
replacement of the culvert involves installing an overflow
mechanism to permit tightlining drainage from Kings Stone
past Tudor Square to circumvent increased flooding problems
within that plat.
BALD has embodied these further options within an additional
proposed condition, which appears in the record as Exhibit
No. 23. A strict reading of this condition might lead one
to conclude that it constitutes an unauthorized amendment of
SEPA Condition No. 3.b. Exhibit No. 23 expands the range of
actions under consideration as alternatives to the
replacement of the 114th Avenue S.E. culvert to include
options beyond the specific terms of SEPA Condition No. 3 .b.
However, we find that the function of Exhibit No. 23 is
consistent with the intent of SEPA Condition No. 3.b. , in
that it simply expands the scope of technical alternatives
which may be reviewed as methods for solving the essential
problem identified in the SEPA condition. As such, it is a
refinement of the SEPA condition and not in conflict
therewith.
8. The King County Transportation Plan designates a portion of
116th Avenue S.E. south of the Kent-Kangley Road to be a
principal arterial. The roadway section in question is
listed within the functional classification changes portion
of the Transportation Plan as Project No. 147 and is
denominated "The S.E. 277th Street North Spur". This
roadway section is shown on Map 9 of the Transportation Plan
as running south from the intersection of 116th Avenue S.E.
and Kent-Kangley Road, then veering toward the west to
connect to the proposed new arterial for S.E. 277th Street.
At this point in time, no part of this roadway is either
constructed or functional. However, most of the vacant
properties to the north of the Kings Stone site have been or
are in the process of being platted, and within each
previously approved plat some provision for arterial
development along the 116th Avenue S.E. right-of-way has
been required as a condition of plat approval.
For the plat of Kings Stone, the Subdivision Technical
Committee has recommended requiring roadway dedication along
116th Avenue S.E. sufficient to meet full principal arterial
requirements. This entails a dedication of 50 feet of
right-of-way on the west side of the 116th Avenue corridor
along the Kings Stone eastern boundary north of S.E. 270th
Street, and a full 100 feet of right-of-way dedication
within Kings Stone south of 270th Street.
9. The 116th Avenue S.E. arterial route is also of significant
concern to the City of Kent, where it comprises one of the
three alternative routes under consideration within the
study for the proposed S.E. 272nd/277th Street corridor.
The City's expectation is to establish a new east-west
linkage which would cross the Green River at about 277th
Street and connect to the Kent-Kangley Road.
An Environmental Impact Statement is in the process of being
prepared by the City to study the various specific
alternative routes which may provide the necessary east-west
linkage. Each of the three routes under study proposes a
different location for access to the Kent-Kangley Road.
Alternative A intersects the Kent-Kangley Road within the
116th Avenue corridor in a manner which is consistent with
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 5
the plat design for Kings Stone. This alternative envisions
extension of 116th southward from Kent-Kangley through Kings
Stone with its curve towards the west occurring
approximately at 274th Street. Alternative B would connect
to Kent-Kangley Road along the S.E. 270th Street right-of-
way, veer in a southwesterly section within the plat of
Kings Stone and then proceed westerly along 272nd Street.
Finally, Alternative C would intersect Kent-Kangley Road
along the 272nd Street right-of-way and then loop further
south before connecting to S.E. 277th Street. The
speculation offered by the various experts at the public
hearing indicated that Alternative C is considered to be the
least likely option, with Alternative A thought to be
somewhat more probable than Alternative B. As between A and
B, it would seem that B provides the more direct east-west
connection. However, Alternative A has the virtue of
following an arterial right-of-way which has already been
largely obtained by the County through the plat development
process. By contrast, use of Alternative B would require the
development of a major arterial along 270th Street which
would disrupt an existing residential neighborhood.
The City of Kent has indicated that the draft EIS analyzing
these three alternatives is expected to be released within a
matter of months. The City has also indicated that the
final route may comprise a combination of components from
the three alternatives being studied.
10. Prior to the submittal of the Kings Stone preliminary plat
to King County, the applicant entered into an annexation
agreement with the City of Kent. Under this arrangement, in
exchange for utility services the applicant has agreed to
develop Kings Stone as two divisions. Division 1 would
consist of the northern portion of the property, while
Division 2 would encompass the south half. Under the
annexation agreement, development of Division 2 is to be
deferred until after the City determines the final routing
for the 272nd/277th Street corridor.
Through this agreement, the City has undertaken to preserve
its options with respect to the road layout within the
272nd/277th corridor. The City may also elect to buy the
Division 2 property from the applicant for public use. The
applicant has also committed to the City to construct 116th
Avenue S.E. north of 270th Street to an arterial standard.
However, this commitment is based upon a 40-foot right-of-
way instead of the 50-foot right-of-way being required by
the County. Further, even though the developer of Kings
Stone has agreed to construct 116th Avenue S.E. to a half-
width arterial standard north of S.E. 270th Street, neither
the preliminary plat of South Bend nor that of Lexington
Square directly to the north of Kings Stone had been
accorded preliminary plat approval at the time of the Kings
Stone hearing. Moreover, the property directly to the north
of the proposed plat of Lexington Square does not appear to
be within the boundaries of any currently submitted plat
application. Therefore, there is at least a possibility
that the half street arterial along 116th Avenue S.E. within
Kings Stone might be constructed without the entire
connecting linkage to the north having been made available
to complete the arterial route.
In regard to the uncertainties attendant to the construction
of 116th Avenue S.E. north of the Kings Stone plat,
attention should be called to Exhibit No. 21, which is a
copy of a variance granted by the King County Road Engineer
with respect to a section of 116th Avenue S.E. north of the
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 6
proposed King Stone site. This variance requires the
provision of the 50-foot right-of-way but allows actual road
construction to be without curb, gutter and sidewalk so long
as it is constructed at 11 feet of pavement width with
principal arterial design thickness. This variance
standard, which the Subdivision Technical Committee proposes
to apply to Kings Stone, recognizes that the immediate
development of 116th Avenue S.E. may not require full urban
principal arterial development at this time. The variance
therefore allows rural principal arterial street
construction to occur so long as the geometrics of the
roadway design are such that full urban arterial development
can be accommodated in the future. %
11. There are a number of other road design issues which have
been contested with respect to the Kings Stone preliminary
plat. While the applicant has not questioned the necessity
of constructing 116th Avenue S.E. north of S.E. 270th Street
to principal arterial standards, it has argued that the 40-
foot right-of-way required by the City of Kent ought to
control over the 50-foot right-of-way proposed by the
County. Gary Samek, of the County Department of Public
Works, has responded to this argument by pointing out that
the 116th Avenue S.E. roadway is designated within the King
County Transportation Plan as an urban principal arterial
and that King County Road Standards require such arterials
to be developed based on a 50-foot half-width right-of-way.
Mr. Samek has also opposed phasing the project or deferring
it to accommodate the Kent EIS now in preparation. Mr.
Samek argues that there is no interlocal agreement existing
between the County and the City of Kent with respect to this
roadway development, that the Kent study will not be an
adopted King County plan, and that the Transportation Plan
currently in effect for the County should control.
With respect to the King County Transportation Plan, we find
that the roadway under consideration is designated with the
King County plan as simple the "S.E. 277th Street North
Spur" and is generally shown on Map No. 9 curving from its
north-south alignment toward the west. Nowhere is this
section of roadway defined with sufficient precision to
allow an exact determination to be made of the point where
116th Avenue S.E. ceases to follow a north-south alignment
and begins to veer to the west. Therefore, Mr. Samek's
assertion that the King County Transportation Plan requires
the development of 116th Avenue S.E. along a rigid north-
south alignment through the entire Kings Stone plat is not
supported by the Plan documents.
The applicant has opposed any requirement to construct 116th
Avenue S.E. south of its intersection with S.E. 270th Street
until after the City of Kent has finally determined the
arterial alignment to be developed in this area. The bases
of the applicant's objections are numerous. First, the
constructed roadway may need to be removed if the alignment
chosen by the City of Kent does not match it. Second, a
developed roadway which is not subject to immediate use and
needs to be barricaded is a nuisance which attracts mischief
to the neighborhood. Third, even if the 116th Avenue right-
of-way is eventually developed within the north-south
alignment, the vertical alignment of the built roadway may
not match the design employed by the City of Kent. Finally,
the applicant has offered to develop a pathway for school
student use within the 116th Avenue S.E. right-of-way if it
is left unconstructed until the City of Kent corridor
determination has been made.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 7
12. A further area of contention between the Subdivision
Technical committee and the applicant has concerned the
construction standard to be applied to S.E. 270th Street
within the plat. The Subdivision Technical Committee has
recommended that 270th Street be built as an urban
neighborhood collector. The testimony of the staff is that
the roadway will serve as a linkage between the developed
residential neighborhood to the east and Tudor Square to the
west. As such, the road functions as a neighborhood
collector joining two residential neighborhoods.
Based on its April 18, 1991 plat revision, the applicant
particularly objected to the neighborhood collector
designation if this requirement entailed a prohibition
against direct lot access to S.E. 270th Street: The
applicant's consultants argued that the connecting roadway
to the west, S.E. 269th Street within Tudor Square, is not
constructed to neighborhood collector dimensions and allows
direct lot access to the street along its entire frontage.
The Subdivision Technical committee responded that the
design inadequacies of 269th Street do not justify approving
a similar inadequacy within Kings Stone and, further, that
the actual function of the road is the governing factor in
its designation. They also argued that sight distance
considerations arising out of both the gradient and the road
curve along 270th Street within Kings Stone create safety
problems if direct access to a neighborhood collector is
permitted.
13. Finally, the applicant has objected to conditions proposed
by the Subdivision Technical Committee which would require
joint use driveways to be constructed with 22 feet of
pavement. The applicant has pointed out that roads which
serve two-lot short plats are permitted under short plat
standards to be developed at 18 feet of pavement.
14. The constraints imposed upon this property both by
topography and by the road layout issues discussed above
resulted in an April 18, 1991 plat design in which 24 lots
would be constructed with double road frontage on both the
front and back sides. Worse, a majority of these double-
fronted lots were proposed to be located along the
(projected to be) heavily-travelled 116th Avenue S.E.
arterial corridor. Finally, many of these lots were not
only double-fronted- but shallow in depth as well.
15. A Report and Recommendation dated October 4, 1991 was issued
by the Examiner based on the April 18, 1991 revised plat,
which implemented the phasing plan envisioned by the City of
Kent and provided for separate review of the Division 2
layout after the 272nd/277th road corridor issue had been
resolved. The applicant requested reconsideration of this
phasing procedure based on its alleged violation of the
vested rights of the applicant. The Examiner agreed that
the vested rights objection was valid and proceeded to
solicit further comments on the issues remaining with
respect to current approval of Division 2. The Examiner
suggested consideration of a plat revision which would
create deeper "through" lots along the 116th Avenue corridor
in order to buffer residents from traffic noise impacts.
The revision, which entails creating a cul de sac running
upslope from 115th Avenue S.E. within Division 2, also
facilitates elimination of lots requiring driveway access to
S.E. 270th Street.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 8
The applicant's January 27, 1992 revised design accommodates
these suggested revisions and has been deemed acceptable by
the Subdivision Technical Committee. This redesign permits
elimination of all but three of the "through" lots of less
than 110 feet depth. Further, no lots will require direct
vehicle access to S.E. 270th Street. However, the redesign
is not without its drawbacks. It will require substantial
clearing and contouring of the ridge within and adjacent to
the new up-slope cul de sac road in order to achieve an
acceptable road gradient. This revision, then, requires
maximum attention to erosional control procedures if adverse
impacts are to be avoided.
16. The Kings Stone site is within the service area of the Kent
School District, and the District is on record as opposing
generally the approval of new preliminary plats within its
service area on the basis of the inadequacies of existing
and projected District facilities. The Kings Stone
preliminary plat application was filed on May 14 , 1990, and
is therefore vested with respect to the operation of both
ordinance No. 9785 and its successor, ordinance No. 10162.
Further, the SEPA conditions applied to this plat do not
contain any provisions requiring school facilities
development, nor has the School District or any party filed
a timely appeal of the SEPA determination.
Elementary school students from Kings Stone will be expected
to walk to Pine Tree Elementary School, which lies to the
south of the property. The record demonstrates that prior
to construction of Division 2 there will be no satisfactory
direct pedestrian access from this site to the roads leading
to Pine Tree Elementary School. The applicant has offered
to develop a pathway within the proposed right-of-way for
116th Avenue S.E. south of S.E. 270th Street if such right-
of-way is not constructed prior to the completion of the
Kent corridor study.
CONCLUSIONS•
1. Resolution of the issues that are raised by the preliminary
plat application for Kings Stone requires the determination
of policy matters which may be viewed from different
perspectives and priorities. At the heart of the matter. is
the question of whether and to what extent this preliminary
plat application can be approved without first knowing the
alignment that is going to be chosen by the City of Kent for
the proposed 272nd/277th Street corridor. Three fundamental
approaches to this question are possible. At one extreme,
the plat could simply be denied or deferred indefinitely on
the basis that until the arterial alignment is determined it
is not possible to conclude with any certainty that the plat
design is workable or that appropriate provision can be made
for necessary roadway infrastructure. At the opposite
extreme, it is possible to approve the subdivision as
currently submitted and assume that the straight north-south
alignment for 116th Avenue S.E. upon which plat design is
based will be either the ultimate corridor alignment or
compatible therewith. The middle position, which is adopted
by this Report and Recommendation, is to approve the plat as
submitted on January 22, 1992, with a condition requiring
further design review of Division 2 on the southern half of
the site at such time as the corridor alignment has been
specified.
2. The Subdivision Technical Committee and the Department of
Public works originally preferred the option of approving
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 9
the plat in its entirety as submitted to the record.
Although couched in terms of the mandatory requirements of
the Transportation Plan, this preference more likely
reflects an interest in maximizing the accumulation of
arterial road right-of-way through the platting process. It
is the Examinerfs opinion that the Transportation Plan does
not require this result in the manner contended by the
Technical Committee. The Transportation Plan generally
outlines an arterial project to be constructed beginning in
a southerly direction at the 116th Avenue S.E. intersection
with the Kent-Kangley Road and curving to the west to meet
the 277th corridor. To read the Transportation Plan as
requiring any specific alignment of 116th Avenue S.E. within
this arterial corridor is to ascribe to a general graphic
representation a specificity of design that is unwarranted
by the documentary material. Moreover, the Transportation
Plan itself refers to the City of Kent corridor study and to
the City as lead agency for development of this roadway
linkage.
Within the context of the anticipated annexation of this
area to the City of Kent in the reasonably near future,
deferral to the City!s policies for developing the arterial
corridor design is supported by relevant policies of the.
King County Comprehensive Plan. Policy No. F-114 encourages
the County to work with cities to develop a common set of
standards for public improvements so that areas annexed by
cities will have improvements that are compatible with city
criteria. Policy No. F-115 more generally encourages public
facilities to be located, designed, and operated to be
compatible with neighboring uses. Both of these policies
indicate that the County's short term interest in
accumulating road right-of-way through the platting process
ought to take into account the long-term goal of providing a
roadway system which meets the needs of the City of Kent.
The appropriate method of obtaining this result is to
refrain from making any final decision on a plat design
which interferes with or compromises the options available
to the City of Kent in designing the 272nd/277th Street
corridor.
3. The City of Kent has stated both in its annexation agreement
with the applicant and, more recently, at the public hearing
on this preliminary plat application that it considers the
present development of a Division 1 plat on the northern
half of the King Stone property to be consistent with
maintaining its options with respect to the corridor design.
Mr. Gill, the City Engineer, also stated at the public
hearing that the City was prepared to accept King county's
decision regarding the design and construction of S.E. 270th
Street as a neighborhood collector. From a road circulation
standpoint, it appears to be acceptable to the City to
approve the preliminary plat subject to phasing conditions
which leave Kent with all of its arterial options
essentially intact. Such phasing would provide the
applicant with approximately one-half of his development
project for immediate construction, with the remainder
deferred pending Kent's decision on the 272nd/277th
corridor.
4. Approval of this subdivision in phases will require the
addition of conditions to accommodate such a process.
Proposed condition Nos. 1-5 deal with the phasing aspect of
this proposal. If the arterial alignment ultimately
designated by the City of Kent does not follow the 116th
Avenue alignment, Division 2 may require a major revision.
It is critical, in any event, that Division 1 be capable of
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 10
existing independent of any future development of
Division 2. Due to the drainage patterns for the property,
completion of Division 1 will require the construction of
detention and conveyance facilities within the Division 2
area. Such areas remaining within the boundaries of the
Kings Stone property and designated as a future Division 2
will need to be shown as tracts which are appropriately
limited as to their use and conveyance if Division 2 is not
built.
5. Because development of 116th Avenue S.E. south of S.E. 270th
Street would not serve Division 1, its construction may
await Division 2 development. However, dedication of
roadway to complete the arterial linkage through Division 2
tracts to 277th Street needs to be accomplished within the
Division 1 development, subject to revision if the corridor
alignment is altered. That portion of 116th Avenue S.E.
north of S.E. 270th Street which will be currently developed
as arterial roadway will need to be constructed within a 50-
foot right-of-way in the manner required by the King County
Road Standards. Until actual annexation occurs, such
roadway remains part of the King County road system and is
subject to King County road development requirements.
6. The Subdivision Technical Committee has made an adequate
demonstration that S.E. 270th Street within the plat and
adjacent thereto will function as an urban neighborhood
collector. The record also indicates that safety
considerations require prohibiting direct access of lots to
S.E. 270th Street. Accordingly, full development of S.E.
270th street adjacent to the plat as an urban neighborhood
collector is proposed as a condition of plat approval. Half
street development of 270th Street for Division 1 purposes
is inappropriate because the roadway will provide primary
access to more than 30 lots as well as necessary linkage
within the neighborhood circulation system.
7. The requirement to construct 22 feet of pavement for any
driveway serving more than one lot within the subdivision is
explicitly based on Section 2.03 of the King County Road
Standards. A lesser requirement of 18 feet of pavement for
a short plat road is not applicable to this development.
However, the applicant's argument that the 22 feet
requirement is excessive may be made to the County Engineer
within a road variance application, and the lesser short
plat standard may be a persuasive factor in the review of
that application.
8. The plat redesign dated January 22, 1992, has eliminated the
great bulk of road and lot design issues which were debated
at the public hearing on this preliminary plat. In
particular, the issues surrounding .dipect vehicle access to
S.E. 270th Street have been rendered moot by the redesign.
The major issue remaining with respect to S.E. 270th Street
is the argument by the applicant that it should not be
required to construct S.E. 270th Street east of 116th Avenue
S.E. to a full-width standard. The argument is that this
portion of 270th Street will only access 11 lots within
Kings Stone and that the remainder of the road width ought
to be supplied by the propcsed plat of South Bend to the
north. While we have no problem with the suggestion that
South Bend ought to provide its half of the roadway width,
the issue that needs to be addressed is whether Kings Stone
should be required to provide the full width if South Bend
is not in fact constructed contemporaneously with Kings
Stone.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 11
our conclusion that Kings Stone needs to provide the full
roadway width if South Bend is not constructed is premised
upon considerations beyond simply the matter of accessing
the 11 lots numbered 60 through 70 within Kings Stone. As
noted above, the need here is to provide a critical element
within neighborhood circulation pattern at a location where
a neighborhood collector intersects a principal arterial.
Relevant policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan
emphasize that within the plat review process it is
necessary both to provide a circulation pattern which will
meet the needs of the neighborhood as well as to provide
access to the specific lots of any particular plat.
Comprehensive Plan Policy No. F-212 states that the approval
process needs to "establish local and neighborhood
circulation patterns", while Policy No. F-216 requires the
street design of the plat to "support existing and planned
future street patterns". This goal is further supported by
Policy No. F-217, which states that a road design must
consider not only the need to access dwelling units but also
the road's function. The recommendation that the applicant
supply the full roadway width for 270th Street adjacent to
the plat 4 based upon these policy directives requiring
provision of a needed roadway link within in essential
neighborhood circulation pattern.
9. The final area of contention remaining with regard to the
plat of King Stone involves the timing of Division 2
development. The applicant has accepted the concept that
Division 2 construction must be deferred until the City of
Kent makes its decision with regard to the 272nd/277th
roadway corridor. However, the applicant, not unreasonably,
Wishes to place some limit upon the City of Kent's process
of deliberation. That is to say, if the City of Kent has
not made a decision on the ultimate roadway alignment within
two years from the date of preliminary plat approval, the
applicant wants authorization from the County to develop
Division 2 as approved without further waiting for Kent to
complete its roadway decision process.
The problem with the applicant's request is that the
availability of sewer and water service to this plat from
the City of Kent has been made specifically dependent upon
the Division 2 phasing requirement. Inasmuch as it appears
Division 2 cannot be developed without utility service from
the City of Kent, it is not clear what benefit the applicant
expects to derive from a decision by King County allowing
development of Division 2 in contravention of its agreement
with the City. However, the conditions contained herein
accede to the applicant's request that a two-year limit be
placed on the City's decision-making process with respect to
the road corridor, subject to a proviso that the applicant
demonstrate at that time an unconditional right to water and
sewer service for Division 2. The State platting statute
requires that the County make affirmative findings of fact
with respect to the availability of water and sewer service
to this subdivision. Accordingly, the development of
Division 2 cannot be divorced from the essential
infrastructure requirements imposed by State law.
10. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the
proposed subdivision of Kings Stone, as shown on the
January 22, 1992 revised preliminary plat map, makes
appropriate provision for the public health, safety, and
welfare and serves the public use and interest.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 12
11. The conditions of Approval recommended herein, including
dedications and easementsf Will provide public improvements
necessary to serve the subdivision, are required to make the
proposed reasonably compatible with the environment, and
will carry out applicable State laws and regulations and the
laws, policies and objectives of King County.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE the preliminary plat of KINGS STONE as set out in the
January 22, 1992 revised preliminary plat map, subject to the
following conditions of plat approval:
1. The plat of Kings Stone shall be constructed in two separate
divisions as shown on the January 22, 1992 revised plat map.
Division 1 shall consist of that' portion of the site lying
north of the southern boundary of the.right-of-way for S.E.
270th Street. This includes Lot Nos. 28 through 59 and
adjoining roads and tracts. The remaining portion of the
site shall be designated for future Division 2 development.
2. The conditions of preliminary plat approval stated herein
apply to development of both Division 1 and Division 2.
However, no construction of plat improvements or houses in
Division 2 shall occur until the earlier of a) selection by
the city of Kent of a route for the S.E. 272nd/277th Street
corridor; or, b) written release of the applicant by the
City of Kent from the phasing requirements of paragraph 3.4
of their October 17, 1990 Annexation Agreement (King County
Records and Elections File No. 9010171059) ; provided that,
if no corridor route has been selected by Kent within two
years of preliminary plat approval, Division 2 may be
constructed as approved herein upon the applicant's
submittal to BALD of documentation demonstrating
unconditional commitments for public water and sewer service
for Division 2. If a corridor route is selected by the City
of Kent which requires road construction outside the 116th
Avenue S.E. right-of-way, a revised preliminary plat layout
for Division 2 shall be submitted to BALD for review as a
major plat revision.
3. Division 1 shall be granted final approval separate from
Division 2 only if it is capable of functioning as a
complete, self-sufficient development independent of whether
Division 2 is ever constructed. This shall require, at a
minimum, construction of S.E. 270th Street as required by
this preliminary plat approval, and construction within the
proposed Division 2 tracts of drainage facilities sufficient
to provide conveyance, detention, and biofiltration of run-
off from the northwest basin of the property to the Tract D
wetland. Easements and conveyances which assure the
continued availability of these drainage facilities to
Division 1 even if Division 2 is not constructed shall be
approved by BALD and recorded prior to final plat approval.
4. If Division 1 is submitted for final approval separate from
Division 2, the entire area comprising proposed Division 2
shall be apportioned into tracts subject to the terms
described herein:
a. Tracts C and D shall be configured as shown on the
January 22, 1992 preliminary plat map.
b. one hundred feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated to
King County for 116th Avenue S.E. , subject to Condition
No. 22 below.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 13
C. Division 2 in its entirety may be conveyed to the City
of Kent or to any other party, subject to the
dedication of 116th Avenue S.E. for right-of-way
development and the easements and conveyances required
for Division 1 development.
These conditions and restrictions pertaining to the proposed
Division 2 tract shall be stated on the face of the
Division 1 final plat.
5. If Division 1 is submitted for final approval separate from
Division 2, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian pathway
for the use of students walking to Pine Tree Elementary
School. The pathway shall be located within the 116th
Avenue S.E. right-of-way of Division 2 and connect to S.E.
272nd Plaqe. In order to assure a safe walking facility,
all abandoned structures within the 116th Avenue S.E. right-
of-way and the portion of the Kings Stone property adjacent
thereto to the east shall be removed and the abandoned sites
filled and graded. BALD shall review and approve the design
for the pathway. Certification from a hazardous waste
consultant stating that hazardous materials on the property
have been properly removed and delivered to an authorized
disposal site shall be provided to BALD and to the
Department of Ecology prior to any final plat approval. If
necessary to prevent vehicle access, a temporary barrier
shall be required at either terminus of the pathway in
accordance with KCRS Section 5.07 until roadway development
occurs.
6. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the
King County Code.
7. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject
property shall sign on the face of the final plat a
dedication which includes the language set forth in King
County Council Motion No. 5952.
8. The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum
requirements of the SR-9600 zone classification or shall be
as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat,
whichever is larger. Minor revisions to the plat which do
not result in substantial changes may be approved at the
discretion of the Building and Land Development Division.
9. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King
County Health Department.
10. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads
shall be done in accordance with the King County Road
Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 8041.
11. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County
Fire Marshal for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water
main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17•.08 of the King
County Code.
12. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with
drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04 and
current storm drainage requirements and guidelines as
established by Surface Water Management. Compliance may
result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as
shown on the preliminary approved plat. The following
conditions represent portions of the Code and requirements
that apply to all plats.
Kings Stone S90POO45 Page 14
a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1990
King County Surface Water Design Manual. BALD approval
of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to
any construction.
b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as
established by BALD Engineering Review, shall be shown
on the engineering plans.
C. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded
plat:
"All building downspouts and footing drains and
drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios
and driveways shall be connected to the approved
permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the
approved construction drawings t on
file with the Department of Public Works. This
plan shall be submitted with the application for
any building permit. All connections of the
drains must be constructed and approved prior to
final building inspection approval. For those
lots that are designated for individual lot
infiltration systems, the systems shall be
constructed at the time of the building permit and
shall comply with plans on file".
13. The applicant shall comply with King County Ordinance No.
9747, King County Road Mitigation Payment System (MPS) , by
paying the required MPS fee as determined by King County
Public Works, plus an administrative fee. The applicant has
an option to either: 1) pay the MPS fee and MPS
administrative fee at final plat application, or 2) pay the
MPS fee and MPS administrative fee at the time of building
permit application. If the first option is chosen, a note
shall be placed on the face of the plat stating: "All fees
required by Ordinance No. 9747, King County Road Mitigation
Payment System (MPS) , have been paid"; if the second option
is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect on the
date of building permit application.
14 . There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 116th
Avenue S.E. , 114th Avenue S.E. or S.E. 270th Street from
abutting lots.
15. Lot Numbers 55 and 56 shall have undivided ownership of the
joint access tract adjacent thereto and are responsible for
its maintenance. The tract shall be 26 feet wide and
improved with a 22-foot-wide, paved surface and controlled
drainage.
16. The applicant shall provide a Class III bicycle facility
along its portion of S.E. 270th Street abutting the plat and
along its frontage on 114th Avenue S.E. north of S.E. 270th
Street. The applicant shall work with the department of
Public Works to determine proper facility location.
17. All lots adjacent to or containing area with an NGPE shall
be provided with an acceptable boundary delineation between
the lot, or unrestricted portions thereof, and the area
restricted with the NGPE. Said boundary delineation shall
be marked prior to any grading or clearing of the
subdivision and remain in place on each lot until a dwelling
is constructed on the lot and ownership transferred to the
first owner-occupant.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 15
18. The applicant shall comply with KCC 19.38 by paying a fee
according to the formula stated therein to the Parks
Division in lieu of providing on-site open space.
19. A fence designed for longevity and noise attenuation shall
be constructed along all lots abutting 116th Avenue S.E.
Said design shall be submitted for review and approval by
BALD. The homeowners' association shall be responsible for
the continued maintenance of the fence. A five-foot
maintenance easement shall be provided and shown on the face
of the final plat.
20. The developer shall pay a pro-rata share toward a new signal
at SR 516 and. 116th Avenue S.E. , or delay final approval
until WSDOT has awarded a contract for this signal. Based
on a 70-lot plat, a pro-rata share of $1,476 has been
determined for this project.
21. Per King County Fire Marshal requirements, if any finished
roadway gradient exceeds 15% at any location within this
plat, all future residences constructed within the plat will
have to be sprinklered.
22. Fifty (50) feet of right-of-way from centerline shall be
dedicated to King County for road purposes along 116th
Avenue S.E. between the northern plat boundary and the
southern boundary of the right-of-way for S.E. 270th Street;
one hundred (100) feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated
south of S.E. 270th Street to the southern boundary of the
plat. One Hundred Sixteenth (116th) Avenue S.E. shall be
designed and constructed for each division as an urban
principal arterial in the manner provided by RV IS91V0078.
If the City of Kent selects a route for the S.E. 272nd/277th
Street corridor any portion of which lies outside the
dedicated right-of-way; for 116th Avenue S.E. , the applicant
shall dedicate to King County the right-of-Way required to
construct the finally selected corridor route within Kings
Stone, and King County shall convey to the applicant any
unneeded portion of previously dedicated right-of-way. If
final corridor route selection has not occurred prior to
submittal of the Division 1 final plat, an agreement for the
alteration of the 116th Avenue S.E. right-of-way dedication
Within Division 2 in the manner provided herein, signed by
the applicant and King County and approved by the King
County Prosecuting Attorney, shall be executed prior to
Division 1 final plat approval.
23. S.E. 270th Street shall be designed and constructed as a
full-width urban neighborhood collector in accordance with
KCRS 2.03, from 114th Avenue S.E. to 117th Place S.E. ;
provided that, if the preliminary plat of South Bend is
constructed before or concurrently with Kings Stone
Division 1, the applicant shall only be responsible for
constructing one-half of S.E. 270th Street between 116th
Avenue S.E. and 117th Avenue S.E. Any deviation from the
standard stated herein will require a variance from the KCRS
requirements, approved by the Department of Public Works.
24 . With preliminary approval of this subdivision, stop sign
control is approved for 270th Street at its intersection
with 116th Avenue S.E. The following conditions shall be
satisfied, unless other conditions are approved within a
road variance from the King County Department of Public
Works:
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 16
a. The angle of intersection for S.E. 270th Street at its
intersections With 116th Avenue S.E. and 114th Avenue
S.E. shall comply with KCRS 2.08A.
b. The landings for S.E. 270th Street at its intersections
with 116th Avenue S.E. and 114th Avenue S.E. shall
comply with KCRS 2.08F.
C. The minimum spacing between all intersecting streets
shall be 150 feet per KCRS 2.08E.
d. The maximum finished road grade for S.E. 270th Street
shall not exceed 12% per KCRS 2.03E.
25. One Hundred Seventeenth (117th) Place S.E. shall be designed
and constructed as an Urban Subaccess Half Street in
accordance with KCRS 2.63 and 2.06. Any deviation from this
standard will require a variance from the KCRS requirements,
approved by the Department of Public Works.
26. One Hundred Fifteenth (115th) Court S.K. shall be designed
and constructed as an Urban Subaccess Street in accordance
with KCRS 2.03. Any deviation from this standard will
require a variance from the KCRS requirements, approved by
the Department of public Works.
27. Two Hundred Seventy-First (271st) place S.E. shall be
designed and constructed as an Urban Minor Access Street in
accordance With KCRS 2.03. Any deviation from this standard
will require a variance from the KCRS requirements, approved
by the Department of Public Works.
28. One Hundred Fifteenth (115th) Avenue S.E. shall be designed
and constructed as an Urban Subaccess Street in accordance
with KCRS 2.03. A temporary turnaround shall be provided at
its southern terminus. Any deviation from this standard
will require a variance from the KCRS requirements, approved
by the Department of Public Works.
29. . One Hundred Fourteen (114th) Court S.E. shall be designed
and constructed as an Urban Minor Access Street in
accordance with KCRS 2.03. Any deviation from this standard
will require a variance from the KCRS requirements, approved
by the Department of Public Works.
30. The eastern frontage of 114th Avenue S.E. shall be improved
to Urban Neighborhood Collector Standards (KCRS 2.03) to
match the existing vertical alignment Where it abuts the
site. The final engineering plans shall include appropriate
transition of these improvements to the existing roadway.
Eight feet of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to
King County along 114th Avenue S.E.
31. A grading plan shall be resubmitted for review with the
final engineering plans.
32. All construction work related to clearing, filling, and
grading shall be limited to the drier months (April 1
through October 31, inclusive) unless otherwise approved by
BALD's Engineering Review Unit.
33. The following have been established by SEgA as necessary
conditions of this development to miticfate adverse
environmental impacts. The applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with these requirements prior to final approval.
Kings Stone
S90P0045 Page 17
a. For the wetlands on-site, based on the plat map
submitted April 19, 1991:
1) The wetlands identified in Tract A and in Tract D,
both King County Type 2 wetlands shall each have
pL 50-foot-wide buffer of undisturbed native
vegetation from the wetland edge.
2) The wetland in Tract B, a King County Type 3
wetland, shall hays a 25-foot-wide buffer of
undisturbed native vegetation from the wetland
edge.
3) Wetlands and buffers shall have Native Growth
Protection Easements (NGPE) placed on them, and a
15-foot building setback line (BSBL) shall be
shown from the edge of the NGPE. Wetlands and
buffers shall be placed in separate tracts.
4) A fence is required along the edge of the NGPEs on
the east side of Tract D, on the east side of
Tract B, and along the southwest side of Tract A
to clearly identify the areas as a sensitive
resource. Signs should be posted along the fence
line to clearly identify the area as an NPGE. A
detail of the proposed fence and signs, and
revised site plans showing its location, must be
submitted for BALD Sensitive Areas approval prior
to final plat approval. The fence and signs shall
be maintained by the homeownerst association.
Clearly identifying the buffer edge will keep the
buffer from being considered part of the
residences' backyards and will help keep domestic
animals from intruding into the wetlands.
5) Biofiltration swales shall not be constructed
within the wetland buffers. Biofiltration swales
may be placed within the 15-foot BSBL.
6) Filling wetlands for construction of 116th Avenue
S.E. shall require a 1:1 replacement mitigation.
\Approximately 5,000 square feet will be filled.
The fill supporting the existing driveway off of
114th Avenue shall be removed to mitigate for this
loss. in additionf water from the biofiltration
swale constructed adjacent to the wetland of Tract
A can direct sheetflow through this buffer area to
create additional wetlands, or additional wetlands
can be excavated from along the western edge of
the Tract B wetland. The applicant shall submit
an enhancement plan for review and approval by
BALD Sensitive Areas staff. Any area excavated to
create new wetlands shall be revegetated with the
species present in the wetland found in Tract A.
The following species are found in this wetland
and shall be included: red alder, Oregon ash,
black cottonwood, salmonberry, Indian plum, vine
maple, pig-a-back, sworn fern, lady fern, red
elderberry, slough sedge, and red-osier dogwood.
7) The applicant shall post a Performance Bond in an
amount to cover the cost of planting and
construction management by a wetlands consultant,
and monitoring by BALD staff. A three-year
monitoring period is required to assure the
planting survive. Upon completion of the final
monitoring inspection of the site, King County
Kings Stone
S90P0045 Page 18
BALD wetlands staff shall release the bond. if
the plantings have not been successful at the end
of the monitoring period, the applicant is
-responsible for preparation and implementation of
a contingency plan to remedy the situation.
b. For transportation: The applicant shall contact METRO
to a) develop a site plan that indicates how the
proposal has considered public transportation needs and
facilitates homeowner access to transit and ride
sharing, b) disseminate transit and ridesharing
information to new home buyers the first time
residences are sold, in agreement with METRO and at the
expense of the developer or seller. The applicant
shall provide written verification to King County
Environmental Division of such coordination with METRO
prior to final plat approval.
C. For drainage:
1) Due to the potential downstream impacts, a more
restrictive drainage design for the eastern sub-
basins shall be required for this subdivision, per
the recommendations of the Surface Water
Management Division. The performance of proposed
R/D facilities shall be such that discharge from
the developed area shall be no more than 70
percent of the pre-developed 2-year/24-hour
release rate for design storm events up to and
including the 100-year/24-hour design storm event.
Restrictions greater than described above may be
required upon final review of the downstream
analysis.
2) Due to the restrictive capacity of the cross-
culvert under 114th Avenue S.E. , a more
restrictive drainage design for the stormwater
(R/D) facility shall be computed using an SCS-
based hydrograph method. The performance of the
proposed R/D facility shall be such that discharge
from the developed area shall be no more than 70
percent of the pre-developed 2-year/24-hour
release rate for design storm events up to and
including the 100-year/24-hour design storm event.
Restrictions greater than described above may be
required upon final review of the downstream
analysis. As an alternative, culvert replacement
may be considered by the applicant's engineer,
subject to the review and approval by King
county's Surface Water Management Division, per
Section 1.2.2 of the Surface Water Design Manual.
3) A closed-depression wetland exists within proposed
Tract B in the western portion of the site. The
following conditions shall be satisfied:
i. The roof and footing drains of the proposed
lots that drain to the wetland shall direct
flow to the wetland where feasible.
ii. An overflow structure shall be provided with
the overflow elevation set at the existing
natural overflow elevation.
iii. R/D for the entire area that drains to this
wetland shall be provided in proposed Tract C
in the southwest portion of the site.
Kings Stone S90POO45 Page 19
4) The final drainage plans approved by BALD shall
comply with the requirements of the 1990 Surface
Water Design Manual and generally concur with the
Conceptual Drainage Plan prepared by Townsend-
Chastain and Associates, Inc. , received by BALD
May 31, 1991.
34. The initial submittal of the engineering plans shall include
an examination of the feasibility of each of the following
options for treatment of drainage problems associated with
the cross-culvert under 114th Avenue S.E. near Tract D;
a. Replacement of the culvert;
b. Raising 114th Avenue S.E. ;
C. Providing an overflow mechanism for the western basin
discharge.
35. The 100-year floodplain of the preserved wetlands shall be
determined and shown on the final engineering plans and
recorded plat as required by Special 'Requirement No. 9 of
the 1990 SWM Design Manual. Any portion of the 100-year
floodplain extending beyond the final wetland buffer shall
also be designated as NGPE.
36. A geotechnical study prepared by Golder Associates, Inc. has
been submitted with the preliminary plat. This study shall
be subject to the review and approval of the BALD geologist.
The project engineering plans shall be designed to reflect
the final geotechnical report recommendations. A letter
from the geotechnical consultant shall be submitted with the
engineering plans to verify that the prepared plans reflect
their recommendations.
37. The following statement shall be shown on the final
engineering plan and recorded plat:
"Building Setbacks and Native Growth Protection
Easements
Structures, grading, fill and obstructions (including,
but not limited to decks, patios, outbuildings, or
overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the
building setback line (BSBL) and within 25/100 year
floodplains (if applicable) , and within the Native
Growth Protection Easement(s) as shown.
Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement
(NGPE) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in
the land within an easement. This interest includes
the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes
that benefit the public health, safety and welfare,
including control of surface water and erosion,
maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural
buffering, and protection of plant and animal habitat.
The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and
occupiers of the land subject to the easement the
obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King
County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other
vegetation within the easement. The vegetation within
the easement may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill,
removed or damaged without express permission from King
County, which permission must be obtained in writing
from the King County Building and Land Development
Division or its successor agency.
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 20
Before and during the course of any grading, building
construction, or other development activity on a lot
subject to the NGPE, the common boundary, between the
easement and the area of development activity must be
fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of King
County."
OS. A homeowners+ association or other workable organization
shall be established to the satisfaction of BALD which
provide$ for the ownership and continued maintenance of open
space areas, fences and signs, and the pedestrian path.
39. A note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads as
follows:
"Lots within this subdivision are subject to the terms
of King County Ordinance Nos. 9747 and 10162, which
impose impact fees to fund improvements to the County
transportation and school systems made necessary by new
development. if the plat developer has not paid all
applicable fees at the time of final plat submittal,
each lot owner shall be liable for such fees at the
time of application for a bu' ing permit".
ORDERED this llth day of March, 19
afford i h
Deputy Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner
TRANSMITTED this llth day of March, 1992, by certified mail, to
the following parties of record:
Bloss, Carl Casey, David
Daniel, Dr. George T. Davis-Hall, Michael
Hagen, Maynard Kiefer, Charles
Kiefer, John Knitter, C./Golder Assoc.
Lowe, Tom Morrow, Paul
Munger, Garet/Terra Assoc. Riggs, Michael
Wilson, Richard R. Woodbury, Camilla
Yadon, Mr. and Mrs. R.D.
TRANSMITTED this llth day of March, 1992, to the following:
Gill, Gary, City Engineer, City of Kent
Haff, Louis, Public Works
Hudson, Rich, Building and Land Development Division
Johnson, Tammy, Building and Land Development Division
Kara, A. Fatin, King County Conservation District
Laporte, Tim, City of Kent Engineering Department
Logan, 'John, Public Works
Lutz, James, WSDOT
Masters, David, Environmental Division
Miller, Tina, Building and Land Development Division
Norman, Paulette, Public Works
Pringle, Lisa, Building and Land Development Division
Questad, Barbara, Environmental Division
Reitenbach, Paul, Community Planning
Samek, Gary, Public Works
Shea, Brian, Building and Land Development Division
Shular, Ryan, Building and Land Development Division
Taylor, Steve, Building and Land Development Division
Thornbury, Arthur, King County Council
Towne, Sandra, Community Planning
Wannamaker, George, Public Works
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 21
Gu11holm, Ellen
Kellogg, Tom
Kinared, Diana
New Construction} Services
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written
notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the King County
Council with a fee of $125.00 (check payable to King County
Office of Finance ) on or before March 25 1992. If a notice of
appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal
statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in
support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King
County Council on or before April 1 1992. If a written notice
of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 calendar days of
the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and
argument are not filed within 21 calendar days of the date of
this report, the Clerk of the Council shall place a proposed
ordinance which implements the Examiner's recommended action on
the agenda of the next available council meeting.
Filing requires actual delivery to the office of the Clerk of the
Council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of
business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not
sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within
the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority
to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not
open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior
to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient
to meet the filing requirement.
Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving
or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and
conclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of the
action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of
certiorari from the Superior court in and for the County of King,
State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action
taken.
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 6, 1991 AND AUGUST 13, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING
ON BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION FILE NO. S90P0045 -
KINGS STONE:
Stafford L. Sm3th was the Hearing Examiner in this matter.
Participating in the hearing were Steve Taylor, Rich Hudson, Tina
Miller, and Ryan Shular, representing the Building and Land
Development Division, Gary Samek, representing Public Works, Carl
Bloss, Charles Kiefer, Paul Morrow, Michael Riggs, and Gary Gill.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record
on August 6, 1991:
Exhibit No. 1 Building and Land Development Division's
Preliminary Report to the Zoning and
Subdivision Examiner dated August 6, 1991
Exhibit No. 2 Application received May 14, 1990
Exhibit No. 3 Environmental Checklist received May 14, 1990
Exhibit No. 4 Declaration of Non-Significance dated
July 16, 1991
Exhibit No. 5 Affidavit of Posting indicating June 26, 1991
as date of posting and indicating June 28,
1991 as date affidavit was received by
Building and Land Development Division
Exhibit No. 6 Revised plat received April 18, 1991
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 22
Exhibit No. 7 Kroll maps for 627E, 631E, 654W, 660W
Exhibit No. 8 Conceptual Drainage Plan received May 31,
1991
Exhibit No. 9 Level I Downstream Analysis by Townsend-
Chastain received May 14, 1990
Exhibit No. 10 Level II Downstream Analysis by Townsend-
Chastain received April 18, 1991
Exhibit No. 11 Revised Level II Analysis by Townsend-
Chastain received May 31, 1991
Exhibit No. 12 Traffic Study by Christopher Brown &
Associates received September 17, 1990
Exhibit No. 13 Addendum Traffic Study by Christopher Brown &
Associates received April 15, 1991
Exhibit No. 14 Geotechnical Evaluation by Golder Associates
received April 17, 1990
Exhibit No. 15 Wetland Study by Terra Associates received
May 14, 1990
Exhibit No. 16 Addendum Wetlands Study received April 17,
1991
Exhibit No. 17A-C Three letters from Mr. and Mrs. R.D. Yadon
concerning drainage, schools, traffic and
wildlife
Exhibit No. 18 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation by Terra
Associates received August 6, 1990
Exhibit No. 19 Letter from Camilla Woodbury concerning
traffic, schools, and environmental problems
Exhibit No. 20A-B Letter and video from Charles Kiefer/East
Hill Environmental Citizens Alliance
Exhibit No. 21 116th Variance No. S991VO078
Exhibit No. 22 Revised Recommended Condition No. 21
Exhibit No. 23 Recommended Condition No. 32
Exhibit No. 24 Recommended Condition Nos. 33-35
Exhibit No. 25 272nd/277th Street North Corridor Study from
City of Kent EIS (draft)
Exhibit No. 26A-B Letter from Christopher Brown & Associates to
Hearing Examiner dated July 31, 1991
Exhibit No. 27 Letter from Paul Morrow to Hearing Examiner
dated August 5, 1991
Exhibit No. 28A Slope Density Calculations by Townsend-
Chastain
Exhibit No. 28B Preliminary subdivision information re: lot
density
Exhibit No. 29 Letter from Paul Morrow to Environmental
Division dated July 30, 1991
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record
on August 13, 1991:
Exhibit No. 30 Applicant's plat map showing conceptual phase
plan
Exhibit No. 31 Alternatives A, B, and C for proposed road
extension for S.E. 272nd and 277th
Exhibit No. 32 City of Kent Six Year Transportation
Improvement Program
Exhibit No. 33 Building and Land Development Division Report
to Zoning and Subdivision Examiner dated
January 5, 1984 re: Echo Glen Heights
Exhibit No. 34 April 1988 Functional Classification Changes
- Department of Public Works
Exhibit No. 35 Addition to Recommended Condition No. 30
Kings Stone S90P0045 Page 23
The following exhibits were entered into the record by the
Examiner pursuant to the applicant's request for reconsideration
dated October 8, 1991.
Exhibit No. 36 Applicant's Request for Reconsideration dated
October 8, 1991 from Paul Morrow of Townsend-
Chastain, Inc.
Exhibit No. 37 Examiner's Notice of Reconsideration of
Recommended Plat Conditions dated October 14,
1991
Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Richard Wilson, attorney
representing the applicant, dated October 25,
1991
Exhibit No. 39 Memo from Rich Hudson, Lead Planner, Planning
Unit, King County BALD, dated October 25,
1991
Exhibit No. 40 Examiner's Revised Notice of Reconsideration
dated November 8, 1991
Exhibit No. 41 Letter dated November 27, 1991 with
attachments from Michael Davis-Hall, attorney
representing the applicant
Exhibit No. 42 Memo from Rich Hudson dated November 27, 1991
Exhibit No. 43 Examiner's Second Revised Notice of
Reconsideration dated December 16, 1991
Exhibit No. 44 Memo from Rich Hudson dated January 8, 1992
Exhibit No. 45 Letter from Michael Davis-Hall dated
February 18, 1992, representing the applicant
Exhibit No. 46 Memo from Rich Hudson dated February 18, 1992
with the applicant's revised preliminary plat
map dated January 22, 1992
Exhibit No. 47 Letter dated February 21, 1992 from Michael
Davis-Hall, representing the applicant
Exhibit No. 48 Memo from Rich Hudson dated February 20, 1992
S90P0045/1(ings Stone
SLS:gb
POR 6520/smith\kingston.por
DOC smith\kingsrev.rpt
tlarch 26, 1992 Introduced by hudrey Gruoer
1 Ord92.7 Proposed llo. 91-302
2
1 ORDIIIANCE 110. _10 3 4 1
'I All ORDINAl10E concurring with the recommendation .
of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner to
approve, subject to conditions (modified) , the
Preliminary Plat of KINGS STONE, Building and
Land Development File No. S90P0045.
7
R BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUIICIL OF KIIIG COUNTY:
n
In
This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate herein
Hie findings and conclusions contained in the revised report of
I1
12 the zoning and subdivision examiner dated March 11, 1992, which
11 was filed with the clerk of the council on March 261 1992, to
approve, subject to conditions (modified) , the prelimihity plat
1.1
IG of Kings Stone, designated by the building and land development
16 division file no. S90P0045 and the councll� does hereby adopt as
its action the recommendations) contained in said repopt:
17
IB INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this _ day of
19 19W
?.D XSSED THIS Ze4AY OF 19 .
2l KIIIG COUNTY COUIICIL
KIIIG COUNTY, WASHINGTOII
22
2:3 1 (I
2-I Chair
(J1
25
26 ATTEST:
27
LC�r�k�i25lerk oe Council
29 .
1n
11
12
1:1
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November 3.. 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MI-C ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-95-10
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City has re eived an application by
M. Durkan for a proposed amendment to'jI1-C Zoning District in
order to allow drive-through type eating establishments, which
are presently disallowed in this district. The application
requested a reduction in the minimum lot size requirement. The
Planning Commission recommends approval of this request.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report dated October 23, 1995 nd Planning
Commission minutes of October 23, 1995
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commissio , etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL PERSONNEL IMPACT NO YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS*
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission of an amendment to the MI-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.
DISCUSSION:'ACTION: Yl y1�
il c-
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
CITY OF l V\�L]V
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department
MEMORANDUM
October 23, 1995
MEMO TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MI-C ZONING DISTRICT/#ZCA-95-10
(M. DURKAN)
Proposed Zoning Code Amendment:
On August 24, 1995, Martin Durkan, Jr. filed an application for regulatory review with the Kent
Planning Department. Mr. Durkan's application requests a revision to the MI-C zone in order
to allow drive-through type eating establishments, which are presently disallowed in this district.
In addition, his application requested a reduction in the minimum lot size requirement. A copy
of the application is attached to this memorandum.
On October 9, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed this matter in workshop and found merit
in the proposed amendments. Therefore, staff has brought this matter forward for public hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Background:
The Ml-C zone was created by City ordinance in 1988 following a year-long study of industrial
and commercial land use in the West Valley area of Kent. The results of the "West Valley Study"
indicated that retail opportunities existed in the industrial area (much of which was zoned Ml) and
a C-suffix designation was developed and added to the M1 zone. This suffix could be applied to
properties only through a rezoning process. Since 1988, two sites - one at 212th/West Valley
Highway and another at Willis Street/SR 167 - have been rezoned to MI-C.
The M1 (Industrial Park) zone permits light industrial and warehousing type uses, offices, and a
very limited number of retail uses. The primary purpose of the M1 zone is to "...provide an
environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of a broad range
of industrial activities...(Sec. 15.04.170). The C-suffix permits additional commercial uses - such
as convenience stores, computer sales, convention halls, hotels and motels, printing services, and
other uses which "...provide necessary personal and business services for the general industrial
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO M1-C ZONING DISTRICT
October 23, 1995
Page 2
The commercial development anticipated by the "West Valley Study" has not materialized. At
212th/West Valley Highway, a motel was under construction but experienced financing difficulties
before it was completed. The building shell was eventually demolished by new owners. The
property is now vacant. A second motel was constructed further to the west on 212th Street, but
anticipated, ancillary commercial uses (such as a restaurant) have not been built. An Ml-C rezone
was obtained for property at Willis Street/SR 167 but no commercial development has ever been
built at this site.
Anal,ysis and Staff Recommendation:
The pedestrian friendly commercial environment anticipated by the C-suffix in the M1 zone has
not occurred. The development which has occurred has been auto-oriented (e.g., motels). The
restriction in the M1-C zone that eating establishments not include drive-through facilities may
be unrealistic in light of what uses have developed under MI-C zoning. Therefore, some
broadening of permitted uses may be warranted, such as that proposed in this regulatory review
request, as well as a reduction in the minimum lot size for such commercial activities.
Staff recommends the following amendments to the M1-C zone in order to allow greater use
flexibility in the M1-C zone:
1. Amend Sec. 15.04.170(B) to add the following:
15.Eating establishments, including drive-in or drive-through facilities.
2. Amend Sec. 15.04.170(F) to add the following:
1.Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre, except on lands zoned
Ml-C where the minimum lot size may be 10,000 square feet.
cc: Jim Harris, Planning Director
Attachment
FSN/tb:durkan.rez
_ . 3 4 1915
City of Kent �_� ;•: C.='' ni4iE51T
Regulatory Review
What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review?
We believe the Council should take a look at Kent City Code (K.C.C.) 15.04.170
Subsection 13 (C) and K.C.C. 15.04.170 Subsection F. (1) dealing with Retail
uses and Development Standards in the Industrial Park District M1 or M1-C.
What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation?
It limits retail uses for restaurants by limiting the convenience of drive through
facilities. It also through Development Standards limits minimum lot size to 1
acre.
What Changes do you suggest to this ordinancelregulation?
The changes suggested would be to amend K.C.C. 15.04:170 Subsection 13(C)
to allow drive-through facilities and to amend K.C.C. 15.04.170 F. (1) and allow
minimum lots of ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
What Significance to the community will occur with your proposed
change?
The significant change in allowing retail restaurants drive through, would allow
employers and employees to remain in the geographic during dinning hours,
reducing the number of S.O.V. trips to other areas. The other change to
minimum lot size would allow minimum lot of ten thousand square feet which is
comparable to that allowed in Industrial Commercial zones.
What effect, if any, will your proposed change have on related ordinances,
regulations, plans and policies?
It will lead to better planned policies and regulations in dealing with M-1 or M-1
C zoning.
Have you reviewed you concern with a city staff member?
Do you have any general comments you wish to make( can be about the
ordinancelregulation you want changed or about anything else to do about
with ordinancelregulations or the permit process)?
The changes suggested, would increase amenities offered to the Industrial Park
District and would better serve its employees and employers.
CITY OF
972 �
Jim White, Mayor
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Hearing
October 23, 1995
The regular meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill
at 7:00 PM on October 23, 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
Edward Heineman, Jr.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kenneth Dozier, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Linda Phillips, Planner
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28 1995 MINUTES
Minutes will be approved at the November 27, 1995, public hearing.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom, notified the Commission that the City Council held its first
meeting on the Meridian Annexation zoning on October 17, 1995. The second hearing with the City
Council will be held on November 21, 1995, as scheduled.
#ZCA-95-10 Ml-C AMENDMENT (Fred Satterstrom)
Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom, presented the staffs recommendation for a zoning code
amendment of the M1-C zone. The request for the zoning code amendment was submitted to the
City by Martin Durkan Jr. in August._
MI-C Amendment-4ZCA-95-1 D
n i. r <n vccr v-_ cinvnTnnc. en--rr.i rornvr ^n .o<n -nn �.v -ocn�.-
Planning Commission Minutes
October 23, 1995
The staff recommendation is to amend the M1-C zone to allow drive-through restaurants and to
reduce the minimum lot size required (in the MI-C zone) to 10,000 square feet. Presently the
minimum lot size in the M1-C zone is one acre. The minimum lot size for commercial zoning in all
of Kent's commercial zones is 10,000 square feet. Therefore, the request would be consistent with
the prevailing minimum lot size in the commercial zones.
The City currently has only two areas that are zoned MI-C. One is on West Valley Highway at
212th and the other site along the Valley Freeway at Willis Street.
The Planning Department staff recommends the approval of the requested zone change in two parts.
The first part would add language to the existing MI-C zoning which would allow drive-through
eating facilities. The second part would change the minimum lot size in the M1-C zone to 10,000
square feet. Again, this would be consistent with the other commercial zones in the City.
Commissioner Nuss questioned if allowing another use to the MI-C zone would be reducing the
already limited manufacturing space. Mr. Satterstrom reititerated that Kent has only two M1-C
nodes and therefore it would only effect a small portion of the M1 zones.
Chair Morrill opened the public hearing.
Martin Durkan Jr., 330 SW 43rd, Renton. Mr. Durkan represents the Aldara Management
Corporation which is part of the Boeing family trust that owns property in Kent which is currently
zoned as M1-C. Mr. Durkan is requesting the zoning code amendment in order to offer drive-
through restaurants in the M1-C zone. He is also requesting the amendment to allow a smaller lot
size (10,000 square feet) which is consistent with other commercial zones.
Chair Morrill closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to adopt the staff recommendation and change the zoning code
language in the M1-C zone as outlined in the staff s proposal. Commissioner MacIsaac SECONDED
the motion.
Commissioner Nuss raised the question to Commissioner Stringham as to whether or not it was a
conflict of interest for him to participate in the issue presented. Commissioner Stringham pointed
out that since restaurants are currently allowed in the MI-C zone and that the issue at hand is to
specifically allow drive-through restaurants; he did not believe this to be a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Pattison informed the Commission that he had personally driven the sites in question
and believes that the proposed use is appropriate. Commissioner Pattison supports the
recommendation.
Motion Carried.
2
MI-C Amendment-#ZCA-95-10
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November '1. 1995
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMEN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
(PHASE I - EAST HILL) CPZ-95-1
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Planning Commission has recommended
potential zoning map changes for nine areas on East Hill, as
identified in the staff report.
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo dated November 31 1995; staff report
dated July 17, 1995; Planning Commission minutes of July 24,
1995; and four letters submitted by citizens
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Plannin Commission
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO ✓ YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOIIIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COIINCIL ACTION:
moves, Councilmember seconds
Councilmember
to approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission on the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Zoning Map
Amendment CPA-95-1 (Phase I - East Hill) regarding zoning map
changes for nine areas on East Hill, as identified in the staff
report, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the neces-
sary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
CITY OF -�:�JYI
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
November 3, 1995
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: PHASE I ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP -,#CPZ-95-1
On July 24, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding #CPZ-95-1-
- zoning map amendments to implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. This project
is being undertaken in two phases. The first phase focuses on zoning map amendments on the
East Hill, while the second phase, to be completed in 1996, will examine amendments on the
Valley Floor and West Hill. After considering the staff report and public testimony at the July
24 hearing, the Commission made a recommendation for Phase One amendments to the Citv of
Kent zoning map.
The Planning Commission considered potential zoning map changes for nine areas on East Hill
which were identified by staff. These areas are shown in the attached staff report to the
Planning Commission, dated July 17, 1995. These areas were identified by comparing the
Land Use Plan Map in the Comprehensive Plan with the Official Zoning Map, and
determining which areas could possibly be rezoned, either because the zoning was not
compatible with the plan (for example, a parcel zoned for residential use that the plan
designates as commercial) or because the zoning of the property was at a residential density
less than the maximum density allowed by the plan. The Planning Commission's
recommended zoning for each area is listed below. The minutes from the July 24 meeting are
also attached for your reference.
AREA EXISTING ZONING RECOMMENDED ZONING
1 RA Rl-20
2 RA R1-12
3 R1-9.6 R1-7.2
4 R1-5.0 MRM
5 MRD MRM, R1-7.2
6 R1-9.6, R1-72 No Change
7 R1-9.6 R1-7.2
8 R1-12 R1-7.2
9 R1-7.2 R1-5.0
1
Phase I Zoning Map Amendents to Implement the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map - #CPZ-95-1
November 3, 1995
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, several letters were received by the Planning
Department regarding Area 6. These letters are also attached for your consideration.
Planning Department staff will be available at the November 7 meeting to further explain the
recommended zoning changes. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact
me at 850-4799.
KOH/mp:a:chzonam.mem
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Mathews Jackson, GIS Coordinator/Planner —
2
CITY OF
- CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
July 17, 1995
TO: KENT MORRILL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: PHASE I ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP - ##CPZ-95-1
Attached is the staff report for Phase I zoning map amendments to implement the Land Use Plan
Map in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The staff report includes individual maps and analysis
for each of the subareas being proposed for zoning map changes, as well as a vicinity map, City-
wide zoning map, and Land Use Plan Map. These attached maps should make it convenient for
the Commission members and the public to review the proposed changes in context with the
overall zoning and Land Use Plan Map designations in the City.
If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please contact Kevin or Matt at 859-3390.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
VICINITY MAP/PROPOSED ZONING
RA TO RI-2
Y T
t iN I
x
sPKiNceN
EN. SC C
RA TO R1-12
I tear IT ]20 T
RA - Residential Agricultural.1 unit per acre
n
'�PNN7NxTEN'I RI-20—Single-familyrmidendal,1 unit/20,000 square feet
L KE
]2117x s RI-12 a Single-familyresidential,1 unit/12,000square feet
f 2I.TK ST
"IT RI.9.6—Single-family residential,1 unit/9,600 square feet
1 R1-7.2—Single-family residential,1 unit/7,200 square feet
" IT
][2rtrN IT
e R1-5.0=Single-family residential,1 unit/6,000 square feet
IT
NisoN .. MRD =Single-family residential and duplexes
� NEfK
PNNN rl
MRG = Multi-family residential,16 units per acre
MRM = Multi-family residential,23 units per acre
]TM r
22YT s R1-9.6 TO R1-7.1�
am i z ][220TN f
win NO.iIN Y
V � C NE�7/O/AM 6
OrYt t ] 2 -
N ,[2„ 4Rl-9.6 TO R1—' f
R � - - T
1 YT"r b SCNOOC X
][ NENf e • sc rlsrx rt ]e 2357x]
NENONINL x €
PNNK C 23ITx rL h.
"ET y��
gs �l
T -- R1-12 TO R1-7 2
PIONEER
R1-7.2 R1.9.6 TO RI-5.0 R1.7.
x ]MIT T j t T
24"M''
z
]
C ["]OM I
r MOST R
"n o_ rt
9 N/CNg�SCHO ER ILL
x s Tx `
� xzer m ]YTM
"n[]T
KEN KEN
GENE 7 SN/N CEN n I[ ne
[ ]oi"] IT ssT
rsYTN n
]222"Y]T ECENNlS y.iw��
MRD TO MRM R1-7.2 TO R1-5.0
Introduction
This project involves amending the City's zoning map to bring it into conformance with the
Land Use Plan Map in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Consistency between zoning
and the comprehensive plan is required by the Growth Management Act. This project will be
undertaken in two phases. The first phase will focus on zoning map amendments on the East
Hill, while the second phase will examine amendments on the Valley Floor and West Hill.
The Planning Commission has had two workshops on Phase I zoning map amendments, the first
on June 12, 1995 and the second on July 10, 1995. The first workshop examined the context
of the entire project, while at the second workshop the Commission reviewed each area being
analyzed for potential zoning map amendments as part of Phase I.
Background
On April 18, 1995, the City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance #3222).
The plan includes a Land Use Plan Map as part of its Land Use Element. The adopted Land
Use Plan Map is the guideline for zoning decisions, both for land within the city limits and as
land currently in unincorporated King County becomes annexed into the city.
For the most part, the City's existing zoning map is consistent with the Land Use Plan Map in
the .Comprehensive Plan. Planning Department staff reviewed the entire zoning map in
conjunction with the Land Use Plan Map and identified nine study areas for potential zoning map
amendments in Phase 1. This was done by comparing the Land Use Plan Map to the Zoning
Map, and determining which areas could potentially be rezoned, either because the zoning was
not compatible with the plan (for example, a parcel zoned for residential use that the plan
designates as commercial) or because the zoning of the property was at a density less than the
maximum density allowed by the plan. For example, if an area was designated SF6 in the plan,
but zoned at a zoning density less than R1-7.2, this area is a candidate for a potential rezone.
Staff Analysis and Recommendations
The following section shows a map with the recommended zoning for each of the nine study
areas. The area which is shaded on the maps represents the lots or parcels which are being
proposed for a zoning change. The page accompanying each map outlines the existing Land Use
Plan Map and zoning designation for each area, as well as the plan and zoning designations for
the surrounding properties. The characteristics of each area are then described, followed by a
staff recommendation. A vicinity map is also attached to make the general location of each of
these areas clearer. Also included for reference is a city-wide zoning map and the Land Use
Plan Map which was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1
{
Ilifj I III ' 1 Li
REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 1
EXISTING ZONING: RA PROPOSED ZONING: R I - 2O
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SF - 3
AREA 1
Size of Area: 36 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-3 (Single Family Residential - 3 units
per acre)
Current Zoning: RA (Residential Agricultural)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: Residential Rural (City of Renton)
South: SF-3
West: Manufacturing Center
East: Urban Separator/UR 4-12 (King County)
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: R1 (City of Renton)
South: R1-12
West: M2
East: R-1/R-6 (King County)
Analysis:
This area is located to the east of the Valley Freeway, and south of South 192nd Street. It is
an area presently characterized by very low density single-family residential development.
Access to this area is presently very limited, since the property abuts the Valley Freeway on one
west side, and no streets are located along the eastern boundary of the property. The area is
currently accessible only from South 200th, South 198nd, and South 192nd Streets, all coming
from the east. The property is also characterized by steep west-facing slopes facing the Valley
Freeway. The areas to the north and east are constrained by steep slopes and stream corridors,
which are reflected in the low density plan and zoning designations of adjacent properties by the
City of Renton and King County, respectively.
Staff Recommendation: R1-20 (Single Family Residential - 20,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1
C?
I �fI Irl I I \III�JI/ � 11 I q
�
! flI 11 ��� a�III II(IN k i �)�
III��I
� I p III << < � \\\I��II' 1 ►�l �, 1������� ��:.,1 `� :�� '
111 I / �IJ1111, �
f II ��rili�illl(I►f� .� ,
I� IIhII - � aj I II�IIII 111�1
� I II 111� 1 11 \\Il�llll �I
III 11 � �\ � ►� � �I\\ll
REZONE SITE ^T^� CITY LIMITS AREA 2 _
EXISTING ZONING: RA PROPOSED ZONING: R 1 - 1 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SF - 3
AREA 2
Size of Area: 14 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-3 (Single Family Residential - 3 units
per acre)
Current Zoning: RA (Residential Agricultural)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: SF-3
South: Commercial
West: Manufacturing Center
East: SF-6/SF-1
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: R1-12
South: Office/R1-7.2
West: M2
East: R1-7.2/RA
Analysis:
This area is located along the west side of 92nd Avenue South, to the north of South 208th
Street. The area is distinguished by west-facing slopes which look out over the Valley Freeway
and the Valley Floor. Most of the parcels in this area are already developed with single-family
residences. The area is currently zoned RA, although several of the existing parcels are less
than one acre in size. If the area is rezoned to a higher single-family density, future
development potential will be somewhat limited, due to the location of existing houses and the
slopes abutting the freeway. However, with the new development standards which are being
proposed regarding single-family lot dimensions, some increased development capacity would
be possible.
Staff Recommendation: R1-12 (Single Family Residential - 12,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
t` ,tr ® f11
51
r y 1 t♦ ��
f ,
W 6 r fr ■ i
h - 1 � .1: z ■
741.
I •�
_ � i.:_- In E. .r �: ki;., k" �r�iMr�r•
I �r ;� r +!5 b�E�Y�. 1 I �► �
� i �r��Y k .��� � - _ \ c 1 �. ..Y� 1r.nr�jrirS•� r__
► f s ` �' ' �� � _ .° � �■ it _ �. �� i
.: I r•.. .... rr_ I
MEN
F a�
I
AREA 3
Size of Area: 118 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-6 (Single Family Residential - 6 units
per acre)
Current Zoning: R1-9.6 (Single Family, 9600 sq. ft.
minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: SF-6/UR 4-12 (King County)
South: SF-6/LDMF
West: SF-6
East: UR 4-12 (King County)
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: R1-20/R6 (King County)
South: RI-7.2/MRG
West: R1-20
East: R-6/R-48 (King County)
Analysis:
This area generally extends along 100th Avenue South, from just north of South 240th Street to
the city limits at SE 225th Place. The area is generally distinguished by low density single-
family residential development with large, unplatted lots, although there are two residential
developments along the northeastern portion of the area. One of the developments, Dover Place,
was constructed as a planned unit development, and has lot sizes of approximately 4,500 square
feet. Most of the lots in the other large subdivision are approximately 7,200-7,500 square feet.
The property to the north and east of the area is in unincorporated King County, and is zoned
R-6 (6 units per acre), with a multi-family residential project bordering the northeast comer of
the area. The property to the west and northwest of the area is part of the Beck annexation area;
the interim zoning for this area is currently R1-20, but the City Council is considering initial
zoning, which is currently proposed as R1-7.2. R1-7.2 zoning is presently located to the south
of the area. The topography of the area is relatively level, with the exception of the
northwestern portion of the area, which is intersected by Garrison Creek.
Staff Recommendation: R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential - 7200
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
m
�k�•�E w�`3na.r�'r ..emu m4� � ey
1 4
7 7
� i6, 214
NO
n
■
S � 1
Bl
AREA 4
Size of Area: 14 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDMF (Low Density Multifamily)
Current Zoning: R1-5.0 (Single Family Residential - 5,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: LDMF
South: Mixed Use-Limited MF
West: SF-6
East: MDMF/Mixed Use-Limited MF
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: MRG
South: O
West: R1-7.2/R1-9.6
East: MRM/CC
Analysis:
i
This area was rezoned from MRM to R1-5.0 in 1989 as part of the East Hill Housing Study.
At the time that the zoning decision was made by the City Council, several of the parcels within
this area were vacant. Prior to the R1-5.0 zoning going into effect, however, multi-family
residential projects were vested on these parcels, and these projects have since been constructed.
Therefore, at this time the entire area is developed with multi-family residential projects. At
the request of a property owner during the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, the City
Council designated this area as Low Density Multi-family Residential.
Staff Recommendation: MRG(Multiple Family Residential- Garden
Density)
r
l
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE 1
0
II \
REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS .AREA 5 ,-
EXISTING ZONING: M R D PROPOSED ZONING: M R M
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTIFAMILY
AREA 5
�4.yr
f
Size of Area: 2 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: MDMF (Medium Density Multifamily)
Current Zoning: MRD (Multifamily Residential - Duplex)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: SF-6
South: LDMF
West: SF-6
East: MDMF
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: RI-7.2/MRG
South: MRD
West: R1-7.2
East: MRM
Analysis:
This area represents a parcel and a portion of another, both of which are currently zoned MRD.
Both parcels are currently developed with a multi-family residential project. The eastern half
of the second parcel in question is zoned MRM. During hearings on the Comprehensive Plan,
the property owner asked that both parcels be zoned MRM, since this would reflect the
development which had already taken place on the property. Therefore, the area was designated
as Medium Density Multi-Family on the Land Use Plan Map.
Staff Recommendation: MRM (Medium Density Multifamily)
°r' ,�■.� 1• � Pill tl ``�1 � •~,r_a r �' T i� 1' 1 l `^ , �7� i
i � I
f • � ek `y-2i
• r, .e, r wi�4 ,, F i•,--, i� w x L
<�� � • '� �— eft x '�
. � ' �� aY, cry �m �� 1t"t�d �'k�ti �■ ■�� j�l �`., t
r ¢c+.c�ztr 1 ..i; �. ` ��`�t4 ��� � ■ ,�I y` 2 1�� rt y L .
• I 7 ': z, tP� [ {L i.,xSu ice{
e. l
('p S .7
�� ;.�` �>� ge .re 5'r y'ka�:.,{ �n�� i.3 a� f^'.•r1 £ Yyjse
■ �� ., � 1 �, tY.a �re -p L. �I�J 4b {� �, _ t w �:tt a 5 "'t i
�� � � � wit � �. ��t "a�trz ��,.at :a� ° c ��h?N t P (yt'yz � •
►7�� I�� ' ^R'�33}"aT t a•r` a '�cr5&K 'S 1`^ti Y^j .iC,� ��'Y t r � k^ '�1��. � 1C^'ir �i` S: •�
� I
rll -
` II
• 1
•
AREA 6
Size of Area: 109 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-8 (Single Family Residential - 8
units per acre)
Current Zoning: R1-7.2/R1-9.6 (Single Family - 7200/9600
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: LDMF/SF-6/Mixed Use-Limited MF
South: MDMF
West: MDMF/SF-6/LDMF
East: Mixed Use-Limited MF/SF-8
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: MRD/R1-7.2/0/CC
South: MRD/MRM
West: MRD/MRM/R1-7.2
East: O/CC/R1-5.0
Analysis:
One of the most important themes in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan is providing more capacity for single-family residential development to both meet the City's
housing targets and allow for more variety in terms of single-family lot sizes. This area was
designated as SF-8 on the Land Use Plan Map given its location, which abuts commercial areas
to the north and east and multi-family residential areas to the west and south, and the fact that
there are generally no major environmental constraints in the area.
The area is currently zoned R1-7.2 on the east side of 100th Avenue SE and R1-9.6 on the west
side. The southern portion of the area is already developed with the Eastwood subdivision on
the east side of 100th Avenue SE and the Canterbury subdivision on the west side. It is
proposed that the majority of the property on the east side of 100th Avenue SE remain R1-7.2,
given the fact that much of the property is already developed; the exception would be the large
vacant parcel on the northeast comer of 100th Avenue SE and SE 244 Street which is proposed
for R1-5.0. This parcel is directly adjacent to an area already zoned as R1-5.0 to the east, and
also adjacent to the Fred Meyer store to the north. The developed area on the west side of
100th Avenue SE is proposed to be zoned R1-7.2, to be consistent with the zoning on the east
side of 100th Avenue SE, and given that this area is already subdivided, while the rest of the
area west of 100th Avenue SE is proposed for R1-5.0. Most of this area is fairly undeveloped,
and poses the greatest potential for future single-family residential capacity.
Staff Recommendation: R1-5.0/R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential -
5000/7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size)
,p
qNil
�I
A y♦ _ ♦ its � `'—`� � `� ■ � � T
all
�r
� 3
1 �I'' y � � ! t ■'w
■ ■
AREA 7
'Y~
Size of Area: 8 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-6 (Single Family Residential - 6 units
per acre)
Current Zoning: R1-9.6(Single Family Residential- 9600 sq.
ft. minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: UR 4-12 (King County)
South: LDMF
West: UR 4-12 (King County)
East: SF-6
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: R-6 (King County)
South: MRG
West: R-6 (King County)
East: R1-7.2
Analysis:
This area is located in the southwest comer of SE 232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. The area
is bordered to the north and the west by unincorporated King County, and the zoning in the
County in this area is R-6 (six units per acre). Park Orchard elementary school is located to the
north of the area. The zoning to the east of the property is R1-7.2, while the area to the south
is developed with multi-family residential uses. There do not appear to be any significant
environmental constraints in this area.
Staff Recommendation: R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential - 7200
sq. ft minimum lot size)
i
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE -1
Lij
l \ \
\ ci
\ �\
Go c \1�\��\ \ Ali �\\ \✓� \\' ��
o >
0 0
CD
�`r17
REZONE SITE CITY LIMITS AREA 8
EXISTING ZONING: R 1 — 1 2 PROPOSED ZONING: R 1 — 7 . 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SF - 6
AREA 8
Size of Area: 9 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-6 (Single Family Residential - 6 units
per minimum lot size)
Current Zoning: R1-12 (Single Family Residential - 12,000
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: SF-6
South: SF-3
West: SF-6
East: UR 12+ (King County)
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: R1-7.2
South: R1-12
West: R1-7.2
East: R-18
.� Analysis:
This area, located at the southwest comer of 116th Avenue SE and South 240th Street, is
designated SF-6 on the Land Use Plan Map. The area consists of four parcels which are
relatively flat, and which are all approximately 2 to 2.5 acres. The area is surrounded by Rl-
7.2 zoning to the west and north, and R1-12 zoning to the south. The area to the east is in
unincorporated King County and is currently developed as a commercial nursery and zoned for
multi-family development. This is an area that the Kent City Council designated for higher
density single-family development than currently exists, given its location on a busy intersection,
and proximity to R1-7.2 zoning and commercial development.
Staff Recommendation: R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential - 7200
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
� • � � rr � r � � �:� ri i � �
' a y
h 4
• �' ��e.x n 4t'ng�ja�`'.n
M ow
IA
MUL
vgl
,4 r
a ^ at t
it
�� ♦ ^5 rs�l7 �.��as�'t a� n � -
- �
. OW r.
- - s
•
AREA 9
Size of Area: 12 acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: SF-8 (Single Family Residential - 8 units
per acre)
Current Zoning: R1-7.2(Single Family Residential-7200 sq.
ft. minimum lot size)
Plan Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: MDMF
South: LDMF
West: MDMF
East: UR 4-12/UR 12+ (King County)
Zoning Designations of Surrounding Properties
North: MRM
South: MRG
West: MRM
East: R-6/R-18 (King County)
Analysis:
This area is located at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. The
area is surrounded by multi-family zoning and development in the city limits, and by both multi-
family and single-family development in unincorporated King County, located to the east of the
area. During the hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, a property owner in this area asked that
the area be designated for multi-family development. The City Council did not designate the
area for multi-family development, but did designate the area SF-8 to allow higher density
single-family development in light of the area's proximity to both existing multi-family
development and the busy intersection of 116th Street and Kent-Kangley Road.
Staff Recommendation: R1-5.0 (Single Family Residential - 5000
sq. ft. minimum lot size)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Use Plan Map
2. City-Wide Zoning Map
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
W Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
Jim Harris, Planning Director, announced that the Boundary Review Board approved the
Meridian annexation boundary, an area of 5.3 square miles with a population of 20,000 persons.
He said the formal decision will made on August loth, at which time a resolution will be passed.
Mr. Harris said this annexation will impact the Planning Commission in the future as there will
be several meetings on zoning as well as review of the comprehensive plan. He said the intent
of the City Council is to have the annexation take effect on January 1, 1996, and to have the
zoning in place at that time.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS - None
#CPZ-95-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION-ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, presented background of the Zoning Map Amendment process,
and its correlation to the recently adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the staff
report entitled Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan. Phase I - East
Hill, which contains information on the locations of tonight's proposed amendments, as well as
colored maps which indicate land use designations and current zoning districts. He said staff
compared the land use plan map to existing zoning and identified nine areas where zoning
designation were a lesser density than the land use plan map. Mr. O'Neill said the changes
allowing a higher density to already existing single family areas, except in one case where the
City Council changed a designation from single family to multifamily, since the area was already
developed as multifamily.
Chair Morrill opened the public meeting.
Mr. O'Neill outlined the material contained in the staff report, including a summary of the areas
size, current and surrounding designations and zoning, and staff's recommendation. Questions
will be answered by staff.
Area #1 - Mr. O'Neill said this area is located at the north end of the City, east of the SR167
and south of 192nd Street. Surrounding King County and Renton zoning is one unit per acre,
and the parcels are large, generally over one acre, and currently zoned RA. Due to limited
access and environmental concerns, staff recommends a zoning designation of R1-20.
Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if Kent was violating their own comprehensive plan by
lowering densities. Mr. O'Neill said they were not, since the plan defines land use designations
as "up to" a certain density.
No testimony was given.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 3 _
Area #2 - Matt Jackson gave the background concerning this area, which is located south of
Area #1, along the Valley Freeway, and north of 208th Street. He said this 14 acre area is
zoned RA, and that most of the lots are already developed. He said since this area is accessible
by roads, the density of R1-12 is recommended by staff.
No testimony was given.
Area #3 - Mr. O'Neill gave the background concerning this area, which is located adjacent to
Benson Road, and north of South 240th Street, east of the Beck annexation area. He said this
118 acre area is currently zoned R1-9.6 and staff is recommending R1-7.2, consistent with
existing King County and City zoning. He said a correction to the staff report needs to be noted
as the City Council recently changed the zoning to the north and tQ the west from R1-20 (Interim
Zoning) to R1-9.6.
John Walburn, of 23719 99 Avenue S, said his property borders the southern boundary of Area
#3. He said he thought an R1-7.2 meant six units per acre, and asked how many units per acre
the designation R1-9.6 represented. He also asked if 99th Avenue would become a through
street if the area is zoned with a higher density.
Les Loken, of 23206 100 Avenue SE, indicated a city park on the map and suggested a
multifamily designation be extended north to South 231st Street to include this area. He gave
reasons why this would be helpful to the neighborhood, children walking safely to the park and
that an easement through his property would allow park access. He listed City projects currently
in progress which he said indicates further residential development that could support additional
multifamily development. He asked the Planning Commission to consider his request.
Area #4 - Mr. Jackson said this 14 acre area was rezoned in 1989 from MRM to R1-5.0 in an
effort to promote single family development. However, multifamily projects were already
proposed for the vacant lots. Since this area is already built out as multifamily, staff
recommends an MRG designation, as the City Council recommended a low density multi-family
designation. Mr. O'Neill explained the difficulties involved if a non-conforming structure is
destroyed and needed to be rebuilt. He said the present non-conforming provisions of the zoning
code states that a medium density complex, provided it was constructed prior to 1973, could be
rebuilt as a medium density rather than garden density. He said staff is recommending
elimination of the date provision during the zoning code implementation..
Paul Morford, of PO Box 6345, Kent, said this entire area is built out at medium density, and
expressed concern with the non-conforming issue from a financing and sales standpoint. He
proposed zoning as MRM, as that was the zoning designation at the time he purchased the
property approximately 12-15 years ago. He gave the zoning history of this area, and said it
was time to correct the zoning back to MRM, instead of MRG, from single family designation.
In response to Commissioner MacIsaac's request, Mr. Morford indicated his properties on the
map and gave the zoning history of each.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 4
Commissioner Nuss asked staff to explain why MRG was recommended instead of MRM. Chair
Morrill said this should be answered at the conclusion of the hearings.
Area #5 - Mr. O'Neill said the MRM designation for this two acre area was proposed in
response to a request by a property owner who owns an apartment complex that was split-zoned
MRD and MRM. He said in the course of plotting the parcel, the adjacent single family
residential property was inadvertently included on the map for proposed zoning of MRM.
Lee Ann (Blessing) Johnson, of 320 North Summit Avenue said she owns the home located
adjacent to the apartment complex at 308 North Summit Avenue, which asked to be zoned
MRM. She distributed and read a statement objecting to the proposed MRM designation for her
property, and asked that her property remain single family residential.
Robert Zube, of 17302 SE 45th Street, Issaquah, owner of the apartment complex located at
308 North Summit Avenue, testified that he did not request the Johnson property be included
in the MRM designation when he testified during the comprehensive plan public hearings.
Area #6 - Mr. Jackson said the 109 acre site is located north of South 248th Street between 94th
and 104th Avenues. He said the comprehensive plan designates this area as SF-8, and staff is
recommending R1-5.0 and R1-7.2, from R1-7.2 and R1-9.6, as it is well served by services to
support the recommended higher density. He also said street improvements are proposed for
South 94th Avenue and South 248th Street. Mr. Jackson explained the proposed zoning changes
as R1-5.0 for the area to the north and R1-7.2 for the area to the south.
John Talbot of 10008 SE 245th Place said he is against lowering the lot size minimums, and
says a group of citizens is petitioning the City Council to keep 100th Avenue and 244th Street
closed from becoming through streets. Although his land will not be affected by the proposed
change, Mr. Talbot expressed concern with possible new development which would cause 100th
Avenue to be opened to through traffic. He also said he was notified only today of the public
hearing and asked that communications improve regarding important issues as this.
Joe Reichlin of 9425 South 247th said he has lived in this area for 25 years and that he has seen
the area grow. He said he feels the density is fine the way it is, and additional density would
cause a dangerous traffic situation. He said he opposes the proposed change from R1-7.2 to R1-
5.0.
Jim Schmidt of 10019 SE 246th Place said he opposes the proposed change from R1-7.2 to R1-
5.0 for the same reasons stated previously. He stated also that the R1-5.0 would create a
negative impact on the schools.
Connie Ryerson of 10012 SE 244th Court said she agrees strongly with the previous
testimonies. She presented a copy of a petition which was submitted to the City Council
requesting that both 100th Avenue SE and South 244th Street remain non-through streets. She
nCPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 5
gave reasons supporting why these streets should remain closed, and that opening the streets
would jeopardize safety of children walking to school. Ms. Ryerson said she strongly disagrees
with the proposed zoning change.
Commissioner Nuss asked why so many people were uninformed about the meeting tonight.
Staff will respond later.
When asked how the children are walking to school now, Ms. Ryerson responded there are
gravel foot paths through the area and the children walk together in groups accompanied by
older children. She said the path is far safer than a busy street with fast cars.
Tony Zupan of 9928 South 248th Street said he has lived in hi§ neighborhood over 15 years,
said he against the proposed changes for the area. He said additional density would create the
need for more streets. He said the present zoning would be best for the neighborhood.
Ken Noyce of 9820 South 245th Place testified that he strongly objects to the proposed R1-5.0
zoning. He listed a variety of planning changes he has seen in his neighborhood which have
created negative impacts. He said he is concerned about safety for the children walking to
school, by increased traffic, and by drivers who do not slow down when children are walking
down the street.
David McGrew (did not sign the roster) said he was in favor of the change to R1-7.2, and that
R1-9.6 is too large and restrictive. Mr. O'Neill clarified that existing zoning as R1-7.2 on the
east side of 100th, and R1-9.6 on the west side.
Area #7 - Mr. O'Neill described this area as 8 acres located in the southwest corner of SE
232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. He said the comprehensive plan designation is SF-6,
consistent with surrounding county, and staff recommends changing the zoning from R1-9.6 to
R1-7.2.
No testimony was given.
Area #8 - Mr. Jackson stated this 9 acre area is located south of 240th, at the SW comer of
116th Avenue SE, with a current zoning of R1-12. He said staff recommends R1.-7.2, consistent
with surrounding zoning and the comprehensive plan. When asked why R1-5.0 was not
recommended, Mr. Jackson said the change from R1-12 to R1-5.0 would be too substantial, and
RI-7.2 was a fair compromise. Mr. Jackson said there was prior public testimony to support
the SF-6 request through the Planning Commission, Planning Committee and the City Council.
No testimony was given.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
PaQe 6
Area #9 - Mr. O'Neill said this 12 acre area is located at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue
SE and Kent Kangley Road, and that existing zoning is R1-7.2. He explained that this area is
surrounded by multifamily and that a property owner requested a multifamily designation for this
area, which was denied by the City Council. Therefore, to allow a higher density, R1-5.0 is
recommended. When asked if there was a multifamily development east of 116th Avenue, Mr.
O'Neill said it may only zoned multifamily, without an actual multifamily development.
Tom Sharp of 11126 SE 256th Street said he was the individual who was denied the multifamily
request. Mr. Sharp gave reasons why his property should be zoned MRM or MRG, rather than
creating a single family island, and stated it is very difficult to sell a house which is located next
door to an.apartment complex. He confirmed that he is requesting a split zoning to square off
the zoning of the 2 acre parcel.
Chair Morrill asked if anyone else present wished to speak.
Bernel Thorley of 23805 99th Avenue South said his area is between Area #6 and Area #3.
He asked several questions including if it is the City's goal or policy to develop at a higher
densities, and if so, whether the quality of life and traffic concerns were considered. He said
he felt 5,000 square foot lots would destroy the rural atmosphere of the area, as well as creating
an area of lower priced homes. Chair Morrill responded that it was not a goal of the City.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED
the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
At the request of the Chair, Mr. O'Neill answered questions which were presented during the
public hearing.
Regarding Area #3 and the future opening of 99th Avenue, Mr. O'Neill concurred with Ed
White, Traffic Engineer, that there were no immediate plans to do so. Concerning the extension
of multifamily near 231st, Mr. O'Neill stated that the purpose of this meeting is to implement
zoning to conform to the comprehensive plan, which has designated this area as SF-6. . He
further explained the legal issues involved with the Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirements. He said this process includes adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which was
accomplished on April 18, 1995, and consistency and implementation of development regulations
to the comprehensive plan.
Regarding Area #4, Mr. O'Neill said the specific differences between MRG and MRM zoning
were discussed at hearings and that the City Council designated this area as Low Density
Multifamily because they did not want additional multifamily units developed in that area.
On Area #5, Mr. O'Neill said staff inadvertently included Mrs. Johnson's parcel in the MRM
zoning, and staff concurs with the proposal to zone the property R1-7.2.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 7 `
Mr. O'Neill said pertaining to the issues on Area #6, public notices were mailed over ten days
prior to the hearing, and that he was concerned why so many property owners received late
notices or none at all. He said this area offers a lot of development potential, because of the
large lots. Concerning traffic, he said this area is included in the City Council adopted six-year
transportation improvement program, which plans to widen and improve 94th Avenue and 248th
Street.
Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. White the status of potentially making 100th Avenue a
through street. Mr. White said the Public Works Committee recently met with residents of the
area,Vwho submitted a petition requesting 100th remain closed to through traffic. He said
because of the approval of the Hilltop Development, 244th will be opened.
On Area #9, Mr. O'Neill said it would take a comprehensive plan amendment to achieve the
request for a multifamily designation. He said a broad policy decision was made by the City
during the drafting of the comprehensive plan, to not change single family zoning to multifamily.
He reiterated that one of the City's overall policy of the comprehensive plan is to try to
accommodate the city's projected household growth as much as possible with single-family
residential development.
The Commissioners decided to deliberate on each area separately.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staffs recommendation for Area #1. Commissioner
Nuss SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Maclsaac asked that the commission
be aware that this area is down-zoned, and concern should be given regarding meeting Kent's
future housing goals. It was noted that no one testified on this issue. The motion CARRIED.
(Nay - Commissioner Maclsaac)
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept staffs recommendation for Area #2.
Commissioner Maclsaac SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #3. Commissioner
Stringham SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Stringham said that on many
Of the decisions the Planning Commission makes, the Commission does not have a choice. He
explained that laws from the Growth Management Act, passed by the State Legislature, and the
County-wide Planning Policies, passed by King.County, dictate how much growth the City will
accommodate. He said smaller lot sizes is one method promoting additional single family
housing, instead of resorting to additional multifamily development when housing targets are not
achieved by the end of the growth period.
Commissioner Nuss said she, and perhaps other Commissioners, were not in agreement with
Commissioner Stringham's statement.
The motion CARRIED. (Nay - Commissioners Dozier, Pattison)
#CPZ-95-I - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
" Page 8
Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to change Area #4 to an MRM designation to remain
consistent with the existing structures. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. The
motion CARRIED. (Nay - Commissioner Dahle)
Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept staff's recommendation of MRM for Area #5, but
removing the single family residence located on the northwest corner, which would be zoned R1-
7.2. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to keep Area #6 as R1-7.2 as requested by the citizens.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Discussion: The Commission received a
clarification from Mr. O'Neill on current zoning. Commissioner Nuss asked to change her
original motion to state that she wished to accept R1-9.6 and R1-,7.2, out of respect to the safety
of the children in the area. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED the motion. Discussion:
Commissioner Dahle asked if the entire area could be zoned R1-7.2, which would lower the
number of new children to the neighborhood and still retain property values. The
Commissioners also discussed if it was zoned R1-7.2, if 100th Avenue could remain as a non-
through street. Mr. O'Neill said he could not make that guarantee. Commissioner MacIsaac
expressed his concern regarding acquiring details for slated street improvements for this area,
and Mr. White provided the types background material used to base improvements to roadways.
In response to Commissioner Maclsaac's questions, Mr. White said financing is currently not
available to place a traffic light at 94th Avenue and Canyon Drive, nor Strawberry Lane. He
said there was an insignificant difference in peak hour trips generated when comparing zoning
of R1-9.6 and R1-7.2, but pass through traffic would increase substantially if 100th Avenue is
opened.
Commissioner Heineman said in response to the comment concerning a law requiring that we
have a specified number of housing units allowed for growth, he said he has a copy of a letter
from a State official which states that Kent was at the extreme upper end of the range for
housing growth projections. Several Commissioners expressed their interest in obtaining a copy
of the letter.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager explained the letter Commissioner Heineman refers to was
sent to the City late last year from the Department of Community and Economic Trade. He said
during the comprehensive plan process, a household target number of 7,520 was derived. He
said after the target figure had been established and the draft comprehensive plan created, the
Urban Centers Committee developed ranges which were presented to the GMPC. He said our
City Council never acted on the target ranges, which Kent's low end was approximately 6,000
households. Mr. Satterstrom said the State wanted to use the midpoint figure, and the actual
figure will fluctuate. Commissioner Nuss added that she was aware of the letter and the
adjustments at GMPC hearings. Commissioner Nuss withdrew her motion.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to leave the zoning as is for Area #6. Commissioner Heineman
SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 9
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #7. Commissioner
Nuss SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #8. Commissioner
Epperly SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area#9. Commissioner
Heineman SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Stringham said for the benefit of those property owners in Area #9, the
Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis, and he suggested requests for
multifamily zoning be addressed at the City Council meetings. Be said property owners could
ask the Council to explain why the area was designated single family.
Commissioner Pattison MOVED that the Planning Department staff review the method of
notification � of citizens, and present it to the next Planning Commission Workshop.
Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Dahle added that the public
notice was in the local newspaper three times. The motion CARRIED.
GOOD OF THE ORDER - There were no items.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. The motion CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
jecr
es P. Harris
etary
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
i �
1
o: President Judy Woods, and all r, mh,, rs of the City Council;
In consideration of the City of Kent's Planning Department's rexrrendati,c;,
for potential arrenrents to the Kent Zoning Map, residents of the nor`�st
corner of area six encourages the City Council to adopt a limited apolicaticn
of the Zoning Map Pmendnants proposed by the Planning Department of the C-,`v
of Kent.
The undersigned propert-, .owners prapcse and do support zcn ng ran a-f-ncy�:ts
for the nor-Lnwest corner of area six; from PI-9.6 to RI-7.2. F,e feel that by
prcccessirg a re-zone in t'-.is rr=er, the objectives set forth by the CC::- he-s ve
Plan could be net while at the same t__i*re dire ctly responding to local organs
regarding the prep_osed changes.
One cone i involved the issue of pedestrian safety on 94th ave. uhd. _- t i5
limited appLcation of zon-Lng arry ndar-ants, anv ne<r; develcprrent that shculd cc-,-
Would be directly adjacent to the neT.a Walnut Crove and Walnut Ridge suo�iv_sians.
Therefore any nog de,,elcment that should occur would tie directly into- t'.e in-
_rassacture already in place with the develC=ent already undertaKen Ln the area.
., Wit:r Ll n this conte.Yt, we bet:.eve tiaz- anV P_e`N cevelcumnt generated would i 7(=-e _Se
pedestrian safeta, not di* Lnish it.
A second concern raised was that of increased derzi-v. it should be noted
that a rrajori t-_7 of those who accu:ally own tze grope-rty under considerate cn,
support a limited chance in zoning. in addlt-On, we believe that a 1i-mite G.ance
would have a minimal i=,act on density when one considers the configurations of
those tracts w; lch are large enough to be di r_der. ka-anding the Zoning Map would
acocmoLsh greater fle-dbl ty with resm.ec-t to lot place.rent, lot cenfi guratlons
and general astectic's should subdivision occur.
Thirdly, 1t should be noted that those five residents OwnLLia rrG'.e'"tJ in the
e.Y'�S' TCE nor`u'.Sv�st corner Of area si'{, OLJI; lots that are 6.7 feet Wide and over 300
feet in le_ncmh. Re-zoning as requested would be a first step tcw7ards viable
develoam-rit for these prcpe -yes Ln the _atura.
On a final note, We would point out that in bri ngina this area L ntd cc:—
fOZiTLit'�7 W"i t}1 the CCR[LrehE_^S1V2 Plan `he C'�_i wCiilld ac.'`"`ilr ii h of- zhe
Zoning dis t'1cts witL^_ an area that is alr==r:;7 Or=.dCIiLlnat,1V cI-%.2.
Please see the attached nams ccnce_rTiLng the area in auesticn. Included
below are the names and addresses of twse prcpemcy owners ( within this specific
area wino suDr-ort a change in zoning from Pa-96 to RI-7.2.
Sinc--- ely;
David Mc-ea
24220 94th ave. S.
YPrit Wa. 9803T
N7lI S AND ADDRESSES OF PROP=- 0;,, = ;qM SUPPOFC A L w-= RE-Z= F PTA? S=
NAPE ADDRESS
Ple a see the as nps concerning the area in questi.cn. •Included
below are the names and addresses of tl�ose nrore'-ty owners ( witlin this ski=ic
area who stmpert a change in zoning from PT-9;6 to RI-7-2-
Sin eiv;
C J r r --—� David 2h�eew
(� 24220 94th ave. S._
Rent Wa. 9803I
Nr�S AND ADDEESSF DF PFQ7P�T'Y Cfr = �v�i0 _,zr5 FT A L i ff= RE-ZaE CF PI SIX
ADDRESS
vVI/
-. - -\. �Y="� "��•-�r"'""".r� _-'K'- .�.r�+a-� , J - ~ ~`�r„o�T �.rs:� tc i—_ __ —
�' _ .`'��-sT�i3 �r.'^'a'-•--•tom _ -_�rl:"a�`�_��cv,-��� V� �� � - -
F'..-
M1.�TJ�^+F'��N'•':.'+r ��I 4.�1 >sr��� 'mil^tom ' � J —
, ��s;f""SV rn-.t'.-=t�-�'. - -�r-.:a►�c-tis�ur''�+y. .-�.+�-� - - —
ZK
' _ �`: "tom--.. t <.�-•-T-� ��.�•�"'-�4 -`-'e+ �.-`e_- �-�'-'�i�-�C`- � - v7--�-•n c•,��-
- � J
;. •-• 3•�r-f �-w�.�R"�', ���-✓-�r'_'c?�..c"�I :�"�.i.31'.1.-��J�oaT�t.. � `��^.1 - - -
-
�� ��`� � �� �—i -rd.� � - '�{�1 -_� Vie"' �•�r .u�
� i
i4rs. Art:nur t.aarmai__
24418 96th Ave. So.
Kent, ',da. 98031
TO: =- ILN' O'NEILL, SZ2:IO L.u; ��
We are writti na to you in reference to the Zoning P•Iap Amendments
to Implement the Comprehensive Plan. Cur lots are located west
of 100th at 244th It. We would like for you to reconsider the
razoning of our lots to R1-5.0 as was proposed at your last
meeting. In looking at the map you can see our uwo lots are long
and very narrow and to use it to t^.e greatest p cten �i�al for future
single—family residential capacity we are hoping for reconsideration
to the rezonirg proposal.
Thank—you
Deborah St.vermain
LEONARD R. STANLEY 8
16814 N .E. 116th St.
Redmond, WA 98052 PLANNMGCU:C
CITY C'
September 15 , 1995
James P. Harris.
Planning Director
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Dear Mr. Harris,
I am writing you this letter to inform you that I
am in support of the R1 . 5 . 0 . -zoning. I currently have an
earnest money and plan to develop the property located at
24411 98th Avenue South in Kent, ( tax lot #9237) .
Sincerely,
? I�'�nk
Leonard R. Stanley
-0 LiJ
K,Q4 T Lc,A
1995-
C
--..2 4-4 1-1--/g W Y4E�
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 2
COMMUNICATIONS
Jim Harris, Planning Director, announced that the Boundary Review Board approved the
Meridian annexation boundary, an area of 5.3 square miles with a population of 20,000 persons.
He said the formal decision will made on August loth, at which time a resolution will be passed.
Mr. Harris said this annexation will impact the Planning Commission in the future as there will
be several meetings on zoning as well as review of the comprehensive plan. He said the intent
of the City Council is to have the annexation take effect on January 1, 1996, and to have the
zoning in place at that time.
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS - None
#CPZ-95-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION-ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, presented background of the Zoning Map Amendment process,
and its correlation to the recently adopted Kent Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the staff
report entitled Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan. Phase I - East
Hill, which contains information on the locations of tonight's proposed amendments, as well as
colored maps which indicate land use designations and current zoning districts. He said staff
compared the land use plan map to existing zoning and identified nine areas where zoning
designation were a lesser density than the land use plan map. Mr. O'Neill said the changes
allowing a higher density to already existing single family areas, except in one case where the
City Council changed a designation from single family to multifamily, since the area was already
developed as multifamily.
Chair Morrill opened the public meeting.
Mr. O'Neill outlined the material contained in the staff report, including a summary of the areas
size, current and surrounding designations and zoning, and staff's recommendation. Questions
will be answered by staff.
Area #1 - Mr. O'Neill said this area is located at the north end of the City, east of the SR167
and south of 192nd Street. Surrounding King County and Renton zoning is one unit per acre,
and the parcels are large, generally over one acre, and currently zoned. RA. Due to limited
access and environmental concerns, staff recommends a zoning designation of R1-20.
Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if Kent was violating their own comprehensive plan by
lowering densities. Mr. O'Neill said they were not, since the plan defines land use designations
as "up to" a certain density.
No testimony was given.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 3
Area #2 - Matt Jackson gave the background concerning this area, which is located south of
Area #1, along the Valley Freeway, and north of 208th Street. He said this 14 acre area is
zoned RA, and that most of the lots are already developed. He said since this area is accessible
by roads, the density of R1-12 is recommended by staff.
No testimony was given.
Area #3 - Mr. O'Neill Gave the background concerning this area, which is located adjacent to
Benson Road, and north of South 240th Street, east of the Beck annexation area. He said this
118 acre area is currently zoned R1-9.6 and staff is recommending R1-7.2, consistent with
existing King County and City zoning. He said a correction to the staff report needs to be noted
as the City Council recently changed the zoning to the north and to the west from R1-20 (Interim
Zoning) to R1-9.6.
John Walburn, of 23719 99 Avenue S, said his property borders the southern boundary of Area
#3. He said he thought an R1-7.2 meant six units per acre, and asked how many units per acre
the designation R1-9.6 represented. He also asked if 99th Avenue would become a through
street if the area is zoned with a higher density.
Les Loken, of 23206 100 Avenue SE, indicated a city park on the map and suggested a
multifamily designation be extended north to South 231st Street to include this area. He gave
reasons why this would be helpful to the neighborhood, children walking safely to the park and
that an easement through his property would allow park access. He listed City projects currently
in progress which he said indicates further residential development that could support additional
multifamily development. He asked the Planning Commission to consider his request.
Area #4 - Mr. Jackson said this 14 acre area was rezoned in 1989 from MRM to R1-5.0 in an
effort to promote single family development. However, multifamily projects were already
proposed for the vacant lots. Since this area is already built out as multifamily, staff
recommends an MRG designation, as the City Council recommended a low density multi-family
designation. Mr. O'Neill explained the difficulties involved if a non-conforming structure is
destroyed and needed to be rebuilt. He said the present non-conforming provisions of the zoning
code states that a medium density complex, provided it was constructed prior to 1973, could be
rebuilt as a medium density rather than garden density. He said staff is recommending
elimination of the date provision during the zoning code implementation.
Paul Morford, of PO Box 6345, Kent, said this entire area is built out at medium density, and
expressed concern with the non-conforming issue from a financing and sales standpoint. He
proposed zoning as MRM, as that was the zoning designation at the time he purchased the
property approximately 12-15 years ago. He gave the zoning history of this area, and said it
was time to correct the zoning back to MRM, instead of MRG, from single family designation.
In response to Commissioner MacIsaac's request, Mr. Morford indicated his properties on the
map and gave the zoning history of each.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 4
Commissioner Nuss asked staff to explain why MRG was recommended instead of MRM. Chair
Morrill said this should be answered at the conclusion of the hearings.
Area #5 - Mr. O'Neill said the MRM designation for this two acre area was proposed in
response to a request by a property owner who owns an apartment complex that was split-zoned
MRD and MRM. He said in the course of plotting the parcel, the adjacent single family
residential property was inadvertently included on the map for proposed zoning of MRM.
Lee Ann (Blessing) Johnson, of 320 North Summit Avenue said she owns the home located
adjacent to the apartment complex at 308 North Summit Avenue, which asked to be zoned
MRM. She distributed and read a statement objecting to the proposed MRM designation for her
property, and asked that her property remain single family residential.
Robert Zube, of 17302 SE 45th Street, Issaquah, owner of the apartment complex located at
308 North Summit Avenue, testified that he did not request the Johnson property be included
in the MRM designation when he testified during the comprehensive plan public hearings.
Area #6 - Mr. Jackson said the 109 acre site is located north of South 248th Street between 94th
and 104th Avenues. He said the comprehensive plan designates this area as SF-8, and staff is
recommending R1-5.0 and R1-7.2, from R1-7.2 and R1-9.6, as it is well served by services to
support the recommended higher density. He also said street improvements are proposed for
South 94th Avenue and South 248th Street. Mr. Jackson explained the proposed zoning changes
as R1-5.0 for the area to the north and R1-7.2 for the area to the south.
John Talbot of 10008 SE 245th Place said he is against lowering the lot size minimums, and
says a group of citizens is petitioning the City Council to keep 100th Avenue and 244th Street
closed from becoming through streets. Although his land will not be affected by the proposed
change, Mr. Talbot expressed concern with possible new development which would cause 100th
Avenue to be opened to through traffic. He also said he was notified only today of the public
hearing and asked that communications improve regarding important issues as this.
Joe Reichlin of 9425 South 247th said he has lived in this area for 25 years and that he has seen
the area grow. He said he feels the density is fine the way it is, and additional density would
cause a dangerous traffic situation. He said he opposes the proposed change from R1-7.2 to Rl-
5.0.
Jim Schmidt of 10019 SE 246th Place said he opposes the proposed change from R1-7.2 to Rl-
5.0 for the same reasons stated previously. He stated also that the R1-5.0 would create a
negative impact on the schools.
Connie Ryerson of 10012 SE 244th Court said she agrees strongly with the previous
testimonies. She presented a copy of a petition which was submitted to the City Council
requesting that both 100th Avenue SE and South 244th Street remain non-through streets. She ~-
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 5
gave reasons supportin'g why these streets should remain closed, and that opening the streets
would jeopardize safety of children walking to school. Ms. Ryerson said she strongly disagrees
with the proposed zoning change.
Commissioner Nuss asked why so many people were uninformed about the meeting tonight.
Staff will respond later.
When asked how the children are walking to school now, Ms. Ryerson responded there are
gravel foot paths through the area and the children walk together in groups accompanied by
older children. She said the path is far safer than a busy street with fast cars.
Tony Zupan of 9928 South 248th Street said he has lived in hjs neighborhood over 15 years,
said he against the proposed changes for the area. He said additional density would create the
need for more streets. He said the present zoning would be best for the neighborhood.
Ken Noyce of 9820 South 245th Place testified that he strongly objects to the proposed R1-5.0
zoning. He listed a variety of planning changes he has seen in his neighborhood which have
created negative impacts. He said he is concerned about safety for the children walking to
school, by increased traffic, and by drivers who do not slow down when children are walking
down the street.
David McGrew (did not sign the roster) said he was in favor of the change to R1-7.2, and that
R1-9.6 is too large and restrictive. Mr. O'Neill clarified that existing zoning as R1-7.2 on the
east side of 100th, and R1-9.6 on the west side.
Area #7 - Mr. O'Neill described this area as 8 acres located in the southwest comer of SE
232nd Street and 112th Avenue SE. He said the comprehensive plan designation is SF-6,
consistent with surrounding county, and staff recommends changing the zoning from R1-9.6 to
R1-7.2.
No testimony was given.
Area #8 - Mr. Jackson stated this 9 acre area is located south of 240th, at the SW corner of
116th Avenue SE, with a current zoning of R1-12. He said staff recommends R1-7.2, consistent
with surrounding zoning and the comprehensive plan. When asked why R1-5.0 was not
recommended, Mr. Jackson said the change from R1-12 to R1-5.0 would be too substantial, and
R1-7.2 was a fair compromise. Mr. Jackson said there was prior public testimony to support
the SF-6 request through the Planning Commission, Planning Committee and the City Council.
No testimony was given.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 6
Area #9 - Mr. O'Neill said this 12 acre area is located at the northwest corner of 116th Avenue
SE and Kent Kangley Road, and that existing zoning is R1-7.2. He explained that this area is
surrounded by multifamily and that a property owner requested a multifamily designation for this
area, which was denied by the City Council. Therefore, to allow a higher density, R1-5.0 is
recommended. When asked if there was a multifamily development east of 116th Avenue, Mr.
O'Neill said it may only zoned multifamily, without an actual multifamily development.
Tom Sharp of 11126 SE 256th Street said he was the individual who was denied the multifamily
request. Mr. Sharp gave reasons why his property should be zoned MRi\l or MRG, rather than
creating a single family island, and stated it is very difficult to sell a house which is located next
door to an apartment complex. He confirmed that he is requesting a split zoning to square off
the zoning of the 2 acre parcel.
Chair Morrill asked if anyone else present wished to speak.
Bernel Thorley of 23805 99th Avenue South said his area is between Area #6 and Area#3.
He asked several questions including if it is the City's goal or policy to develop at a higher
densities, and if so, whether the quality of life and traffic concerns were considered. He said
he felt 5,000 square foot lots would destroy the rural atmosphere of the area, as well as creating
an area of lower priced homes. Chair Morrill responded that it was not a goal of the City.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED
the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
At the request of the Chair, Mr. O'Neill answered questions which were presented during the
public hearing.
Regarding Area #3 and the future opening of 99th Avenue, Mr. O'Neill concurred with Ed
White, Traffic Engineer, that there were no immediate plans to do so. Concerning the extension
of multifamily near 231st, Mr. O'Neill stated that the purpose of this meeting is to implement
zoning to conform to the comprehensive plan, which has designated this area as SF-6. He
further explained the legal issues involved with the Growth Management Act (GMA)
requirements. He said this process includes adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, which was
accomplished on April 18, 1995, and consistency and implementation of development regulations
to the comprehensive plan.
Regarding Area #4, Mr. O'Neill said the specific differences between MRG and MRM zoning
were discussed at hearings and that the City Council designated this area as Low Density
Multifamily because they did not want additional multifamily units developed in that area.
On Area #5, Mr. O'Neill said staff inadvertently included Mrs. Johnson's parcel in the MRM
zoning, and staff concurs with the proposal to zone the property R1-7.2.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 7
Mr. O'Neill said pertaining to the issues on Area #6, public notices were mailed over ten days
prior to the hearing, and that he was concerned why so many property owners received late
notices or none at all. He said this area offers a lot of development potential, because of the
large lots. Concerning traffic, he said this area is included in the City Council adopted six-year
transportation improvement program, which plans to widen and improve 94th Avenue and 248th
Street.
Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. White the status of potentially making 100th Avenue a
through street. Mr. White said the Public Works Committee recently met with residents of the
area, who .submitted a petition requesting 100th remain closed to through traffic. He said
because of the approval of the Hilltop Development, 244th will be opened.
On Area #9, Mr. O'Neill said it would take a comprehensive plan amendment to achieve the
request for a multifamily designation. He said a broad policy decision was made by the City
during the drafting of the comprehensive plan, to not change single family zoning to multifamily.
He reiterated that one of the City's overall policy of the comprehensive plan is to try to
accommodate the city's projected household growth as much as possible with single-family
residential development.
The Commissioners decided to deliberate on each area separately.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #1. Commissioner
Nuss SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Commissioner MacIsaac asked that the commission
be aware that this area is down-zoned, and concern should be given regarding meeting Kent's
future housing goals. It was noted that no one testified on this issue. The motion CARRIED.
(Nay - Commissioner MacIsaac)
Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #2.
Commissioner MacIsaac SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #1 Commissioner
Stringham SECONDED the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Stringham said that on many
of the decisions the Planning Commission makes, the Commission does not have a choice. He
explained that laws from the Growth Management Act, passed by the State Legislature, and the
County-wide Planning Policies, passed by King County, dictate how much growth the City will
accommodate. He said smaller lot sizes is one method promoting additional single family
housing, instead of resorting to additional multifamily development when housing targets are not
achieved by the end of the growth period.
Commissioner Nuss said she, and perhaps other Commissioners, were not in agreement with
Commissioner Stringham's statement.
The motion CARRIED. (Nay - Commissioners Dozier, Pattison)
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
Page 8
Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to change Area #4 to an MRM designation to remain
consistent with the existing structures. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. The
motion CARRIED. (Nay - Commissioner Dahle)
Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept staff's recommendation of MRM for Area #5, but
removing the single family residence located on the northwest corner, which would be zoned R1-
7.2. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Nuss MOVED to keep Area #6 as R1-7.2 as requested by the citizens.
Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Discussion: The Commission received a
clarification from Mr. O'Neill on current zoning. Commissioner Nuss asked to change her
original motion to state that she wished to accept RI-9.6 and R1,7.2, out of respect to the safer-
of the children in the area. Commissioner Dozier SECONDED the motion. Discussion:
Commissioner Dahle asked if the entire area could be zoned RI-7.2, which would lower the
number of new children to the neighborhood and still retain property values. The
Commissioners also discussed if it was zoned R1-7.2, if 100th Avenue could remain as a non-
through street. Mr. O'Neill said he could not make that guarantee. Commissioner Maclsaac
expressed his concern regarding acquiring details for slated street improvements for this area.
and Mr. White provided the types background material used to base improvements to roadways.
In response to Commissioner MacIsaac's questions, Mr. White said financing is currently not
available to place a traffic light at 94th Avenue and Canyon Drive, nor Strawberry Lane. He
said there was an insignificant difference in peak hour trips generated when comparing zoning
of R1-9.6 and R1-7.2, but pass through traffic would increase substantially if 100th Avenue is
opened.
Commissioner Heineman said in response to the comment concerning a law requiring that we
have a specified number of housing units allowed for growth, he said he has a copy of a letter
from a State official which states that Kent was at the extreme upper end of the range for
housing growth projections. Several Commissioners expressed their interest in obtaining a copy
of the letter.
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager explained the letter Commissioner Heineman refers to was
sent to the City late last year from the Department of Community and Economic Trade. He said
during the comprehensive plan process, a household target number of 7,520 was derived. He
said after the target figure had been established and the draft comprehensive plan created, the
Urban Centers Committee developed ranges which were presented to the GMPC. He said our
City Council never acted on the target ranges, which Kent's low end was approximately 6,000
households. Mr. Satterstrom said the State wanted to use the midpoint figure, and the actual
figure will fluctuate. Commissioner Nuss added that she was aware of the letter and the
adjustments at GMPC hearings. Commissioner Nuss withdrew her motion.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to leave the zoning as is for Area #6. Commissioner Heineman
SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 1995
�••- Page 9
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #7. Commissioner
Nuss SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #8. Commissioner
Epperly SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Area #9. Commissioner
Heineman SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Commissioner Stringham said for the benefit of those property owners in Area #9, the
Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis, and he suggested requests for
multifamily zoning be addressed at the City Council meetings. He said property owners could
ask the Council to explain why the area was designated single family.
Commissioner Pattison MOVED that the Planning Department staff review the method of
notification of citizens, and present it to the next Planning Commission Workshop. .
Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Dahle added that the public
notice was in the local newspaper three times. The motion CARRIED.
GOOD OF THE ORDER - There were no items.
It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. The motion CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
J'Js P. Harris
etary
#CPZ-95-1 - Zoning Map Amendments to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
)p
Kent City Council Meeting
Date November "1 1995
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: 1996-1998 STREET SWEEPING SERVICE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: 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.
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid summary memorandum
r
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Direc or
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Couimission, etc. )
i
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $12 95.47 per month
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Storm O eratin Budget
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
that the 1996-1998 Street Sweeping Contract be awarded to
Action Services Corporation for the bid amount of $12, 495.47
per month. )
DISCUSSION• " rr
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
- November 2, 1995
TO: Mayor &z City Council
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: 1996-1998 Street Sweeping Service Contract
Bid opening for this Service Contract was held on Tuesday, October 31st with three
bids received. The lowest responsive bid was submitted by Action Services, Inc. in
the amount of $12,495.47 per month ($149,945.64 per year). The apparent low bid
submitted by Northwest Pipe &Parking Lot Cleaning was deemed non-responsive for
failure to comply with the contract requirement and equipment specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the 1996-
1998 Street Sweeping Service Contract be awarded to Action Services Corporation
for the bid amount of $12,495.47 per month ($149,945.64 per year).
BID SUMMARY
Northwest Pipe &_Parking Lot Cleaning 12,230.35/month
Action Services Corporation 12,495.47/month
Best Parking Lot Cleaning No bid bond included
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the 1996-1998
Street Sweeping Contract be awarded to Action Services Corporation for the bid
amount of $12,495.47 per month.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Y �n
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
t cw� P Q-C- -!
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
L�
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 11 , 1995
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Christi Houser, Leona Orr
STAFF PRE SENT: Kelly Brown,Ed Crawford,Sharon Hayden,Roger Lubovich,Brent McFall,Judge
McSeveney, May Miller, Kelli O'Donnell, Leona Orr,
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Mr. Chen
The meeting was called to order at 9:38 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson.
Approval of Vouchers: All claims for.the'period ending September 29, 1995, in the amount of
$1,105,612.81 were approved for payment.
Municipal Court Report
Director of Operations Brent McFall noted that the Committee previously requested a comparison of
Aukeen District Court charges to the expenses of Kent Municipal Court. McFall stated that a report had
been distributed with the agenda and that Judge McSeveney, Chief Crawford, and Roger Lubovich were
invited to speak to the Committee regarding how the system is actually working compared to the district
court system. Court Administrator Kelly Brown explained that in 1993 police officer overtime for court
appearances was at $73,000 which had been reduced to $25,000 in 1994. Judge McSeveney stated that
in 1994 the Court made a commitment to tighten up the system to provide better service in scheduling
bench trials and motions. This resulted in calendaring these items for Thursdays and Fridays when most
officers are on duty thus reducing overtime. In addition, monitoring of fines and probation has also been
improved. McSeveney stated that he had sent out a"How are we doing?" letter to the 129 lawyers utilizing
the Court in 1994 and received no negative responses.
McFall pointed out that there is also a certain amount of lead time in collection of fines. Kelly added that
the Office of the Administrator of the Courts and the State Auditor have stated that it normally takes three
to five years to establish accounts receivables. She stated that it is remarkable that after two years we will
equal Aukeen's numbers which has been a long established court. During further comments, McSeveney
noted the limitations of only one courtroom. City Attorney Lubovich stated that the figures used in the
comparison were the actual filing fees for Aukeen in 1993. He noted that new fees were proposed at a
much higher rate which facilitated the City dropping out. Roger explained that the secondary theme was
the drive to improve service. The Municipal Court compliments the attorney and police operations;
Aukeen made no accommodations. Since the move to Kent Municipal Court, domestic violence cases
have been dealt with to cut down repeat offenders. Lubovich gave additional examples of improvements
in service to the citizens of Kent.
Chief of Police Ed Crawford explained to the Committee that while at Aukeen an officer would work until
3 or 4 a.m. and come into court for a 9 a.m. hearing but attorneys would show up late leaving officers
waiting. The Municipal Court has consistent starting times. He noted that McSeveney is also the Co-Chair
of the Domestic Violence Committee and serves as a voice of the constitution. Crawford stated that there
have been many positive improvements including scheduling consistency and responsiveness to the City.
He concluded that on the police side there are two issues that need to be addressed down the road: video
arraignment and added security.
Finance Director May Miller stated that on the collection side Aukeen always had the attitude of, "that's
our business,we'll let you know." May noted that there is now cooperation between the City and the Court
Administrator which will lead to continued improvements in revenue collection. During further
discussion, Committeemember Orr asked what the status of video arraignment was. McFall replied that
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES, CONT.
OCTORFR 1 1 , 1095
there have been equipment problems. After further discussion, Committeemember Houser asked for a
report at the next Operations meeting.
Qapital Facilities Plan
Director of Finance May Miller reviewed the Capital Facilities Plan with the Committee. On page 3 she
noted that the annexation startup costs for 1996 will be covered by the annexation revenue and have not
all been transferred over. During her review May noted that the plan combines all of the plans for water,
streets,parks,etc. The plan will be updated every year and the annexation will be included next year. May
asked for authorization to adopt the 1996 portion of the CFP to be folded into the 1996 budget. Houser
asked what the property sale on page 3 was. Miller and McFall stated that they would need to check and
respond back. During further discussion Chair Johnson asked if the sidewalks in the annexation area
would have the same priority as the original sidewalk program. McFall responded affirmatively that
school areas would have top priority with funding available.
Orr moved to recommend adoption of the 1996-2001 Capital Facilities Plan with the 1996 portion to be
added to the 1996 budget. Houser seconded and the motion passed 3-0. Chair Johnson asked to have the
item placed under Other Business on the Council Agenda. Lubovich noted that a resolution will be
prepared to document the adoption of the plan. Miller noted that there will be a Budget Workshop from
5:30-6:30 on Council night and the hearing on the CFP will be continued at Council.
There being no further business, Committee Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:25 a.m.
Page 2
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 23, 1995
PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker
Tim Clark Gary Gill
Don Wickstrom Ed White
Neighborhood Representatives along 100th &244th
ABSENT: Jim Bennett
Neighborhood Traffic Concerns - 100th Ave &244th St
Wicl.strom stated that this item has been brought back. to Committee from the June
26th meeting. He stated that the issue is - the neighborhood became concerned when
they noticed that construction activity had begun on S. 244th & 100th Ave per the
development of the Top of the Hill plat. The community believed that both roads
would be opened and with that, there would be a significant traffic impact. Since the
June 26th meeting, 244th is now opened; Top of the Hill has completed their
improvements but have not finalized their plat. Wickstrom said that 100th Ave was
going to be a gravel trail from 244th to East Hill Elementary School to allow a walking
area for school children. He further stated that staff has conducted traffic studies since
244th has been opened; our traffic analysts took a one-week count and over that period
of time, they counted a total of 1700 vehicles using 100th Ave. which equates to 243
vehicles per day. Of those 1700 vehicles, they observed 4 vehicles traveling over 35
mph. which is the lowest speed the police will site vehicles. Wickstrom said this area is
high density, single family residential with high density being 5,000 sq ft lots which is
what it is ultimately zoned for. Top of the Hill went thru a rezone and that plat is 5,000
sq ft lots. 100th Ave was tied between 240th and 248th Streets and was designed as a
residential collector arterial, tying 240th to 248th together, primarily servicing just the
neighborhood in the area. When you speak. of ultimate development, with that kind of
zoning they will be needing other roads of access out of the area.
Wickstrom further explained that with those traffic counts, we looked at our adopted
Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan to see how that criteria would fit with respect to
1
what we could do under those criterias to help resolve the problem. Under that Plan,
they did not even meet some of the basic criteria. He stated that under our program,
there needs to be at least 300 vehicles per day on the street, and this is not met in this
instance. The 85 percentile speed must be greater than 35 mph and this also is not met.
There are also threshold levels which we did not have. There are site distances and
horizontal problems (i.e. physical barriers) to control traffic and closing off 244th would
essentially be construed as a physical barrier. If 244th were to be closed in this
neighborhood, than the criteria that has been established under the Neighborhood
Traffic Control Plan should be met. Wickstrom said that's what we looked at. We
looked at additional signing and there was one point in the vicinity of 244th at 100th
where additional speed signs could be installed. Basically, because of the need for these
roads, due to the high density zoning, Public Works does not support closing off 244th.
We recommend installing additional speed limit signs; we also recommend that once Top
of the Hill is developed with additional homes, take another traffic study to see if it
meets the minimum criteria so some action could be taken such as "shockers". This
means narrowing the road down to a minimum of two lanes access. That would take
curb, gutter and certain types of improvements. Wickstrom said that Public Works also
recommends that future developments on either 100th or 244th be conditioned to build
these "chockers"where they meet the horizontal and vertical alignment where there are
no site distance problems and where no safety issues exists. Wickstrom stated that this
is our recommendation on the issue.
In response to Mann, Wickstrom said that the "action" on this item would be if you open
up 100th Ave, we get the comments in and either defer this to another Committee
meeting after the neighborhood comments are heard and again review the whole thing.
Wickstrom said that after the citizens give their input, if there is something new that
comes up that we should be addressing which could change our recommendation, we
would want the opportunity to review their input and possibly change the
recommendation.
At this time Mann opened the discussion up to the citizens in the audience.
Vonda Finseth 10006 SE 244th Court asked if we had a copy of the original petition.
She stated that the petition shows there are 55 children in the neighborhood. She did
not agree with the recommendation of waiting until there is future development before
244th is closed. She asked when the traffic control minimum requirements were set and
is there a possibility in having those re-addressed. She felt that 300 vehicles per day
were high. Ed White responded noting that our normal criteria for residential streets
is 1,000 vehicles per day. He went on to explain the procedures on taking the traffic
counts. White stated that with the traffic counters laid out on the street, we do not have
2
the ability to determine whether the traffic is "neighborhood" traffic or "thru" traffic and
we can only surmise that the majority is local neighborhood traffic. He said that 300
cars is a very, very small number.
Dennis Ryerson of 10012 SE 244th Ct. stated that he has not yet heard one reason why
244th should go thru. He said that it was unanimous in two different petitions that no
one wanted this. Wickstrom responded by saying when we look at streets we have to
plan for the long term - we are talking about full build-out of the city; in order to meet
the Growth Management Act and that's what we use in planning streets. For a high
density single family lot we need to service the area. Before 244th was opened, you were
in a long cul-de-sac which has problems in itself - it exceeds the length beyond our
standard length (600 feet) for a cul-de-sac. In response to Ryerson, Wickstrom stated
that the neighborhood would benefit by opening 244th from better access, as well as
better emergency access. Ryerson stated that they are 100% satisfied with the present
access. Wickstrom stated that there are several undeveloped properties adjacent to this
street. You may be satisfied today but when they develop you may not be satisfied
because the neighborhood will be cluttered with vehicles. Wickstrom stated that we do
have to plan for roads to service an area especially when high density zoning is added.
Rob Dempsey 10021 SE 245th PI stated that reference is being made to the "overall
plan" which could be the root of all this and, is there a way to get that plan changed?
Wickstrom said that the overall plan is the Growth Management Plan which can be
changed once a year and has just been adopted. It would address 100th Ave because
100th is in the Transportation Plan which is a part of the Growth Management Plan
that Council has adopted. It is part of the road system that was developed to address our
concurrency issues related in the Transportation Plan. 244th is the local access street
simply being opened as part of the normal process of development of the area.
The Committee heard additional comments from other neighborhood residents all in
opposition of opening 100th Ave and 244th Street.
Mann explained that as a Committee, they do listen to the citizen concerns and if they
feel that those concerns are good for the city as a whole, then the Committee will take
action. He noted that the next step is for the Council members to consider what has
been said at this meeting and then if we feel that the right thing to do would be to shut
down 244th or install a barrier so that emergency vehicles could still get thru, or put
speed humps on 100th Ave., we will take action.
Clark stated that at the Council meeting he heard the Mayor very specifically state, they
would not run 100th Ave directly thru. That would be restricted in terms of dealing
with fire and emergency vehicle service. Clark also said that the Growth Management
Act is binding and it basically says that we need to plan for the future; we have to deal
with the growth and there has to be a certain level of service to accommodate those
people. In other words, the new people coming in also have rights just as your property
carries a certain amount of rights to it. The fact is there will be greater density and
there is absolutely nothin we can do about that. Clark said that there is a tendency to
tie 244th and 100th and treat them as if they are identical issues when in fact they are
not. Clark said that right now 244th is connected. He asked Wickstrom what the
status is of housing in the Top of the Hill development. Wickstrom said they haven't
final-platted yet but that is coming up at the next Council meeting for final approval
which essentially complies with the conditions established in 1994 and 1995 when they
rezoned and platted. Clark said that within the framework of that final plat, are the
roads already set? Wicicstrom said that the roads they built were strictly the roads that
were conditioned. They built the roads as part of the plat and that is how 244th St. was
opened. Clark asked, what are the potential number of residences that will feed out onto
244th? Wickstrom said that Canterbury can feed out that way and Top of the Hill will
feed out onto 244th. If you close it, they will go out to 104th versus taking an alternate
route thru 100th and Canterbury. Gill stated that was one of the considerations -
trying to provide ingress and egress and not forcing all trips out onto an arterial street
and thru intersections that are already at level of service at peak hours. v
Clark stated there was an agreement among councilmembers and somehow that
agreement has not reached staff. He said that the point was, will 100th Ave be opened?
Wickstrom said that when a development comes in, we condition that development at
that point in time. He stated that until we get a property developer coming to us, we do
nothing. Clark noted that the original plan basically called for 100th Ave to actually be
thru at one point, because there was to be an access road for emergency vehicles.
Wiclstrom said that was suppose to be a collector arterial. Gill said that is why
Canterbury was developed the way it was. He said those lots were not allowed direct
access onto 100th because 100th has always been planned as a collector arterial.
Mann asked if we could place a barrier up that would be acceptable for emergency
vehicles. John Bond noted that both Fire and Police Chiefs should.concur on this.
Clark stated that the one thing we can do right now is temporarily close 244th St.
Eventually we need to deal with access in and out of Top of the Hill development and
that is tied to the issue of 100th. Clark stated that we have no interest in turning 100th
Ave into a straight "shot" arterial. However there are some other concerns tied to that
and part of it is a piece of land not in the Top of the Hill development but immediately
4
adjacent to it. Clark said what we would like to do now is go back to staff, ask them to
try and make that approach, at the very least, to make sure that 100th is not a straight
"shot". We can temporarily close 244th but we cannot leave those people at risk.
Clark moved to temporarily close S. 244th Street, that motion being contingent upon
approval of Police and Fire for their respective roles in the community; that we come
back and revisit this issue of access on S. 244th Street 18 months from this time and
that directions are given to staff that 100th Ave. be so designed that it cannot be a direct
access arterial thru and that other access routes tying Top of the Hill be provided in
whatever plan is involved in that particular process.
Mann seconded the MOTION.
Discussion: Brubaker noted that the developer of Top of the Hill was not in attendance
and we don't lkriow if 18 months is an appropriate time frame.
Committee concurred with the motion.
King County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management - Amendment
Wickstrom stated that there was an interlocal group that overviewed the development
of the Comp Plan and the County wants that group to become one of their committees.
Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Amendment to the King
County Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management and also, to adopt the
resolution appropriately numbered concurring with this action.
Downtown Sidewalk - Street Trees
Wickstrom said the trees on Harrison St. and 1st Avenue were not saveable and as a
result we had to remove them and this added a significant amount of work. to the
contract. The total cost is $57,000. We have some left over money in one of our
project funds; we want to transfer that money out of there to pay for this additional
work. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that all trees are being.grated. There was
opposition the first time when we reconstructed the sidewalks; we left some large
openings to give the trees some breathing and root growing room. Since then, we have
had our landscape architect design a grate system that works along with a special type
of soil which allows the root to grow into the ground without heaving the sidewalks up.
He said the problem was that these tree roots were all surface roots and needed to be
pruned so bad that the tree wouldn't survive or it would be subject to a wind blow over,
5
which left us no choice. There isn't enough room in the sidewalk to do it without grates
and still provide an area to walk. 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 Kiefer - Interim Funding Agreement with City of Tacoma
Kiefer 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....."
Kiefer 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
James Street - Paul Mann
Mann asked why we are never considering widening James St and create another lane.
Wickstrom will again review the cost of doing this.
71 st Street Vacation - Don Wickstrom
Wickstrom stated that we are coming back for approval of the final adoption of the
ordinance on vacating a portion of 71st Avenue near 180th and West Valley Highway.
We will be receiving about $8,900 for a small amount of right of way being vacated. He
asked that this money go into school sidewalk project funds rather than the street
operating budget.
Committee unanimously recommended that the money acquired from the street vacation
on 71st Ave be transferred into school sidewalk project funds.
Meeting adjourned: 6:15 P.M.
7