HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 12/09/1997 Coltyof Kent
City Council Meetin
9
Agenda
CITY OF JIB r
Mayor Jim White
Council Members
Christi Houser, President
Jim Bennett Jon Johnson
Tim Clark Leona Orr
Connie Epperly Judy Woods
December 9, 1997
Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF c� [ 1111
SUMMARY AGENDA
%�argT,aJ
KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
' 9
December 9 , 1997
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS: Christi Houser, President
Jim Bennett
Tim Clark Connie Epperly
Judy Woods
Jon Johnson Leona Orr
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proclamation - Councilmember Johnson
B. Proclamation - Councilmember Houser
, C. Employee of the Month
D. Introduction of Mayor' s Appointees
2 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
3 . CONSENT CALENDAR
vA. Approval of Minutes
4B. Approval of Bills
VC. LID 349 , S. E. 223rd Street Sanitary Sewers - Resolution
Setting Hearing Date 15 0/
" D. Del Mar Annexation Area Initial
���o\ning and Comprehensive
Plan Amendments - Ordinances lF 337.3
E. Stonebrook Suites Rezone - Ordinance 33"I7
* F. Old NAPA Store Rezone - Ordinance 337.5
G. CM-2 Zoning District Regulations - ordinance 337�
H. Office (0) Zoning District Regulations - Ordinance 3 3 77
I . Worker Compensation Program Contract - Renewal
J. Pacific Highway South, State Development Proposal -
Concurrence
K. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for Domestic
Violence - Acceptance
L. 1998 State Legislative Agenda - Approval
..4M. S. 188th and 80th S. Street Vacation - Resolution
Setting Hearing Date -I54 a
N. King County Open Space Bond Fund, Clark Lake Wetland -
Accept and Amend Budget
O. Sale of Jean Austin Property - Approval
P. Park Land Acquisition Budget - Accept Interest and Amend
Budget
Q. Soos Creek Trailhead Quit Claim Deed to King County -
Approval
R. Cherrywood Final Plat - Set Meeting Date
S. Glenn Kara Final Plat/Re-Plat - Set Meeting Date
T. Sale of Surplus Vehicles - Authorization
VU. Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains - Accept as
Complete
SUMMARY AGENDA
CONTINUED
V. Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains - Charge in
Lieu of Assessment
W. Petty Cash - ordinance and Change Fund Authorization ,337$
X Accounts Receivable Write-Offs - Approval
Y. 1997 Budget Adjustment - Ordinance 3317
Z. Economic Development Corporation - Reappointment
AA. Human Services Commission - Appointment and
Reappointment
BB. Land Use and Planning Board - Appointment
CC. Drinking Driver Task Force - Reappointment
DD. Kent Bicycle Advisory Board - Reappointments
,:EE. Union Pacific Railroad Spur Track Franchise - Ordinance 33,91p
' FF. Planned Unit Development Zoning Code Amendment -
ordinance 3 3a 1
4 . OTHER BUSINESS
V A. 1998 Property Tax Levy - Ordinances 33$,a,-`-33 0
B. 1998 Budget - Ordinance 3354
, C. Emergency Medical Services Levy - Resolution /503
D. Kent Saturday Market Letter of Agreement, and Public
Development Authority - Approval and Authorization
E. Highland Crossing (formerly Stonegate Knolls) Final Plat
F. Water Treatment Facility - Zoning Code Amendment
., G. Churches in M-2 Zoning District - Zoning Code Amendment
„ H. Golf Course Automation Contract - Authorization
. I . Riverbend Golf Management Agreement - Authorization
J. Matlack Conditional Use Appeal
� K. . Personal Watercraft - Ordinance 3395
5 . BIDS
v A. Uniform and Linen Services
B. Green River Nursery Modular Classroom/Office/Workroom
6 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
7 . REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pending Litigation
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 (253) 854-6587 .
.. .................
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) Proclamation - Councilmember Johnson
B) Proclamation - Councilmember Houser
C) Employee of the Month
D) Introduction of Mayor's Appointees
CONSENT CALENDAR
3 . City Council Action:(
i
Councilmember Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through y-r be approved.
JJJ
Discussion
6
Action
3A. Approval of Minutes.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
November 18, 1997 , and approval of a correction to the minutes
of the regular Council meeting of November 4, 1997, as follows:
Item 3B, Approval of Bills
from: Check Numbers 50891-51412
to: Check Numbers 50890-51412
3B. A_RRroval of Bills.
Approval of payment of the bills received through November 14
and paid on November 14, 1997 , after auditing by the Operations
Committee on November 18 , 1997 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/31/97 192116-192260 $ 505, 747 .56
11/14/97 192261-192626 1, 250, 365. 50
$1, 756, 113 . 06
Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 1 through
November 15 and paid on November 20, 1997 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/20/97 Checks 223840-224134 $ 241, 891. 91
11/20/97 Advices 51938-52435 713 , 252 . 16
$ 955, 144 . 07
Council Agenda
Item No. 3 A-B
Kent, Washington
November 18, 1997
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Houser. Present: Councilmembers
Bennett, Clark, Epperly, Houser, Johnson, Orr and Woods,
Operations Director/Chief of Staff McFall, City Attorney Lubovich,
Fire Chief Angelo, Police Chief Crawford, Planning Director
Harris, Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director Miller,
Parks Director Hodgson, and Employee Services Director Viseth.
Approximately 30 people were in attendance.
PUBLIC Introduction of Mayor's Appointee. Mayor Pro Tem
COMMUNICATIONS Houser introduced Merriah Fotheringham, Mayor
White' s appointee to the Human Services
Commission.
National Bible Week. Mayor Pro Tem Houser read a
proclamation declaring November 23-30, 1997 , as
National Bible Week in the City of Kent and
encouraging all citizens to participate in the
observance by reading the Bible and discovering
its values for personal and community life. The
proclamation noted that the Bible has been a
constant source of moral and spiritual guidance
for Americans throughout history, and that it
continues to provide inspiration, hope and com-
fort for millions of Americans today.
CONSENT WOODS MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through
CALENDAR Q 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 November 4 , 1997.
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 30)
SANITATION Kent Community Health Center. ACCEPTANCE of the
corrected bill of sale for the Kent Community
Health Center, 403 East Meeker Street, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Director.
At the October 21st Council meeting, the bill of
sale was accepted in full which included 150
feet of watermain and 6 feet of sanitary sewer
improvements. It has been determined that the
sewer improvements were private construction and
the watermain improvements on the bill of sale
should have read 50 feet.
1
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
SANITATION Paradise Mobile Home Park. ACCEPTANCE of the
bill of sale for Paradise Mobile Home Park
submitted by Manufactured Housing Community
Preservationists for continuous operation and
maintenance of 418 feet of watermain improvements
and release of bonds after the expiration period,
as recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 412 N. Washington Avenue.
WATER (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3G)
Ring County Rater Quality Grant. ACCEPT and
CREATE a budget for the $7 ,288 grant from the
Metropolitan King County Council, Regional Water
Quality Block Grant to clean up Lake Meridian and
the Old Fishing Hole. A Metropolitan King County
Council, District Four water quality grant for
$7 ,288 will be used to place screens on the
bottom of Lake Meridian at the dock and at the
Old Fishing Hole to prevent the overgrowth of
weeds. A portion of the funds will be available
to Lake Meridian residents to purchase the same
screening materials, enabling them to prevent
weed overgrowth on their lake property.
PUBLIC WORKS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3D)
Mill Creek Revegetation Project Funds ACCEPT
the Mill Creek Revegetation Project funds,
establish a budget and use these funds for the
Mill Creek Revegetation/Restoration Project, as
recommended by the Public Works Committee.
The Department of Ecology has imposed an
environmental fine on the Boeing Company and as
part of their settlement, Boeing has given the
City $14 ,400 to be used for the Mill Creek
Revegetation project, which involves tree
plantings along Mill Creek.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3K)
MPS Limited street License Agreement.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign a Limited
Street License agreement between the City and
Metropolitan Fibre Systems of Seattle, upon
receipt of necessary exhibits, as recommended by
the Public Works Committee.
2
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
PUBLIC WORKS Metropolitan Fibre Systems of Seattle (MFS) is
seeking permission to extend a telephone trunk
line facility to the US West facility at 196th
Street and West Valley Highway to provide local
telephone service to a portion of the City of
Kent.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3N)
tion
IAC Grant A��lication. Conserva Easement.
ADOPTION of Resolution No. 1500 authorizing
application for funding assistance from the IAC
for a conservation easement/restoration and
enhancement project along Mill Creek, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee. The City
would provide a minimum of 25% matching value,
which may include donations or in-kind
contributions.
TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3C)
CONTROL 277th Corridor Condemnation Ordinance. ADOPTION
of Ordinance No. 3369 authorizing condemnation by
eminent domain proceedings for property necessary
for construction of the 277th Corridor, which
property is owned by Mike Carpinito, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee.
The City has been unsuccessful thus far in
obtaining agricultural lands for in-kind com-
pensation to Mr. Carpinito for the property from
either King County or an adjacent property owner.
FRANCHISE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3L)
Union Pacific Railroad 196th Spur Track.
INTRODUCTION of the proposed franchise ordinance
granting to the Union Pacific Railroad Company
the authority to maintain and operate a railroad
spur track across South 196th Street, as recom-
mended by the Public Works Committee.
STREET (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2A)
VACATIONS Willis St Street Vacation STV-97-2 . This date
has been set to consider an application to vacate
a portion of East Willis Street, as referenced in
Resolution 1499 , and as shown on the map and
discussed in the staff report.
Planning Director Harris pointed out the location
on a map. He said he has been notified that U. S.
West feels they have a facility in the right-of-
way and that Condition No. 2 covers that.
3
Kent City Council Minutes November 18 , 1997
STREET Mayor Pro Ten Houser asked from comments from
VACATIONS the public on this issue. There were none and
JOHNSON MOVED to close the public hearing. Woods
seconded and the motion carried.
ORR MOVED to approve the Planning Director' s
recommendation of approval with conditions on the
application to vacate a portion of East Willis
Street, as referenced in Resolution 1499, and to
direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance upon compliance with the conditions of
approval. Johnson seconded and the motion
carried.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3M)
S. 238th Street vacation. ADOPTION of Ordinance
No. 3371 vacating the affected portion of S.
238th Street.
At the October 7 , 1997 meeting, Council approved
this street vacation subject to certain condi-
tions, all of which have been fulfilled by the
applicant.
ANNEXATION (PUBLIC HEARINGS - ITEM 2B)
ZONING Del Mar Annexation Area Initial Zoninc and Com-
prehensive Plan Amendments AZ-97-2 and CPA-97-2.
This is the second of two required hearings on
both the proposed annexation zoning map amend-
ments and the Comprehensive Plan amendments for
the Del Mar Annexation area. The first hearing
was held by the City Council on October 71 1997.
The Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation
was made on September 22 , 1997 .
Matt Jackson of the Planning Department noted
receipt of a letter from Jerry Martens, whose
zoning was recommended as SR4 .5. He noted that
this- property is surrounded by a shopping center
and multi-family, and that Mr. Martens would like
the Council to consider office zoning. Jackson
noted for Clark that this had not been heard
before the Land Use and Planning Board, as the
written request was just received. He said the
location would be appropriate for a small office
which does not generate much traffic or require
much parking.
4
Kent City Council Minutes November 18 , 1997
ANNEXATION Mayor Pro Tem Houser opened the public hearing.
ZONING Forrest Lamont, a realtor representing
Mr. Martens, explained that there are adjoining
wetlands, and requested that the Council con-
sider the possibility of some type of exchange.
He noted that there has been drug activity and
prostitution in the area and that a legitimate
use .of the property would help with that problem.
He said they have been unable to find anyone
who is interested in using the property as a
single-family residence, and that it would be
more practical to use as transitional zoning.
Upon Orr's question, Planning Director Harris
said that if the Land Use and Planning Board had
heard this, the recommendation would most likely
have been for office zoning or something similar.
He agreed that single family zoning would be
difficult. Bennett recommended the office
designation.
Mel Kleweno, owner of 36 acres, said their
property is recommended for single family zoning
but he feels that is not a viable use for the
properties. He explained that half of it is
wetlands and asked the Council to consider on a
case by case basis the policy to not allow any
more apartment zoning. He requested a medium
density apartment zoning on the property, noting
that water and sewer are available to the pro-
perty, that there is access to major freeways
and park and ride lots, and that there is a con-
tinuing need for affordable housing.
There were no further comments from the audience
and WOODS MOVED to close the public hearing. Orr
seconded and the motion carried. Jackson pointed
out Mr. Martens property and ORR MOVED to modify
the Land Use and Planning Board's recommenda-
tion of approval to adopt the proposed Del Mar
Annexation Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
Amendments, to change the Martens property to a
zoning designation of Professional and Office
District 15. 04. 150 and the Comprehensive Plan
to Commercial, and to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the necessary ordinances. Woods
seconded. Orr said that based on what staff
said they would have recommended had they been
informed of the details of this particular piece
of property, she agrees that the recommendation
5
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
ANNEXATION probably would have been different from what the
ZONING Land Use and Planning Board made. SHE MOVED to
make Mr. Martens' letter and map a part of the
public record. Woods seconded and the motions
carried.
CONDITIONAL (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3J)
USE APPEAL Matlack Avoeal CE-97-2 . SET December 91 1997,
as the date for a public hearing on an Appeal of
Conditional Use Permit filed by Richard J.
Brooks.
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3Q)
Highland Crossing (Formerly Stonegate Knolls)
Final Plat FSU-96-18. SET December 9 , 1997, as
the date for a public meeting to consider a final
plat application by Centex Homes. The subject
subdivision is 18.58 acres in size and is located
between 116th Avenue S.E. and 120th Avenue S.E.
and north of S.E. 240th Street. The King County
Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary plat
File No. L95P0002 and the Kent City Council
approved the preliminary plat, under the name
Stonegate Knolls, on June 4, 1996.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4A)
Fos Ridge Addition No 1 Preliminary Plat
9U-96-14. This date has been set to consider the
Hearing Examiner' s recommendation for approval of
an application by Lakeridge Development, Inc. for
a 14-lot Single Family Residential Preliminary
Subdivision. This plat is 2. 5 acres in size and
is located at 11800 SE 268th Street.
ORR MOVED to accept the Findings of the Hearing
Examiner, and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of approval of Fox Ridge Addition
#1 Preliminary Plat. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
REZONES (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Stonebrook Suites Rezone R2-97-3 . The Hearing
Examiner has recommended approval of an appli-
cation to rezone approximately 4. 6 acres from
M-1, Industrial Park, to M1-C, Industrial Park -
Commercial Suffix. The property is located at
the northwest corner of S. 182nd Street and 72nd
Avenue S.
6
Kent City Council Minutes November 18 , 1997
REZONES Planning Manager Satterstrom pointed out loca-
tion on a map, and said it is the old Orillia
Elementary School site. He said that addition of
the C suffix would allow development of a 140-
unit all suites motel.
ORR MOVED to accept the Findings of the Hearing
Examiner, and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of approval of the Stonebrook
Suites Rezone and to direct the City Attorney to
prepare the necessary ordinance. Woods seconded
and the motion carried.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
Old Nana Store Rezone RZ-97-2. The Hearing
Examiner has recommended approval of an appli-
cation to rezone approximately 13, 632 square feet
of property from NCC, Neighborhood Community
Commercial, to CC,. Community Commercial. The
property is located at 24728 36th Avenue S.
Planning Manager Satterstrom pointed out the
location and explained that the proposed zoning
is consistent and would allow the construction of
an office building.
ORR MOVED to accept the Findings of the Hearing
Examiner, and to adopt the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of approval of the Old Napa Store
Rezone and to direct the City Attorney to prepare
the necessary ordinance. Epperly seconded and
the motion carried.
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
AMENDMENTS CM-2 Zoning District Regulations ZCA-97-6. This
date has been set to consider the Land Use and
Planning Board's recommendation to amend the
Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 130 (D) , by adding the
following principally permitted use: vehicle
impound lots as a conditional use in the CM-2
zoning district. The Land Use and Planning
Board held a public hearing on this matter on
October 27 , 1997 .
ORR MOVED to approve the Kent Zoning Code Amend-
went ZCA-97-6 as recommended by the Land Use and
Planning Board, and to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the necessary ordinance. Bennett
seconded and the motion carried.
7
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4E)
AMENDMENTS Office (0) Zoning District Regulations ZCA-97-7.
This date has been set to consider the Land Use
and Planning Board's recommendation to amend the
Zoning Code, Section 15. 04 . 150A.31 by modifying
the way in which veterinary clinics are regulated
in the Office Zoning District. The proposed
zoning amendment would maintain the same 150-foot ,
setback but would change the language from
residential "use" to residential "zone" . The
Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing
on this matter on October 27, 1997 .
ORR MOVED to approve the Kent Zoning Code
Amendment ZCA-97-7 as recommended by the Land
Use and Planning Board, and to direct the City
Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Bennett seconded and the motion carried.
PARKS & (ADDED ITEM 1C)
RECREATION (ADDED BY OVE PEARSON)
Skateboard Park. Mr. Ove Pearson, 26626 132nd
Avenue S.E. , representing approximately 30
families, spoke in opposition to putting a skate-
board park at 266th and 132nd. He explained that
their concern is the number of skateboarders who
would use the park. He stated that the road has
a narrow shoulder and that it is dangerous for
young people walking to the shopping center. He
distributed a three-page list of signatures and
said more signatures will be presented at a later
date.
Parks Director Hodgson noted that a few sites are
under consideration for a skateboard park, and
that the Parks Department does not build anything
without neighborhood participation. He said the
intent is to have neighborhood meetings after the
first of the year to receive input as to what
residents would like to have in a park. He said
they would like to find a way to eliminate
skating in parking lots of convenience stores
and schools, such as building much smaller parks
around the community where young people can
skate. WOODS MOVED to make the petition a part
of the public record. Johnson seconded and the
motion carried. Woods reiterated that the City
would not impose any use that is not agreeable to
the neighbors, and that their input is needed.
8
Kent City Council Minutes November 18 , 1997
PARKS & She explained that when the meetings begin, there
RECREATION is no preconceived notion of what the park will
look like, and she encouraged Mr. Pearson to
bring the additional names he mentioned to the
Parks Director as soon as possible so that the
mailing list for the meetings will be complete.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3F)
1997 Parks Budget Adjustments. APPROVAL of the
proposed Parks Budget adjustments for 1997 in
order to proceed with projects in 1998 .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3H)
Jean Austin Property Donation. ACCEPTANCE of
0.27 acres of property donated to the City by
Jean Austin. Ms. Austin has donated the pro-
perty, located off of Alvord Avenue, with the
stipulation that it, or proceeds from its sale,
be used solely for park purposes.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3I)
Human Service Appointment. CONFIRMATION of the
Mayor's appointment of Merriah Fotheringham to
serve as a member of the Kent Human Services
Commission.
Ms. Fotheringham is a long time Kent resident
and is employed at Watson Manor. She is also a
student at Highline Community College, studying
psychology and social work, and will transfer to
UPS after graduation in the fall. She is a
single parent and also works for Kent Youth and
Family Services.
Ms. Fotheringham will represent the User of
Services category and she will replace Rose
Galaz, who resigned. Her new appointment will
continue until 1/1/2000 .
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3B)
Approval of Bills. APPROVAL of payment of the
bills received through October 31 and paid on
October 31, 1997, after auditing by the
Operations Committee on November 4, 1997 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers:
Date Check Numbers Amount
10/16/97 191376-191682 $ 854, 301.89
10/31/97 191683-192115 2 , 075, 677 . 66
$2 , 929, 979 . 55
9
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
FINANCE Approval of checks issued for pavroll for
October 16 through October 31, 1997 , and paid
on November 5, 1997:
Date Check Numbers Amount
11/5/97 Checks 223527-223839 $ 235, 266. 38
11/5/97 Advices 51413-51937 549 - 60
$ 989 , 815 . 98
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3E) ADOPTION Of
Youth/Teen Utility Tax, Reauthorize.
Ordinance No. 3370 amending Chapter 3 . 18 of the
Kent City Code extending the sunset provision for
the Youth/Teen Utility Tax for two additional
years through December 31, 1999, and estab-
lishing a policy, whereby .25 percent will be
utilized for operations and . 05 percent for
capital projects, as recommended by the
Operations Committee at their November 4 , 1997
meeting.
CONTINUED 1998 Legislative Issues. Dena Laurent,
COMMUNICATIONS Government Affairs Manager, distributed a
memorandum regarding Legislative issues for 1998
including a summary of proposed City positions on
issues expected to be considered and a policy
paper indicating the City's position on anything
else that could come up. She explained issues
relating to the following topics: 1) Transporta-
tion, 2) Human Services, Parks and Recreation,
and Public Health, 3) Finance, 4) Land Use and
Environment, 5) Telecommunications & Electric
Utility Deregulation, 6) Law and Public Safety,
7) Personnel and Labor Relations, and 8) General
Local Government.
Laurent offered to answer questions from Council-
members at any time, and asked that this item
appear on the December 9th agenda if acceptable
to Council.
REPORTS Operations Committee. Johnson reported that the
failure of the Emergency Medical Services levy
was discussed at the Operations Committee meeting
today, and that they recommended using the
reserves in the 1998 Budget to fund the Basic
Life Support system. He expressed hope that the
County Council will fund the Advanced Life
Support system some other way, and that one
option is to put the issue on the ballot in
February.
10
Kent City Council Minutes November 18, 1997
REPORTS Public Works Committee. Clark noted that the
Public Works Committee will meet on Wednesday,
November 19, at 3 : 30 p.m.
Planning committee. Orr noted that the Planning
Committee will meet at 3 : 30 p.m. on December 9.
Public Safety Committee. Bennett noted that the
next Public Safety Committee will be held after
the first of the year, and that the personal
watercraft ordinance will be on City Council
agenda on December 9 .
Administrative Reports. McFall explained that
using the reserves in the budget for the EMS
funding will be included as part of the overall
budget adoption for 1998 and does not require
separate action by the Council. He also pointed
out that in order to place that matter before the
voters in February, the City of Kent is one of
five cities in the county who will have to concur
with placing it on the ballot. He noted that a
resolution has been adopted authorizing the
County to place the issue on the ballot, but that
action will need to be taken again next year if
Council chooses to do so. He explained that the
County Council must act by December 15th to meet
timing requirements to get the matter on the
ballot February 3 ; therefore if that method is
selected Council would need to adopt such a
resolution, if desired, at the December 9th
meeting.
Woods stated that she has asked Operations
Director McFall and Fire Chief Angelo to com-
municate to the County Council that it would be
most appreciated if they would indicate what
their intention is prior to December 9th.
EXECUTIVE At 8 : 00 p.m. , the meeting adjourned to Executive
SESSION Session for approximately 15 minutes to discuss
pending litigation.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting reconvened and adjourned at 8 : 15 p.m.
' Brenda Ja'qcb r, CMC
City C1erki
11
..................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LID 349, S.E. 223RD STREET SANITARY SEWERS -
RESOLUTION SETTING HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, adoption of Resolution No. /S 0/ setting the hear-
ing date for January 6, 1998, to establish the formation of
LID 349, SE 223rd Street Sanitary Sewers.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and Public Works
Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3C
CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington,
declaring its intention to order the construction of an 8 sanitary sewer system
along SE 223rd Street from approximately 113th Avenue SE to 114th Place SE,
with 6" side sewer stubs and related improvements, and to create a local
improvement district to assess a part of the cost and expense of carrying out those
improvements against the properties specially benefited thereby, and notifying all
persons who desire to object to the improvements to appear and present their
objections at a hearing before the City Council to be held on January 6, 1998.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, as follows:
Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, to
order the improvement of the properties within the area described in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and by this reference made a part hereof, by the construction of an 8" sanitary sewer system
along SE 223rd Street from approximately 113th Avenue SE to 114th Place SE, with 6" side
sewer stubs and related improvements, as more fully described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
by this reference made a part hereof.
All of the foregoing improvements shall be in accordance with the plans and
specifications therefor prepared by the Director of Public Works of the City and may be
modified by the City as long as that modification does not affect the purpose of the
improvements.
Section 2. The total estimated cost and expense of the improvements is declared to be
$246,463.46 and approximately $59,491.18 of that cost and expense shall be paid by the City
and the balance thereof (approximately $186,972.28) shall be borne by and assessed against the
0313093.01
property specially benefited by the improvements to be included in a local improvement district
to be established embracing as nearly as practicable all the property specially benefited by the
improvements. Actual assessments may vary from estimated assessments as long as they do not
exceed a figure equal to the increased true and fair value the improvements add to the property.
Section 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the adoption of
this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed for the public hearing to each owner or
reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other property within the proposed local
improvement district by mailing such notice at least 15 days before the date fixed for the public
hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the King County
Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law. the City Clerk also is authorized
and directed to give notice of the adoption of this resolution and of the date, time and place fixed
for the public hearing to each owner or reputed owner of any lot, tract, parcel of land or other
property outside of the proposed local improvement district that is required by the Federal
Housing Administration as a condition of loan qualification to be connected to the proposed
improvements, by mailing such notice at least 15 days before the date fixed for the public
hearing to the owner or reputed owner of the property as shown on the rolls of the King County
Assessor at the address shown thereon, as required by law.
This resolution also shall be published in at least two consecutive issues of the official
newspaper of the City, the date of the first publication to be at least 15 days prior to the date
fixed for the public hearing.
Section 4. All persons who may desire to comment in support of or object to the
improvements are notified to appear and present those comments or objections at a hearing
before the City Council to be held in the Council Chambers in the City Hall in Kent,
0313093.01
_2_
Washington, at 7:00 p.m. on January 6, 1998, which time and place are fixed for hearing all
matters relating to the improvements and all comments thereon or objections thereto and for
determining the method of payment for the improvements. All persons who may desire to
comment thereon or object thereto should appear and present their comments or objections at
that hearing. Any person who may desire to file a written protest with the City Council may
do so within 30 days after the date of passage of the ordinance ordering the improvements in the
event the local improvement district is formed. The written protest should be signed by the
property owner and should include the legal description of the property for which the protest is
filed and that protest should be delivered to the City Clerk.
Section 5. The City's Director of Public Works is directed to submit to the City Council
on or prior to January 6, 1998, all data and information required by law to be submitted.
Passed at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, this 9th day of December, 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of December, 1997.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
4 17Z
FOSTER 3tVPEIT& SHEFELMAN PLLC
Special Counsel and Bond Counsel
0313093.01
-3-
EXHIBIT 'A'
L.I.D. 349
S.E. 223rd Street Sanitary Sewer (113th Avenue S.E. to 114th Place S.E.)
Boundary Legal Description
Plat of John Velkoff Division 92 as recorded in Volume 72 of Plats, page 68 in King County,
Washington,ALSO Lot 12 in the Plat of John Velkoff as recorded in Volume 72 of Plats, page 67
in King County, Washington.
And also the south 175 feet of the east 130 feet of west 214.28 feet of north 1/2 of south 1/2 of SE
1/4 of SE 1/4 in 8-22-5 less south 42 feet. And also the east 105 feet of west 349.28 feet of south
217 feet of north 1/2 of south 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 in 8-22-5 less south 42 feet. And also the
south 175 feet of the east 135 feet of west 484.28 feet of west 112 of north 1/2 of south 1/2 of SE 1/4
of SE 1/4 in 8-22-5 less county road. And also the south 150 feet of east 135 feet of west 619.28 feet
of west 1/2 of north 1/2 of south 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 in 8-22-5 less county road.
November 6, 1997
TIMV97307
EXHIBIT 'B'
LID 349
SE 223RD STREET SANITARY SEWER
(113TH AVENUE S.E. TO 114TH PLACE S.E.)
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project is the construction of an 8" sanitary sewer system with one 6" side sewer stub
to the right of way line for each of the 22 properties included in the LID boundary.
The construction will include 8" sewer at the following locations:
ON FROM TO
SE 223rd St Approx 200 feet west 114th PI SE
of 113th Ave SE
113th Ave SE SE 223rd St 223rd PI SE
223rd PI SE 113th Ave SE West to end
113th PI SE SE 223rd St South to end
Also included is street and general restoration.
T/MV97307
November 6, 1997
1, BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk of the City of Kent, Washington, certify that the
attached copy of Resolution No. is a true and correct copy of the original resolution
adopted on the 9th day of December, 1997, as that resolution appears on the Minute Book of
the City.
DATED this _ day of December, 1997.
BRENDA JACOBER, City Clerk
0313093.01
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
November 5, 1997
PRESENT: Tim Clark Tom Brubaker
Jim Bennett Don Wick.=om
Connie Epperly Gary Gill
Representatives from M.F.S. (World Comm)
ABSENT: Judy Woods
Proposed Sanitary Sewer LID - SE 223rd Street
Wickstrom stated that we have received a petition for a sanitary sewer LID from
property owners. This is in an area outside the City limits located approximately east
of the 'S' curve on the Benson Highway. The property owners have been having septic
system problems and since this is in our sewer franchise area, they have asked us to form
an LID. Wickstrom said that we have looked at several alternatives and presented
several options to them and finally settled on one which had enough support to form an
LID. The LID is approximately $186,000; there would be about $60,000 City sewer
funds involved. We added City the sewer money since there are some large size parcels
that could be subdivided. Some parcels that are not in our franchise area but are
adjacent to the sewer within the Soos Creek sewer and water franchise area, will logically
connect here. If they do connect, we will impose a Charge in Lieu of Assessment.
Wickstrom explained that we added money into this in order to help form this LID - if
we didn't, we felt it wouldn't move forward and these people are having problems. He
said we have had an informal meeting with the property owners and at this time, we
have 54% of the signed petition wanting to proceed with the project and, they do know
what their assessments will be. Wickstrom explained that once we start an LID, it takes
60%to legally stop it- at this point we want to proceed at least thru the Hearing stages
and then it is Council's decision as to whether or not to form the LID by passing the
Ordinance creating the LID.
In response to Clark, Wickstrom noted that this is an isolated pocket of homes that were
built approximately 30 years ago on septic systems before sewers were in the area - now
sewers are surrounding these homes.
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the Resolution setting a public
hearing date on the formation of the LID for sanitary sewers at the 22 designated
properties on SE 223rd Street.
1 '
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OCTOBER 14, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom�
RE: Proposed L.I.D.: S.E. 223rd St. Sanitary Sewer
(113th Ave. S.E. to 114th Pl. S.E.)
The City has received a petition for the installation of sanitary sewers on SE 223rd Street
northeast of the curves on Benson Highway (SR 515) as shown on the attached map.
Subsequently, all property owners within the project area were contacted and there appears to
be adequate support to proceed with the formation of the L.I.D.
Properties in addition to the area covered by the petition were contacted and asked to complete
a questionnaire expressing interest or disinterest in the project. The final L.I.D. boundary was
based on the responses with properties on 114th and 115th PI SE being deleted.
For the revised boundary, 12 (54.54%) expressed interest. There were 5 (22.73%) that
responded that they did not want the project in addition to 5 (22.73%) that did not respond.
It is not known how many septic systems are technically in a state of failure, however input
received indicates that water problems in the area make it difficult for septic drain fields to
function properly.
Several other comments were received. One owner thought it would be helpful if retired people
on fixed incomes would get a small break on the assessment, although he was still in favor.
Another replaced his drain field about 8 years ago and doesn't want the expense, however he
suspects the entire area is having septic problems. Another owner needed the sewer 30 years
ago and couldn't get it but doesn't want the expense at this time.
The proposal includes City funding for several reasons as explained in the attached property
owner letter. For the revised proposal, the City total is estimated at $59.491.18. The L.I.D. total
is $186,972.28 ($8,498.74 per property). A charge in lieu of assessment will be established for
reimbursement of the City share.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Recommend adoption of the Resolution setting a public hearing date on the formation of
the L.I.D. for the 22 properties shown on the attached map.
223sew6.wpd/MKV
file 10.1/70.4
I
'3's 3no 911
-77
w
1 ! Yyr I
LL
r w Z y�\� 3'Sld Sil
U y m
I
W
LU
_/
p ..............hmtn.n��'� j W
cji
cn
uj
Y I I HIM ¢
W Q W Z VJ T�
�04
90
V N • J _ Z Qry�
W!A {i. O
4
M
N
20 N W
t-- -- •— cn
•
cn LU
T cn
w i OCL
_ z
}�
CL
�<� W
o f /� CD
IW cr—
I I la , CL
w
N
w
c �.
,(� '�tnt nn mlmr.r�rmmrn�n 1
II I iw ' I
CITY oR
"
Jim White. Mayor
October 20, 1997
RE: Proocsed L.I.D.: SE 22::rd St. Sanitary Sewer (" ' :ah Ave. S.E. to 14th =1. S.
Dear Prccerty Owner
I thank those of you who returnee your Questionnaire expressing your interest or
disinterest in the above referenced sanitary sewer project proposal. i ne results are lister
below.
Based on the level of interest and the location of :hat interest. the L.I.C. bcuncarJ is beinc
revised as shown on the enclosed map. The new boundary includes those parceis witr
assessment numbers 1 thru 22. Previous assessment numbers 22 thru 34 have been
deleted. (Those of you being deleted should note that should the sewer be constructed as
proposed. the sewer will be much cicser to your property. In the event of a sectic tanK
problem. at least some of you will be close enough to the sewer that you will be requlrec
by the Health Department to extend and hook uc to the sewer.)
At this point. the City will proceec with the L.I.D. formation crocess for the reviser prejec'
boundary and the previously specified per house assessment of 58.498.-4. -he nea
steps involve presenting the proposal to the City Councii. This process will taKe several
months or more before a public hearing can be soheduled. In the meantime. should you
nave unanswered questions acout the project or '_.I.D. formation process. please call me.
Should a public hearing be scheduled (you will receive notification), it s highly
recommended that supporters attended the hearing and express your support for*,he L.L�
formation to the City Council. At that point it will be a Council decision and it will 'pe in your
best interest if they also hear from supporters it addition to the protesters.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
RESPONSE QUANTIT! ASSESSMENT NUMBERS
1 support the proposed sewer project. 12 2.0. .10,11,12.14,1 r ,18.19,20.2_
Please proceed with the L.I.D.
formation process.
3sewerJ wpolMK V
:ile 7M
,_in �vFVI:F .uiTH KEVT � '�HI�'�ITnu.. . <r< fF!.iYH11vl. _ ••,.'.,no
Do not proceed with the L.I.D. 13 3.4,5.13,21.23 24,262 ,29,30.31.3a
Did not return Questionnaire. 9 1,8,9.15,16.25.28.32.33
Total 34
The 12 supporters represent 54.4.A% of the revised project area which is greater than the
409% minimum required to consider the L.I.D. formation.
Should you have any questions or comments. piease cail me at 253-359-3384. IVIv fax
number is 253-859-3559.
Very -ruly ycurs.
v
Merrill K. Vesoer
Design `nglneer
CO. Don Wickstrom. Director of Public INcrKS
xwer rptUN)I�V
^ITV OF ��� .r
Jim White, Mayor
Sept. 10, 1997
RE: Proposed L.I.D.: SE 223rd St. Sanitary Sewer (113th Ave. SE to 115th PI. SE)
Dear Property Owner:
The City has received a petition for the formation of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.; for the
financing and installation of sanitary sewers in your neighocrhood. Therefore I am providing
you with the enclosed information. This letter includes specific information about the proposal.
The enclosure includes general information about sanitary sewer L.I.D. projects. Also enclosed
is an L.I.D. map showing the properties involved.
QUESTIONNAIRE
The City wishes to determined if there is interest in the project in addition to the original
petitioners. Please review the enclosed information and return the enclosed
Questionnaire indicating your interest. Please return in the postpaid envelop by
September 30.
PROPOSED PROJECT BOUNDARY
The petition covered only 113th Ave. and 113th PI., leaving a small unsewered area to the east
which is still within the City of Kent's sewer service area. Ideally the entire unsewered area
should be included. Therefore, we are proposing to include 114th Pl. and 115th Pl. if there is
insufficient interest on these two streets.
The benefit of including the entire area at this time is a lower cost to everybody involved. With
a larger project, the assessment per property should be less. The unit prices bid by the
contractor could be less due to the larger volume of work. Also. certain project and L.I.D. related
costs are the same regardless of project size. If more properties share in the cost, the individual
lot assessments should be lower. if an L.I.D. is formed for 113th PI. and 113th Ave. only at this
time, it is anticipated that the cost would be higher. Also if 114th and 115th PI. proceed with a
sewer project at a future date. it is anticipated that the cost for that project would also be higher
than if included at this time.
REQUIRED SUPPORT
The L.I.D. formation process requires a minimum support level of 40 percent, however a much
higher level is recommended to assure success. This means that at least 14 parcels of the 34
must not protest. Therefore, in addition to 9 of the original 11 petitioners that still support the
project, at least 5 more must be in favor. The L.I.D. boundary can be revised to obtain the
2233sewer3 wpd/MKV
Me 70.4
^Ilan Vli.Sc) KPVT wqHl\'(1Tf7S uYllr <¢u;: ITLF.PHUVF. _ieH;u.::ult,F;X
essary. Once the minimum support level is obtained, it 'hen
required support percentage if nec
becomes a City Council decision to form the L.I.D. In convincing the Council to form the L.I.D.,
the higher your support level the better your chances are.
CITY FUNDING
There are three properties on the north side of SE 223rd St. as shown on the map that are not
included in the L.I.D. These properties are currently in Soos Creek Water and Sewer District,
therefore we can't include them in the L.I.D. However, due to the circumstances, they should
be serviced by Kent if a sewer is installed on SE 223rd Street. The City proposes to fund the
cost attributable to these parcels and establish a charge in lieu of assessment. Should these
properties hook up in the future, they would pay a charge equal to the per house L.I.D.
assessment to reimburse the City. In any event, the L.I.D. assessments are reduced as there
are three additional properties to share in the cost.
Seven of the properties currently with one house are of sufficient size to allow further
development. For assessment calculations, these properties are considered as two connections
since it appears that at least one additional home could be constructed and connected to the
sewer on S. 223rd St. The City proposes to fund the cost of the second connection and
establish a charge in lieu of assessment which would be paid should an additional connection
be made in the future. This procedure minimizes the initial assessment for these larger
properties making it more feasible for the property owner to support the L.I.D., especially if they
do not have development plans. However, should they have the need for additional
connections, they will be required to pay an appropriate share.
PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
COMPLETE PROJECT REDUCED PROJECT
113TH AVE TO 115TH PL 113TH AVE & 113TH PL,
$276,052.71 $178,473.54
L.I.D. TOTAL $g,4gg.74
ASSESSMENT PER HOUSE $8,119.20 $33,994.96
CITY SHARE $81 ,191.97
PROJECT TOTAL $357,244.68 $212,468.50
These costs are estimated based on previous similar projects and include construction,
engineering, survey, inspection, L.I.D. related costs, an easement and other miscellaneous
costs. Final assessments will be based on actual final project costs as determined at project
completion.
Should you have any questions or comments, please call me at 859-3384. My fax number in
859-3559.
Very truly yours;
Merrill K. Vesper
Design Engineer
223sewer3.wpd/M K V
file 70.5
Kent City council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DEL MAR ANNEXATION AREA INITIAL ZONING AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (AZ-97-2 AND
CPA-97-2) - ORDINANCES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. _3 3 72-� relating
to zoning and Ordinance No. ^7T relating to comprehensive
plan amendments for the Del Mar Annexation. The City Council
held public hearings on October 7 and November 18, 1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinances
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3D
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, relating to zoning and land use, to
implement initial zoning for the Del Mar Annexation Area
(AZ-97-2; CPA-97-2).
li
WHEREAS, on June 13. 1997, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 3351, approving the annexation of the Del Mar Annexation Area (the "Annexation
Area") into the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Area is comprised of approximately 578 acres
and is generally bounded on the north and east by the City's previous corporate limits, on
the west by Pacific Highway South(Highway 99), the existing City limit on the north and
east, andon the SE by south 272nd Street. The annexation fills in the southwestern edge
of the City's potential annexation area (PAA), which is designated in the Kent
comprehensive plan: and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3351 the City's
Planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Annexation Area. as outlined in
Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing
on September 22, 1997, to take public testimony on amendments to the zoning map for the
Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board considered various zoning
alternatives and public testimony during its public hearings, and on September 22, 1997,
recommended approval of a zoning alternative to the City Council: and
WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings on the
recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board: the first hearing was held on
October 7, 1997, and the second hearing was held on November 18, 1997: and
WHEREAS. at the November 18. 1997 hearing the City Council heard
additional public testimony and moved to close the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered public testimony and the
recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board and moved to modify the Land Use
and Planning Board's recommendation of approval for zoning Alternative No. 2; and
WHEREAS,the City Council adopted zoning Alternative No.2 as modified
for the Del Mar Annexation Area and that the initial zoning is illustrated in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requires that comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact,
and that on November 18, 1997, the City of Kent issued an Addendum to the
Enviromnental Impact Statement which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan,
II and that this Addendum analyzed the initial zoning designations adopted by the City
Council on November 18, 1997; NOW THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Pursuant to Kent City Code Section 15.09.055 and the laws
2
of the State of Washington, the initial zoning for the area known as the Del Mar
Annexation Area shall be established as outlined in Exhibit A. attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION?. - Severahility. If any one or more sections. subsections. or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid. such decision shall
I
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
l
SECTION 3. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
I'
I'
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 1997.
APPROVED: day of 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 1997.
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
p Vawbrdman ewrd.delmar
I,
III
4
DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING
GC
ID
;
=i
M
MHP -
- SR 1
I[J C C C
0
2i a
L
GC -- -
�r
S ID � � -
MR nR,
.. .I
LEGENDDEC'EMBER °. IW97
SR 1 :;ING LE FAMILY ONE DU,.ACRF.
CITY LIMITS -
SR 4.5 �(NULE FAMILY 4.53 DU,ACRE
VONING BOUNDARY SR 6 SINGLE FAMILY6.U5 DU ACREGC I,ENEII�L. COMMERCIAL
MRM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY 23 DII ACRE
NCC NF:IUIIUORIWOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL �i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent. Washington, amending the City of Kent
comprehensive plan for the Del Mar Annexation Area.
WHEREAS, in 1990, the Washington Legislature adopted the Growth
Management Act as Chapter 36.70A RCW (GMA), requiring jurisdictions throughout the
State of Washington to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans: and
WHEREAS, the Kent City Council adopted the City of Kent
Comprehensive Plan on April 18. 1995; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A(2), the GMA states that each
comprehensive land use plan shall be subject to continuing evaluation and review by the
City upon adoption; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2), each jurisdiction is required
under the GMA to establish procedures whereby proposed amendments or revisions of the
comprehensive plan are considered by the City Council no more frequently than once a
year, that all proposals shall be considered by the City council concurrently so that the
cumulative effect of various proposals can be ascertained, and that the City may adopt
amendments or revisions to the comprehensive plan whenever an emergency exists; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance
3237 establishing procedures for amendment to the Kent Comprehensive Plan, and
i
WHEREAS, on June 3, 1997. the Kent City Council adopted Ordinance
3351. relating to the annexation into the City of Kent of an area known as the Del Mar
Annexation Area, and that this area would become part of the City of Kent on July 1, 199;:
jand
WHEREAS, the Kent Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations
for the Del Mar Annexation Area on the Plan's land use plan map; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of Ordinance 3351, the City's
planning staff began work on annexation zoning for the Del Mar Annexation Area. as
j outlined in Section 15.09.055 of the Kent Zoning Code: and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.120,the GMA requires that the City
enact development regulations, which are consistent with and implement its comprehensive
plan; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the comprehensive plan land use
designations and zoning map amendments for the Del Mar Annexation Area are consistent,
the Kent City Council adopted Resolution 1498 on October 7, 1997, which declared an
emergency to pursue a comprehensive plan amendment for the Del Mar Annexation Area:
and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public hearing
on September 22, 1997, on amendments to the comprehensive plan land use plan map for
the Del Mar Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board considered various
comprehensive plan land use plan map alternatives and public testimony during its public
i
hearings, and following its deliberations on September 22, 1997, recommended approval
of a land use plan map amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held two public hearings to consider the
recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board. The first hearing was held on
October 7, 1997. and the second hearing was held on November 1& 1997; and
WHEREAS, at the November 18. 1997 hearing, the City Council heard
additional, new public testimony; and
I
WHEREAS,the City Council moved to close the public hearing,considered
the public testimony provided at the hearings and moved to modify the land use and,
planning board's land use plan map recommendations; and
WHEREAS. the City Council adopted an amendment to the land use plan
in the Kent Comprehensive Plan for the Del Mar Annexation Area and that the
Ina P
P
amended land use designations for the Del Mar Annexation Area be as illustrated in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS,the Washington State Environmental Act(SEPA)requires that
comprehensive plans be reviewed as to their potential environmental impact and that on
November 18, 1997, the City of Kent issued an addendum to the Environmental Impact
Statement, which was prepared for the Kent Comprehensive Plan and that this addendum
analyzed the Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by the City Council on November
18, 1997;
NOW THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The land use plan map in the City of Kent comprehensive
plan for the area known as the Del Mar Annexation Areas is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit A..
SECTION 2. - City Council finds that the amendment outlined in Exhibit
A meets the criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment as outlined in Section 1`'.02.050
of the Kent City Code.
�I
SECTION 3. - .Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections. or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 1997.
APPROVED: day of 1997.
4
PUBLISHED: day of 11997.
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
I�
City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
1) [awwrdmance\mmP Plan
III
5
D 1E L MAR LAND U S E PLAN
Al
i I I
—I
_tea
SF 1
i C
` SF '
171
.._— �• � wee ri --. _
I _
31
MF D
MD I-
- -
19Y7
LEGEND
MHP MOBILE Ii0'.1 F: PARK DECEA16ER 9,
CITY LIMITS
LDMF [,I,« DENSI'CY MULTIFAMILY
I-]ND USE BOUNDARY
MDMF MEUIURI DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
C OivIyIERCIAL
SF 1 SINOLE FAMILY ONE. DU ACRE hi
... . .. � . !-- 1.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: STONEBROOK SUITES REZONE RZ-97-3 - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. _3� related
to the Stonebrook Suites Rezone. The City Council approved
this rezone on November 18, 1997 . The property is located at
the northwest corner of S. 182nd Street and 72nd Avenue S.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4. RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3E
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, relating to Land Use and Zoning,
rezoning approximately 4.6 acres from M-1, Industrial
Park to MI-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix.
(Stonebrook Suites Rezone).
WHEREAS, an application to rezone approximately 4.6 acres from the
current zoning of M-1, Industrial Park,to MI-C, Industrial Park-Commercial Suffix; was
filed on August 11, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the responsible official issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed rezone on September 8, 1997 subject to
conditions required (ENV-97-52); and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Stonebrook Suites rezone was held
before the Hearing Examiner on October 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued findings that the Stonebrook
Suites Rezone is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone
and subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the
vicinity,that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the
vicinity of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated, that
circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone. and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent; and
WHEREAS, the findings are consistent with the standards for rezone set
forth in Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code: and
WHEREAS, the Kent Hearing Examiner found that the proposed rezone
is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the
Comprehensive Plan Map as being appropriate locations for commercial type land uses:
and
WHEREAS, the Kent Hearing Examiner found that rezoning to M1-C is
not speculative in nature, but is based on generalized development plans and uses: and
WHEREAS, the Kent Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the
Stonebrook Suites Rezone on October 15, 1997. as submitted by the applicant: and
WHEREAS,the City Council moved to accept the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for approval of the Stonebrook
Suites Rezone from M-1, Industrial Park to MI-C. Industrial Park, Commercial Suffix:
NOW, THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON.
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The property located at the northwest corner of South 182nd
Street and 72 Avenue South and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference is rezoned as follows:
Parcel number 000020-0009, 4.6 acres, located at the northwest corner of South
182nd Street and 72nd Avenue South shall be rezoned from M-1, Industrial Park,
to MI-C, Industrial Park, Commercial Suffix.
2
SECTION2. Sever•ahility. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 11997.
APPROVED day of 1997.
PUBLISHED day of , 1997.
3
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
P-\LAW\ORDINAN0STONEBRO.ORD
4
City of Kent - Planning Department
- -- - - 5.W. 43RO. T - -�
i ET � I
i
1, G
0 l
I�
APPLICATION NAME: Stonebrook Suites "
NUMBER: #RZ-97-3,#V-97-4,#SMV-97-2 DATE: October 1 , 1997
R ..JUEST: Rezone,Variance,Shoreline Variance Application e
Zoning/Topographyzoning boundary
City limits EXHIBIT-
city of Kent - Planning Department
ArA
.R YR
•\. ICY.+Isa
� M.b\WM� YY.tI 1••.1
� �..,•tlYl. \I tl•11
`NEST vALIEY
•--I ) ������+ •-� �1 �MICMYA� _ -V•-•.ram VICINITY 4AP
..�- 1 i.�• I I� r � _i I
Sw0.L — [ P'I II1 I .(tf0 AIA/P4
11 I o]=] 71ST AVENUE 5.
7 d 3 -
I°. 111 I �� cG7t4i uasin �
y c 2 --1— I.
a
N.1I'• lu I � I I ` ; L1�Y611Y WCI
p « _ m
N �.•
.a•• ��_ ••72ND NUE AVE SOUTH _.. .-. -
_ 5I =3
MLA. ^7F
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPLICATION NAME: Stonebrook Suites
NUMBER: #RZ-97-3,#V-97-4,#SMV-97-2
DATE: October 1 , 1997
:QUEST: Rezone,Variance,Shoreline Variance SEND A
Application site
Site Plan EXHIBIT A
City of Kent- Planning Department
I
i
SAX SAXW OR
� I
3 W
Y �
0 OR ¢ Q 2 y
4
6
W W
O o
O a I W
2
¢ a J
C
T
' I Q
(SW 43 ST -
i
I^�
RIYER=i0E '�
i
OR i
� j I
N
� I
2
TQ�O BV N 5
` ¢ iC W �
2
J U
O N
S
U I
5 188 ST
7 CIRCIER 9T ,u 5 188 ST
J
i p
S 190 ST S 190 ST
S 190 5T
APPLICATION NAME: Stonebrook Suites
NUMBER: #RZ-97-3,#V-97-4,#SMV-97-2 DATE: October 1 , 1997
F.-WEST: Rezone,Variance,Shoreline Variance LEGEND
® Application site
Vicinity Map f.-�—i—� Railroad tracks City limits EXHIBIT
A r9vurr"Or
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: OLD NAPA STORE REZONE RZ-97-2 - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. ,?.3 75 relating
to the Old NAPA Store Rezone. The City Council approved this
Zoning Code Amendment on November 18, 1997 . The property is
located at 24728 36th Avenue South (Military Road) .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3F
i
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent. Washington, relating to Land Use and Zoning,
rezoning approximately 13,632 square feet of property from
NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, to CC.
Community Commercial (Old Napa Store Rezone-RZ-97-
2).
I
WHEREAS,an application to rezone approximately 13,632 square feet from
the current zoning of NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial to CC, Community
Commercial was filed on August 6, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the responsible official issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposed rezone on September 8, 1997 with no conditions
required; and
I
WHEREAS,a public hearing on the Old Napa Store rezone was held before
the Hearing Examiner on October 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner issued findings that the Old Napa Store
Rezone is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed rezone and
subsequent development activity would be compatible with the development in the vicinity,
I that the proposed rezone will not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity
of the property with significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated, that
i
circumstances have changed since the establishment of the current zoning district to
warrant the proposed rezone. and that the proposed rezone will not adversely affect the
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent: and
WHEREAS,the findings are consistent with the standards for rezone set
forth in Section 15.09.050(C) of the Kent City Code. and
WHEREAS,the Kent Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Old
Napa Store Rezone on October 15, 1997, as submitted by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council moved to accept the findings of the Hearing
Examiner and the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for approval of the Old Napa
Rezone from NCC, Neighborhood Commercial, to CC. Community Commercial: NOW,
THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L. The property located at 24728 36th Avenue South, Kent,
i
Washington consisting of approximately 13,632 square feet and depicted in Exhibit A.
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is rezoned as follows:
Parcel number 1253200010, located at 24728 36th Avenue South, Kent.
Washington, shall be rezoned from NCC. Neighborhood Commercial to CC,
Community Commercial.
SECTION 2. Severahility. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
2
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
I
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 11997.
APPROVED day of , 1997.
PUBLISHED day of , 1997.
3
I herebv 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
I I
P:U.AW�ORDINANQNCC.ORD
4
t
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CM-2 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS ZCA-97-6 -
ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. _4376 relating
to the CM-2 Zoning District - Zoning Code Amendment. The City
Council approved this Zoning Code Amendment on November 18,
1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: City Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3G
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending the zoning code, to allow
vehicle impound lots as a conditional use in the CM-2 zone
(ZCA-97-6).
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1997, a regulatory review applicant proposed an
amendment to the Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.04.130(D) to add vehicle impound lots
as a conditional use in the Commercial Manufacturing (CM-2) zoning district: and
WHEREAS, under current zoning, vehicle impound is permitted only as an
accessory use to an auto repair or auto service facility in the CM-2 zoning district, but not
as a principal use; and
WHEREAS, on October 271, 1997 the Land Use and Planning Board
conducted a public hearing to address the proposed code amendment; and
WHEREAS,the Land Use and Planning Board unanimously recommended
to the City Council that Section 15.04.130(D) be changed to add "vehicle impound lots"
as a conditional use in the CM-2 zoning district;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT.
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 15.04.130(D) is hereby amended adding a new
section No. 6 as follows:
Sec. 15.04.130. Commercial Manufacturing-2 District, CM-2.
It is the purpose of the CM-2 district to provide locations for those types of
developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and small-
scale, light industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and specialty
manufacturing.
A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows:
1. Any principally permitted use in the GC general commercial zone.
2. Outdoor storage such as trucking, transfer or contractor storage
yards.
;. Manufacturing uses as follows:
a. Manufacturing uses such as bottling, bakeries (primarily
wholesale) laundry and dyeing, and welding shops.
b. Specialty manufacturing such as custom sheetmetal.
4. Small scale light manufacturing operations as follows: stamping,
brazing, testing, electronic assembly and kindred operations where
the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more
than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of area. The ten-thousand-
square-foot total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas
associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one (1) ten-
thousand-square-foot manufacturing operation shall be permitted
per lot.
5. Miniwarehouses.
6. Complexes which include combinations of uses, including a mixture
of office, light manufacturing, storage and commercial uses.
7. New single-family residences.
8. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed
for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may
be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and
fences.
2
9. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings
subject to section 15.04.200.
B. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows:
1. Accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a
permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities, and loading and
unloading areas.
2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses, including onsite
hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not
subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and which
do not accumulate more than ten thousand (10.000) pounds of
hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any
one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section
15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage
facilities, which are not permitted in this district.
C. Special permit uses. Special permit uses are as follows:
2. Gasoline service stations.
2. Churches.
D. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows:
1. Offices.
2. Light manufacturing operations in any building, regardless of size,
built prior to June 4, 1973: provided, however, that if it should
become necessary to rebuild or replace any such building then the
light manufacturing operations permitted under this subsection shall
not encompass an area greater than the size of such building on June
4, 1973.
3. Group homes class I-A. I-B. I-C, II-A, II-B, II-C and III.
4. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030.
5. For permitted uses, accessory hazardous substance land uses, which
are not subject to cleanup permit requirements of chapter 11.02 and
3
which accumulate more than ten thousand (10.000) pounds of
hazardous substances or wastes or any combination thereof at any
one (1) time on the site or which handle more than twenty thousand
(20,000) pounds of hazardous substances or wastes or any
combination thereof on the site in any thirty-day period of time.
subject to the provisions of section 15.08.050, except offsite
hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities, which are not
permitted in this district.
6. Vehicle impound lots.
E. Development standards.
1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square
feet.
2. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is fifty (50)
percent.
;. Front yard. Minimum front yard is fifteen (15) feet.
4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except when a side yard abuts
a residential district, and then a twenty-foot side yard shall be
required.
5. Rear yard. No rear yard is required, except when a rear yard abuts
a residential district, and then a twenty-foot rear yard shall be
required.
6. Height limitation. The height limitation is two (2) stories or thirty-
five (35) feet. However, the planning director shall be authorized to
grant one (1) additional story in height if during development plan
review it is found that this additional story would not detract from
the continuity of the area. More than one (1) additional story may
be granted by the planning commission.
7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall
apply.
4
S. Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be fenced for security
and public safety by a sight-obscuring fence unless it is determined
through the development plan review that a sight-obscuring fence
is not necessary. Any unfenced outdoor storage areas shall be paved
with asphaltic concrete, cement or equivalent material to be
approved by the city engineer.
F. Signs. The sign requirements of.chapter 15.06 shall apply.
G. Offstreet parking.
1. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall apply.
2. Offstreet parking may be located in required yards, except in areas
required to be landscaped.
H. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as
provided in section 15.09.010.
(Ord. No. 2528. § 3, 1-21-85: Ord. No. 2801, § 9, 9-6-88; Ord. No. 2808, § 5, 10-18-88:
Ord.No. 2958, § 15, 1-2-91, Ord. No. 3095, §§ 2--4. 3-2-93; Ord. No. 3132, § 1, 9-7-93)
SECTION 2. Severability. If anv one or more sections, sub-sections. or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE. MAYOR
_- 5
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of 11997.
APPROVED day of 1997.
PUBLISHED day of , 1997.
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
P'U.A W\ORDMANC\REZONE.ORD
6
1'
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: OFFICE (0) ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS ZCA-97-7 -
ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 3377
relating to Office(0) Zoning District Regulations - Zoning
Code Amendment. The City Council approved this Zoning Code
Amendment on November 18 , 1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: citV Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3H
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending Sec. 15.04.150(A)(3) in the
Office (0) Zoning District (ZCA-97-7).
WHEREAS, on July 22, 1997, a regulatory review applicant proposed a
zoning code amendment, which would modify the way in which veterinary clinics would
be regulated in the office zoning district; and
WHEREAS,the applicant proposed a zoning amendment that would change
the set-back for a veterinary clinic in the office zone from "150 feet from a residential use"
to "150 feet from a residential zone;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council planning committee reviewed the proposed
zoning code amendment on August 19, 1997 and referred the matter to the Land Use and
Planning Board for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Planning Board addressed the proposed
zoning code amendment at its October 13, 1997 workshop where it was forwarded for a
public hearing on October 27. 1997; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1997, the Land Use and Planning Board held
a public hearing on the proposed amendment to Sec. 15.04.150(A)(3) and recommended
to the City Council that Sec. 15.04.150(A)(3) be amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT.
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 15.04.150 is hereby amended as follows:
See. 15.04.150. Professional and office district, O.
It is the purpose of the O district to provide for areas appropriate for professional
and administrative offices. It is intended that such districts shall buffer residential districts
and the development standards are such that office uses should be compatible with
residential districts.
A. Principally permitted uses. Principally permitted uses are as follows:
I. Medical and dental offices and medical and dental laboratory
services.
2. Administrative and professional offices such as lawyers, engineers,
real estate and accountants, financial offices such as banks and
savings and loan institutions, insurance offices, auditing,
bookkeeping, architectural and urban planning services, business
and management consulting services and advertising services.
I Veterinary clinics when located no closer than one hundred fifty
(150) feet to any residential tine zone, providing the animals are
housed indoors, with no outside runs, and the building is
soundproofed. Soundproofing must be designed by competent
acoustical engineers.
4. Schools and studios for art, crafts, photography, music or dance:
educational and scientific research: and research and development
services.
5. Blueprinting and photocopying services.
6. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting services, and adjustment
and collecting services.
7. Detective and protective services.
2
8. Stenographic services and other duplicating mud mailing services.
9. News syndicate services.
10. Employment services.
11. Group homes class I-A, I-B and I-C.
12. Any other use that is determined by the planning director to be of
the same general character as the uses permitted in subsections A.1.
through 11. of this section.
13. Municipal uses and buildings, except for such uses and buildings
subject to section 15.04.200.
Existing dwellings may be rebuilt. repaired and otherwise changed for
human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be
constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences.
B. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses are as follows:
1. Incidental sales and services, such as restaurants, pharmacies and
retail sales, to serve occupants and patrons of permitted uses, when
conducted within the same building, provided there is no exterior
display or advertising.
2. For permitted uses, hazardous substance land uses. including onsite
hazardous waste treatment or storage facilities. which are not
subject to cleanup pemut requirements of chapter 11.02 and which
do not accumulate more than five thousand (5,000) pounds of
hazardous substances or wastes or anv combination thereof at any
one (1) time on the site, subject to the provisions of section
15.08.050, except offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage
facilities, which are not permitted in this district.
;. Accessory dwelling units.
C. Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows:
1. Multifamily residential use shall be permitted as a conditional use
only when included within a mixed use development.
3
2. Mortuaries.
;. Beauty and barber services.
4. Tanning salons.
5. Nail manicuring services.
6. General conditional uses as listed in section 15.08.030.
7. Retail sales as follows:
a. Retail sales are permitted as part of a planned development
where at least fifty (50) percent of the total development is
for office use.
b. Drive-in restaurants, service stations, drive-in cleaning
establishments and other similar retail establishments are
not permitted.
8. Group homes class II-A, II-B, II-C and III.
D. Special permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided that they
conform to the development standards listed in section 15.08.020:
1. Churches.
2. Nursery schools and day care centers.
E. Development standards.
1. Minimum lot. Minimum lot area is ten thousand (10,000) square
feet.
2. Maximum site coverage. Maximum site coverage is thirty (30)
percent.
3. Front yard. Minimum front yard setback is twenty-five (25) feet.
4. Side yard. No side yard is required, except abutting a residential
district, and then the side yard shall be twenty (20) feet minimum.
5. Rear yard. No rear yard is required, except abutting a residential
district, and then the rear yard shall be twenty (20) feet.
6. Height limitation. The height limitation is three (3) stories or forty
(40) feet.
4
7. Landscaping. The landscaping requirements of chapter 15.07 shall
apply.
F. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply.
G. Offstreet parking. The offstreet parking requirements of chapter 15.05 shall
apply.
H. Development plan review. Development plan approval is required as
provided in section 15.09.010.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
5
PASSED day of , 1997.
APPROVED day of 1997.
PUBLISHED day of , 1997.
I herebv certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. _, passed by the
Citv 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
P\LAW\ORDINANCIPROAMD.ORD
6
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: WORKER COMPENSATION PROGRAM CONTRACT - RENEWAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Authorization to renew the Worker
Compensation Third-Party Administrator Contract with Scott
Wetzel Services, Inc. for 1998 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo to Operations Committee and contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $25 ,825
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Worker Comp Self-Insurance Fund
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3I
Memorandum
To: Operations Committee
Thru: Sue Viseth. Employee Services Director
Ken Chatwin, Risk Manager
From: Chris Hills, Risk Management Specialist
Date: November 10, 1997
Subject: Renewal of Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. Contract
Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. (SWS) is the Third-Party Administrator for the
City's self-insured Worker Compensation program.
SWS has proposed renewal of our existing contract at a rate of$25,825 for
1998. This represents a cost decrease of $25 from the 1997 contract cost. We
have reallocated some costs associated with this contract as follows:
• Reduction of contracted loss control services hours from 90 to 50. This
is possible due to the addition of the Risk Management Specialist to
City staff;
• Addition of monthly reporting of all Worker Compensation claim
information via diskette which can then be easily downloaded to
recently created Worker Compensation Claim database. Cost of this
upgrade is $1,475 ($500 setup fee and 13 months at $75 per month);
• Per claim costs ($475 per Time Loss claim and $95 per Medical only
claim) remain the same.
I would like to request Operations Committee approval for execution of this
contract for the 1998 calendar year. Please call me at 520-4250 if you have
any questions.
AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of 1997 by and
between Scott Wetzel Services, Inc., a Washington Corporation with its principal
place of business at 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2980, Tampa, Florida 33602
(hereinafter referred to as "SWS") and CITY OF KENT with its principal place of
business at 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, Washington 98032 (hereinafter referred
to as "Client"):
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Client maintains a self-insured plan to cover its workers' compensation
liabilities in the State of Washington; and SWS has agreed to perform certain
services in connection therewith, as herein set forth:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1)year commencing
January 1, 1998 and ending December 31, 1998. The Agreement may be
terminated by either party giving not less than sixty(60) days written notice
to the other party except for non-payment of fees or change in jurisdictional
or other administrative regulations affecting this Agreement.
2. During the period of this Agreement, SWS shall represent and act for Client
in matters pertaining to the liability of Client for claims based on events
which occur during the term of this Agreement under the Workers'
Compensation Act of the State of Washington. During the term hereof, SWS
shall devote its best efforts in the conduct of its duties hereunder. Such
duties shall be the following:
(a) Receive notice of and create files on each claim reported and maintain
these files for Client.
(b) Investigate all claims as required to determine their validity and
compensability.
(c) Determine proper benefits due on compensable cases.
97.9.68 1 Scott Wetzel Services.Inc.
(d) Make timely payment of benefits due, in accord with payment proce-
dures as established from funds provided by Client. Client will be
wholly responsible for providing such funds as may be required for
these payments.
(e) Prepare documentation and defenses of cases considered noncompen-
sable and assist selected legal counsel in preparation of cases for
hearings, appeals, and/or trial.
(f) Maintain and provide Client pertinent data on all claim payments.
(g) Provide monthly and/or quarterly computerized loss reports in a
tailored format, as mutually agreed at inception of the program,
showing descriptive data, details of each month's payments, total
payments, reserves and total experience for each claim. Data
reporting services, in accordance with this Agreement, are limited to
the reporting format, content and number of copies specified in
Addendum One. Subsequent expansion and/or modification of
services including changes in report distribution, at the option of
SWS, may be subject to additional charges.
(h) Provide excess insurers such reports as they may reasonably require
within specific excess coverage reporting requirements.
(i) Provide information and assistance as may be reasonably required for
preparation and filing of all reports required by any state agency in
connection with Client's approved self-insured status.
File with the appropriate State Administrative Departments such
information as is required on each claim.
(k) Provide loss control services, defined as loss control, consultations,
and surveys as mutually agreed.
(1) To provide services as outlined in the SWS Client Service Procedures.
(m) Provide Managed Care Services as described in Addendum Two.
97.9.68 -2- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc.
3. In consideration of the services to be performed by SWS hereunder, Client
shall pay to SWS:
(a) Service term minimum and deposit fee of Twenty-Five Thousand Eight
Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($25,825), payable quarterly in advance.
The first payment will be due within twenty (20) days of
commencement of this Agreement, and subsequent payments will be
due within twenty (20) days of the beginning of each quarter
thereafter.
(b) The minimum fee will be subject to adjustment by performance of
claim count audits on the basis of SWS claim data and application of
the following per claimant fees:
Ninety-five Dollars ($95) for each workers' compensation medical
only;
Four Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($475) for each workers'
compensation indemnity.
An administrative fee of Two Thousand Three Hundred Dollars
($2,300), and a fee of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars
($4,750) for loss control services, will be included in each fee
adjustment calculation.
(c) SWS has agreed to make available up to Fifty (50) hours of loss
control services during the contract term, payment for which is
included in the fee stated in Section three (3) articles (a) and (b).
Additional loss control will be available at the rate of One Hundred
Five Dollars ($105) per hour.
(d) Included in the annual fees are costs for set-up and production, disk
transfers on a monthly frequency for a total of thirteen(13) months for
a total of One Thousand Four Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($1,475).
(e) Costs for Managed Care Services as outlined in Addendum Two.
(f) Additional services requested by Client will be compensated at such
fee and payment terms as mutually agreed by both parties.
97-9-68 -3- Scott Wetzel Senices,Inc.
(g) Invoices not paid on a timely basis will be surcharged a finance fee of
18% annual interest rate.
In the event Client fees are not paid within sixty(60) days of the date
of invoice, SWS may terminate this Agreement, at its option, after ten
(10) days written notice to Client.
4. Audit adjustments will be submitted at the end of the annual term and
quarterly thereafter based upon the cumulative claim count as contained in
the computer reports required by section 2 (g) of the Agreement. A final
adjustment of fee will be made as of eighteen months following the end of
the contract term. Any claims occurring during the term of this Agreement
which are reported more than eighteen(18)months following the end of the
contract term will be subject to additional fees for administration to be
agreed upon by the parties.
5. SWS will Indemnify and Hold Harmless Client from any and all loss, cost,
fines, assessments, penalties or other expense incurred by City and/or its
employees as a result of the willful misconduct or negligent acts or
omissions of SWS and/or its employees in connection with fulfilling its
obligation under this Agreement.
6. Client will Indemnify and Hold Harmless SWS from any and all loss, cost,
fines, assessments, penalties incurred by SWS and/or its employees as a
result of the willful misconduct or negligent acts of the Client and/or its
employees in connection with fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement.
7. Client agrees:
(a) To pay to SWS the fees provided for hereunder.
(b) To pay all allocated loss expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition
to the fees to be paid to SWS. Allocated loss expense is defined as all
attorney's fees, court and/or hearing costs, costs of depositions,
documents and exhibits, witness and expert fees, medical and
engineering appraisal, surveillance, independent adjusting, managed
care, photography and other incidental and special costs incurred to
evaluate compensability of claims.
97.9.68 -4- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc.
(c) To pay any sales or use taxes or other taxes or government assess-
ments or duties relating to this Agreement or to payments or services
to be rendered under this Agreement in addition to all other
payments set forth in this Agreement. If SWS makes payment of any
such taxes or government assessments or duties, Client shall
promptly reimburse SWS. This Paragraph does not apply to federal
or state taxes based upon net income which are imposed on SWS.
(d) To pay all loss control expense, as hereinafter defined, in addition to
the fees to be paid to SWS. Loss control expense is defined as
extraordinary travel costs, such as air or other common carrier fare,
overnight meals and lodging; requested training materials; safety
promotional materials; associated shipping and handling; and other
incidental and special costs incurred in the provision of loss control
services.
(e) To be solely responsible to provide to SWS all funds for the payment
of claims and allocated loss expense.
(f) To advise SWS on a timely basis of all pertinent excess insurance
reporting requirements and/or reporting modifications for all annual
periods for which claim administration services are provided.
(g) This Agreement is entered into with the understanding that existing
Federal, State, or other jurisdictional regulations will remain in effect
for the duration of this Agreement.
Client agrees that should administrative or other costs of service
provided hereunder be substantially increased as a result of modi-
fications in existing law, enactment of new legislation, or promulgation
of new administrative guidelines, SWS service fees may be
renegotiated during the Agreement term.
If revised fee agreements cannot be reached, SWS may terminate this
Agreement, at its option, after thirty(30) days written notice to Client.
8. All claims and related files generated by SWS as a result of its activity under
this Agreement shall remain at all times the property of Client with the
exception of any supporting data required by SWS to make such accountings
to Client or excess insurers as are required in this Agreement.
97 9 68 -5- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc.
SWS will retain claim files for one year following date of closure. Thereafter,
files will be returned to Client or forwarded to such location as may be
designated for continued storage. Upon SWS' request, closed claim files will
be returned for additional administration as may be required at Client
expense.
In the event of termination or non-renewal of SWS services, and assumption
of continuing administration of claims by Client, SWS will transfer all open
and retained closed claim files for any and all dates of loss to Client, or its
designee, as of the effective date of termination at Client expense.
9. SWS is retained by Client only for the purposes and to the extent set forth
in this Agreement, and its relationship to Client shall be that of an
independent contractor.
10. Client agrees during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one (1)
year following its termination it will not employ any person employed by
SWS during the term of this Agreement without the prior written consent of
SWS.
11. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be
sufficient if given in writing and by registered or certified mail to Client or
to SWS at the addresses first set forth above or to any other address of
which written notice of change is given.
12. The waiver by SWS or Client of the breach of any provision of this
Agreement by the other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver
of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter
enforcing any such provision.
13. This Agreement is for the period provided for in Section 1. Any continuation
or renewal of this Agreement shall be the subject of further negotiation
between the parties. Upon termination of this Agreement, in whole or in
part, in accordance with Section 1, and/or non-renewal, in entirety or of any
major operating subsidiary, entity or portion thereof, Client shall have the
option to:
(a) Assume all open claims pending for the terminated or non-renewed
portion of the program, as of the effective date of termination or non-
renewal, provided, however, that SWS shall be entitled to receive its
97.9-68 -6- Scott\Vctzel Services, Inc.
full fee for all claims entered into its data files prior to the effective
date of termination or non-renewal; or
(b) Upon agreement, by both parties, of a rate of compensation, require
SWS to continue administration, to conclusion, all open claims
associated with that portion of the program terminated or non-
renewed. Such rate of compensation shall thereafter be reviewed by
the parties on an annual basis and shall be the subject of mutual
agreement between the parties. Adequate funds shall continue to be
made available to SWS by Client for the payment of claims and
allocated loss expense until all claims are liquidated.
14. The obligation of SWS to perform its duties hereunder is conditioned upon
Client's cooperation with SWS with respect to the activities of SWS
including, but not limited to, responding to SWS' requests for information
promptly; meeting with SWS and/or third parties, as may be needed;
making decisions on matters which, in the professional opinion of SWS,
should be made by Client; providing excess carrier reporting requirements;
the payment of funds into the Account referred to in Section 7; and perform-
ance by Client of all other obligations of this Agreement.
15. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior
written consent of the other party.
This provision shall not prohibit SWS from subcontracting for any of the
activities to be performed by SWS without any requirement of obtaining the
approval of Client provided, however, that any such assignment or subcon-
tracting shall not relieve SWS of its obligations to Client under this Agree-
ment.
16. Client shall not disclose any terms or conditions of this Agreement relating
to prices or fees to any third party or transfer a copy of this Agreement or
disclose the contents thereof to any third party.
17. Any unresolved dispute between Client and SWS which may arise from the
obligations of either party as set forth herein, will be resolved by arbitration.
Such arbitration shall be binding upon Client and SWS. Each party will
select an arbitrator. The two arbitrators will select a third. If they cannot
agree within thirty(30) days, either may request that selection be made by
a judge of a court having competent jurisdiction. Each party will pay the
97.9.68 -7- Scott Wetzel Services,Inc.
expenses it incurs and bear the expenses of the third arbitrator equally. The
laws of the State of Washington will apply.
18. This Agreement sets forth all of the terms, conditions, and agreements of
the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all
such former agreements which are hereby declared terminated and of no
further force and effect upon the execution and delivery hereof.There are no
terms, conditions, or agreements with respect thereto, except as herein
provided and no amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be
effective unless reduced to writing and executed by the parties. All terms,
conditions, definitions as set forth in the Agreement will be interpreted
under the laws of the State of Washington.
IN WMNMSS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement
in duplicate counterparts as of the date first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF KENT
By
Date Signed Title
pi LL SCOTT WEML SERVICES, INC.
n By
Date Signed Title Senior Vice President
97.9_68 8 Scott Netzel Senices,Inc.
ADDENDUM ONE
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF KENT ("Client")
AND
SCOTT WETZEL SERVICES, INC. (SWS)
EFFECTIVE: JANUARY 1, 1998 - DECEMBER 317 1998
REPORT tFQLTFNCY DTSTRIBI TON
Loss Experience Per Claim Monthly 2 - Client
By Fund Per Department
Current Month Payments Monthly 2 - Client
City Overall
Current Month Bordereaux Monthly 2 - Client
Payments By Bank Reference #
Comparative Statistical Quarterly 2 - Client
Report by Category 37699, 12
Cumulative Claim Diskette Monthly 1 - Client
State Reports
IRS 1099S Annual
END -
97-9-W -9 Scott Wetzel Services,Inc.
-"REQUEST FOR MAYOR'S. SIONAT URE
Please Fill in All Applicable Boxes
i<
Routing Information
Originator 's ��-rN�S Phone (Originator): 2-5�7D Y
Date Sent: Date Required. -4.54—P ry
Return Signed Document to: K,IS lkl I.LS
Brief Explanation of Document: �Cy .��, ✓ S c v f W e_f
(,nrw-ut+ ro-v-' 4 ((V_ (2-? !dkiIL-tI VA,f: 45r,Ir-
k 14 S-k��� w�✓(r.-e L P�K sa1"n (ksu vrke
All Contracts must Be Routed Throu the Ct Attorney
Received t Y � ��
h "r
f�
r Approval ofzt&Attorney
City'Attorney,Comyments:
Date Forwarded to Mayor: "
A
17,
Shaded Areas to Be Com leted b Administration Staff
t•
t�3�t�� S �,✓�L�tBr :: r t i %/! Y ��y�.t f'''i #t°�lu`°' nX.l
„ l '! rr f t/ o rr t - J h *i ! r�//iofE3* T'� �•fi
• - ,a Jf ry f rr > r sect r� / Lbkt��f+r7/rt}ts`i��
-
t
' � r;G i.::.1 Y �r /' ',.: r { % r x ':/ > Y�•✓S//.» �H';.''Y.t���/' �ttu�5'• ''t'i:':t�?^:.i`: :x_.
3
.[ i t's2'.txe;X'Lf'«i: -4. :.y: r'/l rr :• r '.r > r�.: �:: �.:..:`:{ :.
j tv:Y a.?�,,33q rnt v A./r ri 1 F '.,,�., .,;F.°,'t:.�l.Z},..:.,r�f'2::+1t iL:::y`:SS,.'. t(fJt'C'•.
n.
' i S:,.t� f..S,Jns�t .Jv,::::.v.v::. :::R:%J...:.:..:. /l.:!.R{4:::':pYh.:.. ,.i,: .:.C:a.Yi `G::.i SJ. •_q...-
..�.f. :.... .:: : /R.. Y .t.;..:
t......ai:°i�'rY.:Y`'.;#t:.' /./ .'/jui `:a:y.,,:l..'i::.i::R`::f°Y r .w �w:...,K!a:
t f/i {t s !':r .ur F,t,{.d/ r .::l'/f � .,/�/i:..... ')."o..,H??„'q
v
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH, STATE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL -
CONCURRENCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, concurrence with the State' s Accident Reduction
Proposal on Pacific Highway South of constructing a median down
the center thereof from Kent-Des Moines Road (SR 516) to South
272nd Street with appropriately spaced Left Turn/U-Turn pockets
as concurred with by the Public Works Department.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and Public Works
Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION'
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3J
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
November 19, 1997
TO: Public Works Comm
ittee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Pacific Highway South
The State has conducted a study of Pacific Highway South from the Green River Bridge
in Tukwila to Federal Way to establish design parameters for future improvements. Part
of the State's project to review the accident history and determine how to reduce
accidents is a significant element since their plan for accident reduction involved
constructing a median down the center of Pacific Highway with left turn/u-turn pockets
at appropriate intersections. Federal Way, Des Moines, Sea Tac, Tukwila are concurred
therewith. The City's portion of the project would run from Kent-DesMoines Road to
S. 272nd Street. The state is planning to hold public meetings on their plan and are
seeking the Citys support of the median concept. There will no doubt be property
owner concern about access into their properties..
We have reviewed their plan and with the left tunVu-turn pockets spaced appropriately,
we support same.
ACTION: Recommend Council concurrence with the State's accident reduction
proposal on Pacific Highway South of constructing a median down the
center thereof from I-Cent-Des Moines to S. 272nd Street, with
appropriately spaced left tunVu-tum pockets as concurred with by the
Public Works Department.
r
99 r
How did the Pacific Highway
South Project come about`'
STUDY LIMIT I
NORTH END
In early 1995,during the preparation of the Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan,the inception of the SR Tu LA
99 Pacific Highway South Redevelopment(Pac Hwy)
Project was formed. As a result of this concept, in April e
of 1995,seven jurisdictions-Federal Way, King County, sEArrzE•rAcoMa
Kent,Des Moines,SeaTac,Tukwila,and the Washington INTENRRN�ROTNAL s Ac
Slate Department of Transportation-agreed to sponsor the i,
study phase by applying for a federal grant through the ,pD,sT
Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC),the Metropolitan
Planning Organization in the Puget Sound region. j smPTNsr
The grant funding was approved. The intent of the project DES
A MOINES �J
is Lo prepare a design study report,Type, Size, and Loca-
tion plans,and environmental documentation for the
SR 99 Pac Hwy project. Work began in January 1996.
The process for the SR 99 Pac Hwy project and its phases P U G E T KENr
are illustrated in the flow chart below. s D u N D
yo
27M S
Improvement Process
SR 99 Redevelopmentp �
KIN O.
PLM
• PP•S sy� Pin
pa I +"
Gomala,a'K j.paod Ckwlap+PaP P+ae
S Cwr `a •S+ Trmavna+al PI
MuWa•a"An•PWd S 32orm ST
( Dn,sn GU, 1'a+and
TYPS Sim rW Lo =Ia _
Mapr RoadvaY f
!SwdV Plraa Iepevemena Elema•a FEDERA AY
99
i
Y LIMIT STUD i
Fad+r LSMA SOUTH END
sdamb TM
Future
Addttiunw > , : I„�ME What are the study boundaries?
Funding .�, ,,,,ME
NM: The project lies approximately 10 miles south of metropoli-
CIP.C•P tan Seattle,spanning a little more than 15 miles from
T+P.ttaw•aulan•naPr.•ra P,PPum
STE, Noww4wSum .T,a.P°"al°nE"w. ' beginning (S. 356th Street in Federal Way) to end(S. 1
Ana+sP+
T15-T Pupa SPPaY mow aad E>•anaa I,agn,.emau Caru,wwn
TIMh Fed +a HOWNY'Mtia w Street In Tukwila).
FIIV/M FadYa+yy�PlAa+rrunen o^,�.n,.w.•
What is the project purpose'' What issues are being
considered?
SR 99 roadway segment from Federal Way (S. 356th There are seven primary issues that the Pac Hwy
et) to Tukwila(S. 116th Street) once functioned as a is considering. These issues include:
primary north-south connection,but now caters to an project
increasingly diverse cross-section of users-from the * Comprehensive Plan-How will project recommen-
patrons of the many local businesses that border the dabons be integrated and consistent with the local
highway,to the ever-increasing numbers who frequent comprehensive plans?
SeaTac International Airport,to those who haul freight to * Safety -What role will safety improvements play?
and from the Port of Seattle. Although the demands on the * Non-Motorized Accommodations-How will
roadway have changed over the years,the roadway itself pedestrian and bicycle safety be improved and
has changed very little. Currently,there are delays due to P
traffic congestion,and increased accidents of all types incorporated?
throughout the study limits. * Transit- Hov, will transit needs be addressed?
* Property Access-How will improvements affect
As this segment of roadway travels through seven jurisdic- the high demand for access by businesses,the
lions,the purpose of the Pac Hwy project is to develop a airport,and the community?
design and operational plan for the highway. This plan will
identify improvements which enhance the various transpor- * Capacity-What types of improvements are needed
tation services,facilities,and operational characteristics of to meet the increased travel demand of local and
the roadway. The corridor's ability to carry general traffic, regional users (passenger cars, trucks, airport
freight,goods,and services will be presented in the plan. shuttles,busses)?
* Continuity-How can the system function effi-
ciently and perform better operationally?
What exists versus what to expect?
Existing Features Project Considerations
(Figure 1) (Figure 2)
* Two travel lanes in each direction Two travel lanes and one HOV lane in each direction*
* Center two-way left-turn lane Raised(landscaped)median with turn lane provisions
* Overhead utility lines
Curb, gutter,and sidewalk
* Paved shoulders Underground utility lines
* No continuous sidewalk Intersection circulation and safety improvements
Transit service amenities
Pedestrian safety improvements
* No HOV lanes within Tukwila and a SB HOv lane along a portion
of SR 99 in SeaTac.
" - r
I
Figure 2 After
Figure 1 Before Figure
SR 99 Pac Hwy Project
What. role do the local What are the expectations from
,jurisdictions play? the elected officials?
The roles of the local jurisdictions-Federal Way, King The roles of the local elected officials are multifaceted.
County,Kent, Des Moines,SeaTac,Tukwila-are multi- Their roles are illustrated below.
faceted. These roles are illustrated below.
Expected Elected Officials Roles _
Local Jurisdictions Role �— _�\
_ •Review&comment on study component
_ ---- F.Partidpate in Steering Committee in mvtew and �} Project Study Ph.ec��( •Support for recommendations adoption
__--" /\ •Assist in uquinng busness support
Project Study Phase aK&Sernent of techntpi recommendwons •Inivale political support at state level
•Assist WSDOT in public information
activities
j •Assist WSDOT in securing adoption and ! -- Contact state legislators
Loral i implementation of the project study Funding- --V •ISTEA(FHWA)
Approval recommendations by the local junsdicuons (Design&Comtructic Om(S i ee Local match)
council
Search for potential funding options for design
Fun dins and construction - - - ,,,,� •Support for environmental clearance
Design —J( •Rally business j cut approval
support
`-✓/' •Support for project approve!
•Conduct and secure approval of environmental
Design clearance by State and FHWA _
/�, •Conduct i prepare project design an
and
PS&E document Construction s •Rally business I community support
Constevetton •Administer improvement consttucvon Nat. i4fEA..+.,,mus++e.sTr.r�.war�r.�v"'a,w,
TaF Tre,eed,=rbr,=MewrnM Bentl
aw,rwrwa,u,e��+
FNMA.Famed liyriw
Ps".PMe sp mommom Ee,errr
What will the study accomplish?
The study will identify transportation and operational needs(access,safety,and mobility)for the year 2020,and develop
alternatives and recommended improvements to the existing transportation system. The specifics of the individual improve-
ments will be determined by the local jurisdictions.
The study phase will address four project goals:
l. Establish a plan which will encourage community and business input on the issues,develop potential solutions,and
define the decision process.
2. Explore the project issues and formulate solutions acceptable to the local jurisdictions.
3. Evaluate various design concepts and establish and adopt design guidelines for future improvements.
4. Prepare a predesign study report that documents the various analysis,research,and findings and summarizes the
project recommendations.
Page
SR 99 Pac Hwy Project
Did you know that......
On an average day, 18,000 to 40,000 vehicles travel along the SR 99 corridor with the SeaTac area carrying the
highest volumes of all segments.
•:• avel would drop to 15 mph from the current 35 mph, if no action is taken to
By the year 2020,the average speed of tr
improve roadway conditions.
•:• On an average,the SR 99 corridor experiences five accidents in every two days of the year(based on 1992 1995 data
of 2,800 accidents).
❖ Every two weeks at least one pedestrian accident occurs within the project area. This is three times higher than the
average rate for comparable state arterials.
❖ Nearly one out of five accidents is directly related to driveways along the corridor. This is almost 30% over the
average rate for similar facilities.
Driveway Density ar;<d Accidents
•9
2 so
00 � No.of AGCldsnls I •5
to •� i NO.Of omewtays
ON lso
CT .o
ti
,
N
Q� JS
O� >n
v 0)
C 120
W
:d 19 30
:J 1
80 1
CJ
t9 ,� IS �
O � C
OJ 10 '
�• L
•0
5
Z 20
O
o Lf A A A Of ry A A of A A
N 0{ A A A A z Agg = o Aa s
^ N N N N N N N = N N N N N N Y I N N N N N N N N L N N N N
N N i _ N S 11 N U, A A rTJ L O{ .fie v, N L N L I S
05 t
L L L
a
,�.,
N N ^ N N N N YI tN N N H Tultwlis
F"dofN Way O
Kin County Kent OM ��T�
L v as t
Prepared by: For further information or details about this project, please contact Seyed Safavian,
Sverdrup Project Manager, at the WSDOT Office of Urban Mobility at (206) 464-6038.
v7_ Washington State
' Department of Transportation
Office of Urban Mobility
401 Second Avenue South,Suite 300
Seattle,Washington 98104
99
Possible Business Effect of Access
5% Management*
Business Profit
5%
Truck Delivery Impacts
Property Values
*Based on Data gathered by Florida
f � �
O I /�S�SjBI
t
Il a
?! N
c
O °e
C
� L
v Msl°
C
C '
CVn
V I
r
4;
�c
ce
pp
9Os
a
_ - 1
99
acific Highway South
SR 99, P g
Redevelopment .Project
moon
WI/ d Trams
Office of Urban Mobility
Project Considerations
• System Continuity
• Design Consistency
e Addressing Future Needs
• Regional System Conformity
• WSDOT Modal Shifting Policies
• Sound Engineering
• Local Jurisdiction and WSDOT design Standard
Conformity
• Cost Effectiveness
• Minimizing Business Impacts
• Maximizing Pedestrian Safety
• Community / Political Acceptability
ProJ' ect issues & Concerns
• Pedestrian Circulation & Safety
• Area Image & Aesthetics
• Vehicular Traffic Safety & Accident
Reduction
• Economic Development
• Accommodating Future Growth and Land
Use Changes
• Traffic Congestion & Delay Reduction
• Conformity with Local Jurisdiction
Comprehensive Plans
• Consistency with WSDOT & other Regional
Agency Policies
Some of the Trade-offs Considered
• Pedestrian Issues VS. Roadway Widening
• Business Access V S. Accident Reduction
• Pedestrian Safety VS. Improvement Cost Effectiveness
• Business Impacts VS. Roadway Widening
• Regional VS. Local Travel Needs
• HOV /Transit System Enhancement V S. GP Lane Addition
• Non-Motorized VS. Motorized System Enhancement
• Convenient Business Access V S. Area image and Aesthetics
• Keeping Status Quo VS. Economic Development
DRar=t�
INTERSECTION
Pest- to 1�[a an
a f
�c� . ..... ._. :._ ;: . .... L.: .. . ....
Z<00 2543 098 I 4050 I X 10 I 0.92
3360 I 2543 0.79 I 504C I 3710 I 0.74
4C70 I 2543 I O.ss I 610s 3710 I 0.51
� t}
2543 098 44CC 3710 0.84
3a6C I 2543 I 0.79 5-140 I 3,10 I 0.ss
xj 4070 2544 I Us I 6745 I 3710 I 0-55
A: 2 THRCUGH,1 Lam,Si4AREM THROUGH ANC RIGHT
B: 3 THRCUGH,1 LZ--%.1 RIGHT
C: 3 THRCUGH,2 LM—.1 RIGHT
D: 2THRCUGH.1 LEFT.SHARED THRCUGH 3+HCV AND RIGHT
E: 2 THROUGH,1 THRCUGH HCV,1 Lam,1 RIGHT
R. 2 THRCUGH.1 THRCUGH HCV,2 1 RIGHT
SEGMENT
ffef icufar Pec ls= Nfovin ,
Scenarta Ca}�aci Volume !G Capacifij o(urne lC
EaNEs 3600 I 2543 I 0.73 54C0 I 3710 0.59
3:. �1aUG1i
It7tNE5 E400 I 2543 0.49 810C I 3710 0.4H
2. TFiRCEI
54OG 2543 0.49 9900 2710 Oa7
'volumes and capacties in units per hour
Peaple,Novinq Gialuadan Ot38781engrt'/FCC�t.S
SA99, t t 6M Street to 36461h Street page 1 �2t/97
99
SR 99,Pacific Highway South
Redevelopment Project
Transyt-7f Modeling Results for Possible 2020 Side Street Improvements
• Side street improvements tested for intersections with LOS E or worse in 2+HOV model
• HOV lane tested between S. 348th St. and SR 518 on-ramp
• Side street improvements tested between intersections S. 356th St. and SR 518 on-ramp
• Overall intersection level of service results shown in Table 4 for all 37 intersections within
project study limits (S. 356th St. to S. 116th St.)
• .Without side street improvements versus with side street improvements
Table 4. SR 99 Transyt-7f Modeling Results for Scenarios in 2020
ImprovementType Number of-Intersections LOSE or Worse
Without Side Street Improvements
1996 Existing 6
2020 No-Build 31
2020 3+HOV Lanes Southbound,Northbound _ 28
2020 2+HOV Lanes Southbound,Northbound - 22
With Possible Side Street Improvements y
2020 2+HOV Lanes Southbound,Northbound 17
• 17 intersections did not improve to LOS D or better after side street improvement modeling:
S. 356th Street
S. 348th Street
S. 336th Street
S. 324th Street
S. 320th Street
S. 312th Street
SR 509
S.288th Street
S. 272nd Street
SR 516
S.216th Street
S. 188th Street
S. 182nd Street
S. 170th Street
S. 154th Street
S. 144th Street
S. 116th Street
9/7J97
99
SR 99,Pacific Highway South
Redevelopment Project
Dual Left-Turn Lane Locations
• Locations where dual left-turn lanes recommended listed in Table 2
• Existing side street conditions listed
• Side street widening to accommodate dual left-turn lanes listed
Table 2. Recommended Dual-Left Turn Locations
Dual Left=Tura DuaL Left-Turn
CurrentSide Street Conditions
Recommended Locations Widening Needs
S.356th St NB, SB 1 receiving lanes for SBL, 1 for NBL Lane addition needed EB*
S.336th St NB,SB 2 receiving lanes for either direction No widening needed
S.324th St NB,SB 2 receiving lanes for either direction No widening needed
S.320th St NB 2 receiving lanes No widening needed
S.312th St NB, SB 2 receiving lanes for NBL*, 1 for SBL Lane addition needed EB
SR 509 NB 1 receiving lane Lane addition needed WB*
S.288th St NB, SB 1 receiving lane for NBL,2 for SBL Lane addition needed WB
S.272nd St NB,SB 2 receiving lanes for either direction No widening needed
S.260th St NB,SB 1 receiving lane for either direction Lane addition needed EB,WB
SR 516 NB,SB —' 1 receiving[one for NBL,2 for SBL — Lane addition needed WB
S.200th St NB, SB 1 receiving lane for either direction Lane addition needed EB,WB
S. 170th St NB, SB 2 receiving lanes for NBL, 1 for SBL Lane addition needed EB
S. 160th St NB, SB 2 receiving lanes for either direction No widening needed
..__..—....._.._........._......... --_._....__........-
S. 144th St NB** 1 receiving lane Lane addition needed WB
S. 130th St SB** I receiving Iane Lane addition needed EB
_._........._.................................--
S. 116th St.SB** I receiving lane TLane addition needed EB
NBL stands for northbound left direction
EB stands for eastbound
WB stands for westbound
-Recommendation has not yet been tested with traffic modeling software
9/ZV
c .�
Z isM9sES isMWESOlt
C 7
K 1r
9 v N I IS Msx S IS Mar£S Z
m
m c
� o � s�val9i � S�vvnl � C
9 _ is m9fE S
— IS m9EE S Q � r
.�. c
r
ismKES a" 0 1sMK£S ag o C
NI(.
O is gIME S ^'� y tS MOLESrA
C 3 3 a
C: IS M91£S •� O tS M91ES .� y
'+-; is miffs _
iS MZIES
IS MOOS ^ iSM OES C_
is TIMES N• is meO£S 0.7
f9
n
6OS 11S 605 lis
Is to=s IS msac S
is M6LZ S N is 9.ZuZ S of
S PR/ZS o
0 0
3 0
go 9 �
is Ma9ZS 1S M29ZS
is MKZ S is MbSZ S
ISDUESZS _ IS DczSvS _I
it `w
AqC
IS mOYZ S g is MOK S A
'9[SNS 91S NS
_o -g
og
s.IL
is m91ZS is M91ZS
IS maOZ S IS MaOZ S
is moan S _ IS mOOZ S
Is Maa 1 s
�� is magic S
is
is rn"t sPaMIS "'4S
1i PtZSI S 3,m is D MOST
S 3 "'I
Ismaats $� Is masts Ei
IS M9L 1 S is m9Ll S
IS PaZLI S IS 9.",S
_14 Is mOLIS ' iSMOLIS
l�
IS m09I S IS m091 S
aaoo n S9RSS 91S1IS
to S MKI9
S 9PCS1 S
O � _
C 00 < rn rn Ismwts tsmnts
wL ^ O O N
� �w t�ii � � d y wig mac
cr ^' 1S PPL£tS IIm
Y, oo p is 4WEIS is mOEIS
r �
IS m911 S is Mill S
3
_ cra
c C C
Z Ism99ES z isM9SES o ,,
� IsmerEs c "'�
9 cn Is mar£s a y
C. O . .C-• CJ `�..
< Sav CNI G. SMY M91 y Q
n t
iT
o S sm9EEs C isM9E£S ry
9 .0 C
07 i-n C IS LAKE S aI'
IS MKES ul. vn{g et
p t$mozES NS3 y IsgMES "'�d ,nt -
ism9l9S 3 nm9tEs
.n. 7 IS mZIES Q� _ISMz1ES
IS MON S IS MODE S
IS m10£S IS m10ES
6051, 609)IS
IS ql az S IS maaz S
IS m6Lzs NK'!
Is POLLZ S IS DDZIZS
F�
R n �.
f9 4T ge
R
ffD Is man S IS meDz s
n IS[nKZS Q is�S Is POLSz S _
it al
y IS MOKS g IS AIMSML
C
R
� 91S11S 9[S LS
c o
= N N
O � 0 30
R as g's
ISm9lzS 1$m91ZS
fD
f9 Is maoz s
IS meDE S
y
is m00z S is M00E S
A
ISmasls _I ISmeals :.
IS m96I S 1S
ISgMjS
MrBI S `^
IS POz91S �.n t$POzaIS 3„
9� smaels 8
Is m9L1 S S m9LI s
IS 00LLI S IS POLU S
IS MOLI S IS mOLS S
c IS VW91 S IS m091 S
919
M IS mKI S
SIS1LS IS
a io IS K 1 S
(�D m T IS POZSI S IS Daztl S .
Q M l
Is mw1 s IS in"[S
Ol G H 0 OO
Q gm .Q IS 90CE[S R ' is maIISMTS O
_ = o IS mOEi S
7
C
IS m9I l S IS M911 S
O
3
N CN
C is M95C S It'S'i
is 9NSE S `L' 1S VNS£S C V
C Cis mIK s Ca is 9qK s is msK s
m 0 . �' ao
G S"V 4191 G. S>•v 9N1 m S>"v VNI
m — + Is toga S C
tD IS m9ff S C is N9Ef s N
o = c
13
c I o
m
IS MKfS ?b
�
~2 nMKCS
d N Q is WMES 'wR� n is mKLfS N� N
1n •IS�S cF y is t991fs nM91fS a
O Is tKGi£S 4` ct SO
is NLitS w IS mLIES
S Is max S is MIKE S
Is IS"S
is mom s is mom S IS HIKE S
SKs IIS 60S11S Sx a
is Mta S
is MORE 9 1s M99C S
i
nm6LLS w 1SmfIZS w Is toda
Is PUUZS N .
IS PUZS IS P=S S
9 9 2
is Lam S is MIa f n moK s
n mra S }f mra s is mKZ S
C SPRRS ISMS is Vt6RS
3
O nmKKS Qn ISnpKS Q� nm�KS Q
O y
d �'^ 91;INS 91;us 915IS _
_b
O N N
Q
0 is 9N[L S 1S IRS=S 4 1S 091LS
�
O �+
VIpCf is mg=S
f9 ism=$ is
T
_ s
is 4mm S is mmL s Is mooc
f7�
f9
a
>_ tS M01 S is M01 S
s�MlS `^ is P421S 3` is pu"tS 3=�
its MOILS �' is mml3 S nmKllS
IS II9L1 T is m9L1 S is f
is P41.1 S Is PIGLI i S I 9ML1 S
is twU S is mKL1 S S mKII S
is qwl S is WIWI S is qMT S
SIC ISS MIS wig a
is
S IS MKi S is NKI S is Mal s
C O C PU Is L91 S is punt S
/t cn CA umrr[s
R7 (7 > 13 M"lS IS Mn15
O O O N N
O M is WLfI s R E Is is l S Q. WotM1Ei S
is a 4 c
CD m z LODE s mKfi
� 3 O ^'
3�
Q wO ISMIIS Is moll
N 0 N
_T
Q �
Q m
= a
4
0
99 Potential Segment Improvement Alternatives
Nwm &I.
No Build:
(Typical Existing on
30,
Y '
enf Improvement
oane Added
tti TWLTL
c• , , ,r17
enf.Improvement
n Added
Raised Median
I 11 I 6
r
t i
Added GP Lanes
with TWLTL
Ugend.
TWLTL=Two Way Left Tum Lane
GP=General Purpose Lane 1
HO V=High Occvpan 1 Vehicle Lam
22=AltMMW Evaluauan Ranking
A
Added GP Lanes
with Raised Median
el , r
,,... fir:
_ it HOV Lanes
3 s TL
W �.....+.
i
WW
�. .-...
'OV Lanes
1a r a'i f< isCd Median
Amok on State
Sw �// Department of Transportation
99 Alternative Evaluation Results
I' '' ' ROADWAY SEGMENT ALTERNATIVES
Ratin %Improvement
. Segment Alternative Scores Over No Build
K No Lane Added with TWLTL 27 23
Added GP Lanes with TWLTL 25 14
ti 77
Added HOV Lanes with TWLTL 35 59
: n ,
IMF':
LEGEND:
�a+�"�'F (: TWLTL=Two Way Left Turn Lane
,t GP=General Purpose Lane
.s,:< HOV=High Occupancy Vehicle Lane
.a CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
f Rating %Improvement
Alternative
Scores Over No Build
Segment Widening Only 46 39
y
t
'�
Combination of Segment Widening 57 79
!
_.A
=_ &Intersection Widening
A
Washington State
T, DePartnwnt of Transportation
�9 Potential Intersection Improvement Alternative
Not to scale.
Improvement Features:
- Continuous HOV14
lane thru intersection
-Curb, gutter and sidewalk
-Raised median OAF
s
- Shared curb lane for
right turn and HOV J OAF
-Access management
-Bus pull out
ILI
AA
� Washington state
WI/ Departrnent of Transportation
99 jAccess Management Benefits
Up to 50 % reduction in the accident
severity and frequency
Up to 40 % reduction in travel time
NIPPON Up to 60 % reduction in congestion
and delay
Up to 20 % increase in roadway
handling capacity
Measurable improvement in air quality
`= Significant enhancement in the areas
aesthetics
Up to 50 % reduction in fuel
+ consumption
Improvement of the value
of public investment
Increase in private investment
Significant increase in economic
activities
,ws1u.gwn ae=+
W,,' �„o,,,+,,,.nt 4 TSaeea�s'c .trrn
9s Why Raised Median?
Creates safe refuge for pedestrians
Separates opposing traffic
Provides for safe turning movements
� Cheaper to build and maintain
Improves aesthetics
Reduces accidents
v
~= Improves roadway handling capacity
Entices economic development
Aft lwsmrytw+sti,:.
D=o.rt+e.nt of hacroer-»c
]131VY� . 1
99 Keep Existing Conditions
W,till, Increase in crash rates
�y
More congestion and delays
i Increase in fuel consumption
More vehicular emissions
Less private investment
Diminishing public investment
Reduce roadway capacity
law 4
'',/ D.owftn.nt of'7Fmc:aooctaw-P
ss Possible Business Effect of Access
5% Management*
Y
Business Profit
Truck Delivery Impacts
No Response or
Did Not Knms
Property Values
*BMd on Data ptbeted by Florida D"wtnunt at 1ranepwtatian .
Department of'harmportadon
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9, 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE - ACCEPTANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Safety
Committee, acceptance and approval of disbursement of grant
funds for domestic violence programs as outlined in the grant
application. The City has been informed that the U. S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has
approved the City' s application for funding under the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program, in the amount of
$62 , 462 . This Grant Award has been designated for enhancement
of the city' s response to crimes of domestic violence, with
portions of the funds going to both the Kent Police Department
and the City Attorney' s Office. The grant requires a ten
percent (10%) matching contribution which is budgeted in the
City Attorney's 1998 budget. As one of the conditions of the
Grant Award, a public hearing was held on November 18th to
solicit public comment on the disbursal of these funds.
3 . EXHIBITS: Grant documentation
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public S fety Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3K
U.S. Department of Justice
'•, �' Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Office of the Ditec-wr Washington, D.C. 20531
September 30, 1997
Jim White
Mayor
City of Kent
220 South Fourth Avenue
Kent, WA 9801?
RE: FY 1997 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
Dear Mr. White:
I am pleased to inform you that the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has approved
the City of Kent's application for funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants (LLEBG) Program, in the amount of$62,462. The purpose of the LLEBG
Program is to reduce crime and improve public safety. This Block Grant Award may
be used for any of the Purpose Areas described in the statute.
Enclosed you will find the Grant Award and Special Conditions documents. Please
sign these forms and return a copy to the LLEBG Control Desk, 4th Floor. BJA, 810
7th Street. NW, Washington, D.C. 20531. If you have any questions in regard to this
award, or if BJA can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact
the Grants Administration Branch, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program
Division at (202) 305-2088.
I look forward to a continuing partnership with the City of Kent in furtherance of this
important criminal justice program.
Sincerely yours,
Nancy E. Gist
Director
Enclosures
w` rpF U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARD
Ark OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
`• � --- PAGE l OF 6
a
OJP � BJA �I O11DP ! GRANT
'. 5 BJS L NIJ C OVC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
i
�0.-Rcf- CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX ----
I.GRANTEE NAME AND ADDRESS(Including Zip Code)
4 AWARDNUMBER: 97LBVX2728
City of Ken[
< PROJECT PERIOD:FROM 10/01l97 TO 09/30/99
220 South Fourth Avenue � -
Kent.WA 98032
BUDGET PERIOD:FROM I O/O1/97 TO 09/30/99
7.ACTION
1A.GRANTEE IRS/VENDOR NO. 916001265 6.AWARD DATE 09/30/97 �
8.SUPPLEMENT NUMBER X Initial
i —
2.SUBGRANTEE NAME AND ADDRESS(Including Zip Code) Supplemental
2A.SUBGRANTEE IRS/VENDOR NO.
9.PREVIOUS AWARD AMOUNT S 0.00
10.AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD 562.462
3.PROJECT TITLE —
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program-FY 1997 —
1 I.TOTAL AWARD 562.462 — - ---
12.SPECIAL CONDITIONS(Check,if applicable)
7( i THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH -
ON THE ATTACHED 5 PAGES
13.STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT
TITLE I OF THE OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968.
42 U.S.C.3701.ET.SEQ..AS AMENDED
TITLE 2 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974
- 42 U.S.C.5601.ET.SEQ.,AS AMENDED
VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT OF 1984.42 U.S.C. I0601.ET.SEQ.PUBLIC LA\V 98.473.AS AMENDED
X OTHER(Specify): Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997 - - -
14.FUTURE FISCAL YEAR(S)SUPPORT:
SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD: N/A _
AMOUNT OF FUNDS:
N/A TYPE OF FUNDS:
THIRD YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD: N/A TYPE OF FUNDS: - -
AMOUNT OF FUNDS: N/A _
15. METHOD OF PAYMENT X I YES 77 NO _
THE GRANTEE WILL RECEIVE CASH VIA A LETTER OF CREDIT GRANTEES ACCEPTANCE
�w«« ns#si AGENCY APPROVAL
16.TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL
18.TYPED NAME.AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL
Jim White
Nancy E.Gist,Director
Mavor ----
Bureau of Justice Assistance
17.SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL 19.SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GRANTEE 9A.DATE
! 'I -
AGENCY USE ONLY -
20 T M
.ACCOUNG CLASSIFICATION CODES 21. L 17686
FISCAL FUND BUD. DIV.
YEAR CODE ACT. OFC. REG, SUB. POMS AMOUNT
( V Lll SV 00 6
1RSOLETE -
KENT POLICE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Tim White
CC: Ed Crawford, Chief of Police
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
Public Safety Committee members
Mary Ann Kern
FROM.- Captain Jim Miller
DATE: July 2, 1997
SUBJECT: Bureau of Justice Assistance Block Grant Application
Once again on behalf of the City of Kent and the Kent Police Department I have been
asked to submit and application for a block grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA).
Like last year, this grant application is intended to be submitted via computer modem. Attached
you will find a printout of the computer fields of information requested.
The grant requires a 10% matching cash contribution. The grant pick up the remaining
90%. The total amount of the grant will be $69,402. Grant portion will be $62,462, City
matching 10% come to S6,940. We have applied for the total amount to be designated to
Domestic Violence. (See the attached memo for an area breakdown).
Again this year the City is required to establish a trust fund for deposit of Federal
payments, establishing an Advisory Board, and holding a public meeting (I believe that could be
accomplished as part of a regularly scheduled Public Safety Committee Meeting).
The Advisory Board is to include one member from each of the following: Local law
enforcement agency (Kent Police Department), Local prosecutors office, Local court system,
Local public school system, and Local non profit group. The advisory board will be authorized to
make non-binding recommendations on the use of funds received.
I have electronically submit our application to BJA Your physical signature is not
required, however, filling in the information in fields 12 - 16 (highlighted on the attached) does
signify the Cities intent to comply with all requirements of the grant.
It is intended that the funds for this years BJA grant will be provided to the City
u Attorney's Office for dispersement. I have listed myself as the contact person and will coordinate
with Roger's office to assure that all requirements under the grant are completed.
CITY OF �
i
Jim White, Mayor
ti Phone (206)859-3340
Facsimile (206)859-3983
Roger A.Lubovich
City Attorney
To: Capt. J. Mille:. KPD
From: Kent City Attgrnevs and DV Advocate
Date: DV 7
Re: DV Grant "f3`
Cant. Miller
Our ideas regarding the grant proposal in two parts:
I) Rotating Domestic Violence police
ObasisOfot�o�unteer officers.proposing
The officers handing this duty
time weekly
block of overtime be created on a rotational
would: ° / %/J O c.
A) Serve subpoenas for Domestic Violence cases
B) Serve warrants in DV cases
C) Serve P.O.s
D) Do follow-up domestic violence investigation including but not limited to:
(1) Obtaining photos from bruised victims
(2) Obtaining medical waivers from victims
(3) Getting names of other witness at the scene
(a) Gathering physical evidence
(5) Transport of victims
(6) Obtaining taped Miranda statements from defendants in custody
(7) Transporting victim to court dates or sale locations
(8) Assisting the DV Advocate in Evidence/Investigation
(9) other tasks as requested by Prosecutors/DV Advocate
denceiInvestigation—we are asking that the remaining portion of
'I) Domestic Violence Advocate Evi
the grant be used to fund a position that would allow the Domestic Violence Advocate for the City to:
A) Obtain written notarized statements from victims
B) Obtain medical reports directly from treating agencies
C) Allow in-fieid investigauon/contact with victims in crisis
D) Co-ordinate and provide tasks for the overtime officer
,I:) Help obtain phvsical or witness evidence that can't be obtained by overtime officer
C.%USM=0CD VGaANr.DOC
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Precram 1 . CFDA Number
Local Application Form '-6 . 592
2 . 'Applicant ID 3 . Level of Gvt . 4 . Name of Jurisdiction
B728 Town City of Kent
i
S . Authorized Signing Officiall (ASO) Title
Mavor
6 . prefix 7 . ASO First Name 8 . Initial 9 . ASC Last Name
Mr . Jim W I White
10 . Phone 11 . Fax 12 . ASO Official ' s Address (No P .O . Boxes) ,
859-3355 (253) 813 -2067 220 Scut-1 Fourth Avenue,
113 . County 14 . City 15 . State 16 . Z__
King Kt WA en 98032
_7 . Prefix 18 . Contact First Name 19 . Initia1120 . Contact Last Name
Jim M
Mr. Mil_ r
121. Contact Title I22 . Phone 23 . FA:{
Captain (253 ) 859-4173 (253 ) 859-6572
I24 .Vendor No . 25 . Fiscal Yr. 26 .AC'_-i/LOCES No . 27 . Fred. Cog .Aacv. 28 .Dt . to SPCCI
9/6001254 January I DOJ 07/01/97
i2 )ate to State 30 . Provision 31 .Award Amcunt 32 .Matc:. Funds Code
Yes No A. Federal B .Match
07/01/97 X 62 , 462 6 , 940 State a Lcca-
I33 . Purpose Areas I . Law Enforcement Funds
i
A.Hir_ng 1 .No . Current 2 . No . of 3 .Nc . Support 3 .Overtime Ecu_cme =
Officers Officers _ers . Tc E,re /S,CO
Q 0
A. Swcrn B . Civiliar_
II . Enhanc__ng III . Druc Courts IV. Enhancing V. Multi-ur_sd_c_iona-
Security Adudicat_on Task
0 0 0 0
A.Schools 3 .Other A.Estab . 3 .Support IA.Juven. 13 .Adult IA.3ural I3 - cr=az-_
VI . Crime Prevention VII . Indemr__fication Insurance
47 , 462 0
I34 . Name of Authorized Signing Official - Data
Jim W. White 06/30/97
Contact Address (if different from above) :
Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program 1. CFDA Number
Local Application Form (Continued)
F7�;me of Jurisdiction
2 . Applicant=-ILD3 . Level of Gvt . City of Kent
B728Town
your tvped name, in lieu of your signature represents your legal
binding acceptance of the terms of this application and your statement o� the
veracity of the rapresentations made in this aoverning body of n. the applicant
The document has been duly authorized by the g forms :
and the applicant will comply with the three attached Debarment , Suspension and other
rances ;
2) Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Workplace Recuirements ; and
Responsibility Matters ; and Drug-r_e_ _
3) Certification Regarding Public Safety Officer Health Benefits .
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1998 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of the 1998 State Legislative
Agenda as offered at the November 19 , 1997 City Council
meeting, with minor modifications included in the December 5
City Council packet.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Government Affairs Manager, and 1998
Legislative Agenda
4 . RECOMMENDED BY:
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3L
City of Kent
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Jim White and the 1�
Kent City Council
FROM: Dena Laurent
Government Affairs Manager
DATE: December 1, 1997
SUBJECT: 1998 State Legislative Agenda and Policy Paper
Please find attached the third draft of the 1998 Legislative Agenda offered for your consideration
for the December 9 City Council meeting. Since I presented an overview of the Agenda for you
at the last Council meeting, five items have been added or clarified. The new language is marked
in bold italics in the documents attached and are outlined below for your reference.
1. Parks and Open Space (Legislative Agenda, p. 2)
Language was added stating that, Kent also encourages State support for acquisition,
development and maintenance of athletic facilities. Such support would help Kent meet
the recreation needs of its growing population. This addition was recommended by the
Parks Department and coincides with the Washington Recreation and Parks Association
1998 Legislative Agenda.
2. Water Rights (Legislative Agenda, p. 3)
Language was added stating that, "Kent supports clarification that all existing water rights
as allocated on existing water rights-Qcftid=for municipal water supply purposes are
protected from relinquishment or recision (underline indicates language added)." This
clarification is needed to address current interpretations by the Department of Ecology
that limit municipal water rights not the volume on the certificate, but the volume
currently used by the municipality.
3. Utility Relocation Costs (Legislative Agenda, p. 3)
Language was added stating that, "The legislative action should also clarify that the state
legislation on this matter prevails over any WUTC tariffs, whether currently in existence
or enacted in the future". The change, recommended by the City Attorney's Office,
addresses US West's argument that the current tariff(as recently reinterpreted by US
West) does not require them to pay for utility relocation. The City seeks legislative action
which would supersede WUTC tariffs, hence the clarification. This amendment was
recommended by the City Attorney's Office.
4. Bonding and Retainage Requirements (Legislative Agenda, p. 4)
Language was added stating that, "Kent supports waiver of bond requirements on public
works contracts up to $100,000, consistent with 1994 amendments to the small works
roster. Kent also supports elimination of the 5%retainage for contracts under$20,000.
Both of these actions protect City interests while providing flexibility". Both of these
issues were recommended as additions by the City Attorney's Office. Waiver of the bond
requirements would add flexibility for contractors and agencies alike, while still
protecting the agency, its contracts and their subcontractors and laborer, suppliers, etc.
Under the proposal, the ability to waive the bond is optional to the contractor. The agency
can always require a bond in specific instances, and the law still requires a 50% holdback
of the total contract amount until the job is finished and all affected parties are paid to the
satisfaction of the agency.
5. Administrative License Suspension(Policy Paper, p. 5)
Language was added to the Policy Paper stating, "Kent supports legislation to reduce the
incidence of drunk driving and the impact of such action on accident victims.
Specifically, Kent supports: administrative license suspension... (underline indicates
language added)". This item was recommended for addition by the Drinking Driver Task
Force. This process would allow police to confiscate licenses of drivers who fail or refuse
to take a chemical test for alcohol. Notification of the suspension serves as a temporary
permit, lasting from 7 to 45 days. The suspension may be appealed. If there is no appeal,
or an appeal is not upheld, the license is suspended for a specified period of time. This
adds a civil action to our tools for enforcing drunk driving statutes.
If I can provide additional information about any of these items prior to the Council meeting,
please do not hesitate to call me 859-4154.
City of Kent
1998 Legislative Agenda
Draft 3: 12/1/97
Transportation
1. Balanced Transportation Funding Package: Kent supports enactment of a balanced
transportation funding package that provides sufficient revenue to adequately fund system
maintenance and improvements for cities and our transportation partners: WSDOT, counties
and transit agencies. The Balanced Package should seek funding sources which will be
dedicated to major local transportation projects, keep up with inflation, and provide cities
with permanent local option revenue authority for the expansion,maintenance and operation
of local transportation systems.
2. FAST Corridor: Kent supports significant, long term financial assistance for construction
of the FAST corridor which is integral to economic development and relief of congestion
along significant regional routes. The FAST corridor project represents a two year consensus
building process developed by the cities, counties and port districts of central Puget Sound
along with railroad representatives and state and federal government officials. The FAST
Corridor will separate trains from auto traffic at 12 key grade crossings and will enhance
traffic flow with two key road projects. More than$350 million is needed for these projects
over the next six years with financial participation coming from the ports, railroads, three
counties, 14 cities and the state and federal governments. An additional $136 million is
needed for second phase projects. The state has the key leadership role in funding and
implementation and is critical in bringing the diverse parties together.
3. Support Alternative Transportation Systems: Kent supports development of alternative
transportation systems including high capacity transportation, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
Human Services, Parks and Recreation, and Public Health
1. Welfare Reform: Kent supports legislative action that will monitor and respond to the
impact of welfare reform on recipients. Kent also supports maintenance of human service
programs including those which may be delegated to the state from the federal government.
Such legislative action should ensure appropriate local government input into development
of any new processes to assist or support low income, high need populations.
2. Affordable Housing: Kent supports efforts to identify a dedicated funding source for
affordable housing which is acceptable to developers, realtors, and the state and local
government. This search should not seek to remove development and building regulations
that ensure such housing is high in both quality and safety.
1
3. Parks and Open Space: Kent encourages efforts to secure State support for City priority
parks and open space projects including habitat enhancement and acquisition. Kent also
encourages State support for acquisition, development and maintenance of athletic
facilities. Such support would help Kent meet the recreation needs of our growing
population.
Finance
1. Local Government Revenue Preservation: Kent supports the provision and protection of
adequate and flexible local government revenue sources needed to fund basic essential
services. In the past several years,every local government revenue source has been attacked,
altered and/or reduced in its application or revenue generation capacity. The state must
preserve local government revenue sources to ensure essential services can be delivered to
our growing and densifying community. Kent does not have the resources to support
unfunded state and federal mandates.
2. Economic Development: Kent supports urban redevelopment legislation which would give
cities the authority to use certain taxes to offset public improvement costs and encourage
private development.
3. Manufacturing Tax Exemption: Kent supports legislative action to limit application of the
manufacturing tax exemption passed in 1996 to the narrowest scope of manufacturing firms.
Kent supports the collection of data from firms taking the exemption to ensure local
governments can estimate the fiscal impact of the exemption on the City's ability to provide
services to its citizens. Preliminary estimates place the impact of this state mandated revenue
reduction at$800,000 annually for the City of Kent.
4. Oppose NIVET Redirection: Kent opposes redirection of the motor vehicle excise tax, a
substitute for the personal property tax on automobiles, that would restrict or lessen MVET
support for local government programs including transit and transportation funding for cities,
criminal justice and public health funding.
Land Use and Environment
1. City Land Use Planning: Kent continues to support locally-based, collaborative planning
under the Growth Management Act and supports legislation to allow local comprehensive
plans to be amended more than once each year. Any new planning and/or regulatory
mandates should be fully funded by the Legislature should not reverse gains made in state
law to streamline the land use permitting process.
2. Annexation Reform: Kent urges the Legislature to speed up the transition of state and
county tax revenues available to the city upon annexation. Kent also supports the
streamlining of provisions for annexation of islands of unincorporated area which are
surrounded by a city and may constitute a potential hazard for public safety response.
2
3. Regulatory Reform: Kent supports efforts to further coordinate and streamline state land
use statutes for permit issuance and GMA/Shoreline Management Act oversight and
planning. Kent also supports allowing local variation in establishing local permit processing
timelines when the 120-day timeline requirement sunsets on July 1, 1998. Should the
timeline requirement be extended, the City supports continuation of the liability waiver for
complex permit applications which exceed the 120 day timeframe.
4. Water Rights and Basin Planning: Kent supports clarification that all existing water rights
as allocated on existing water rights certificates for municipal water supply purposes are
protected from relinquishment or recision. Kent also supports authorization and funding
assistance for local watershed planning. Such legislation should allow maximum flexibility
within each watershed to develop a responsive local process.
5. Wetlands Mitigation: Kent supports efforts to facilitate off-site wetlands mitigation,
wetlands banking and other creative tools to address wetland impacts in ways that balance
environmental protection with growth and development.
Telecommunications & Electric Utility Deregulation
1. Telecommunications: Kent supports efforts to preserve local government authority
protected by the 1996 Telecommunications Act in the areas of zoning and land use, fees,
taxes and other charges and management of the public rights-of-way. Kent supports changes
to the tax systems which ensure cities retain their authority to collect revenue on all locally-
delivered utility services. Kent also supports legislation which would enact a 50 cent cellular
phone tax to support new 911 location identification technology for 911 cellular calls. Kent
opposes legislation which would preempt local authority over pole attachments, cellular
tower siting, cable refranchising, and telecommunications charges.
2. Electric Deregulation: Kent supports preservation of state and local taxing authority in the
electric industry for both in and out of state providers. Specifically, Kent supports a solution
similar to the solution used by the Legislature to ensure a level playing field during
deregulation of the natural gas market.
3. Utility Relocation Costs: Kent supports common law interpretation in Washington that
private utilities have the duty to relocate their lines, when necessary, to accommodate the
city's proper use of city rights-of-way. This interpretation should be clarified by legislative
action. The legislative action should also clarify that the state legislation on this matter
prevails over any WUTC tariffs, whether currently in existence or enacted in the future.
Law and Public Safety
1. .08 DWI: Kent supports lowering the DWI blood alcohol standard from .10 to .08.
Washington is the only west coast state that still has a .10 alcohol level for drunk driving.
3
2. Adult Entertainment: Kent supports continued local authority for regulation of adult
entertainment.
3. Vehicle Impoundment: The City supports enabling legislation to allow the impounding of
vehicles of individuals caught driving with a suspended license. Approximately 33% of
Kent!s inmates were arrested for not paying a ticket.
4. NIVET Lid Lift: Kent supports efforts to remove the cap on criminal justice funds
distributed to cities and counties from the MVET. Kent is experiencing major increases in
criminal justice expenditures and needs the full growth in the MVET to help offset these
costs.
S. Juvenile Justice: Kent supports provision of funds to cities for local prevention activities
geared toward diverting youth from the criminal justice system. Kent also supports full
funding for the juvenile offender bill,passed in 1997.to assist county detention facilities and
provide services to juvenile offenders.
Personnel and Labor Relations
1. Personnel Administration: The City supports civil service reform for police officers and
fire fighters that allows cities to streamline hiring processes, diversify worlfforces, and
recruit, retain, discipline and reward employees.
2. Pensions Systems: Kent supports adequate and financially sound pension systems and
opposes any attempt to shift state financial responsibility for employee pensions to cities and
towns.
General Local Government
1. Public Records: Kent supports efforts to exempt from public access records that reveal
a local government's collective bargaining, professional negotiations, grievance or
mediation proceeding strategies.
2. Liability: Kent supports efforts to exempt cities from joint and severable liability.
Kent supports the provision of civil liability immunity to employers who disclose in good
faith information about a former or current employee's job performance. Kent also supports
removal of the current prohibition against introduction of evidence that a plaintiff s failure
to wear a seat belt contributes to the plaintiffs injuries.
3. Bonding and Retainage Requirements: Kent supports waiver of bond requirements on
public works contracts up to $100,000, consistent with 1994 amendments to the small
works roster. Kent also supports elimination of the 5% retainage for contracts under
$20,000. Both of these actions protect City interests while providingflexibility.
4
City of Kent
Position Paper
1998
General Policy
The City of Kent supports state legislative efforts to encourage cost-effective regional policy
planning and delivery of government services, balanced by local program implementation. These
efforts must be focused on eliminating duplicative services and preserving local control over service
delivery. Kent also supports legislation which enhances local flexibility to address issues of local
concern. Kent opposes legislation which mandates increased local costs or which results in an
inappropriate diminution of local authority over local affairs.
General Local Government
Home Rule
The City of Kent strongly supports the adoption of a constitutional home rule amendment
which would guarantee decision-making authority for local matters at the local level. Kent
also urges the Legislature to refrain from enacting legislation that adversely impacts the
concept of local self-government or restricts the ability of cities and towns to exercise
existing power.
Mandates
All local governments have been impacted by the elimination and reduction of various
federal domestic aid programs. Changes at the state level have also affected local
government revenue options. Equally important are the growing number of mandates passed
from the federal and state governments to local governments; mandates which are not
accompanied by additional resources. Delivering public services requires a strong state-local
partnership, and local revenue needs must be recognized when new programs are enacted or
if the state revenue system is restructured. The citizens of Washington recognized this
necessity in approving section 6 of Initiative 62, codified as RCW 43.135.060, which directs
the Legislature to refrain from imposing unfunded mandate requirements on local
governments. As well, elected city officials are most qualified to determine which services
to provide and the manner in which they should be provided. Kent strongly urges the
Legislature to cease imposition of additional financial or operating burdens on cities unless
such mandates are compelled by an overriding state interest and are accompanied by
financial resources to accommodate the costs of compliance.
Voter Registration Maintenance Costs
State law presently allows counties to charge cities to maintain voter registration records.
This law, passed in 1987, when the counties took over voter registration from the cities, did
not include a sunset provision to eliminate the charge when the transition was complete.
Furthermore, these charges are not uniform, ranging from$.22 to $1.55 per voter. State law
does set a$.30 maximum charge for smaller cities, but does not specify a charge for larger
cities. King County collects over $1 million in voter maintenance fees each year which
1
should more than cover the cost of minor data entry changes. Kent supports legislative
changes which would standardize this charge in a manner which accurately reflects the cost
of maintaining voter records.
Bidding Procedures and Limits
Kent supports efforts to streamline state laws and regulations governing the bidding process,
thereby giving cities greater flexibility in bidding procedures and limits.
Public Records
Kent firmly supports the right of the public to have.access to the records and operations of
local government. Kent supports legislation to define the calculation of cost recovery fees
for records retrieval from municipal electronic information systems.
Finance and Economic Development
Local Government Revenue Preservation: Kent supports the provision and protection of
adequate and flexible local government revenue sources needed to fund basic essential
services. In the past several years, every local government revenue source has been attacked,
altered and/or reduced in its application or revenue generation capacity. The state must
preserve local government revenue sources to ensure essential services can be delivered to
our growing and densifying community. Kent does not have the resources to support
unfunded state and federal mandates.
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing allows cities to pay for the infrastructure costs related to
development or redevelopment projects by earmarking the tax revenues attributable to the
increase in tax receipts over current receipts in the apportionment district. The tax increment
would be dedicated to paying the debt service on the bonds issued. After the bonds have
been retired, the tax increment would be distributed in the same manner as other non-
increment property taxes. The overriding benefit of tax increment financing districts would
be to facilitate quality and comprehensive development, and to redevelop our community.
Kent supports local authority to utilize this economic development tool.
Voted Excess Levy for Capital Improvements
Municipalities should be authorized to seek voter approval for an excess property tax levy
to fund capital facilities projects on a pay-as-you-go basis. The levy would not be tied to one
project,but could be used to realize any of the projects in the adopted facilities plan. Voter
approval would be by simple majority. Benefits of this option include the development of
a comprehensive community tax policy to deal with its infrastructure needs using a multi-
year business plan approach.
State Tax Roll Back Expenditure Limitation Efforts
Kent expects its governments to be wise stewards of public funds and, concurrently, be
responsive to increasing service demands. As well, Kent receives significant support from
2
state collected-locally shared revenues. Kent opposes efforts to alter state fiscal operations
which would have negative impact on the City of Kent.
Pass Through of Collection Costs
The City of Kent currently uses collection agencies and other resources to assist with the
collection of delinquent debts. Unlike District and Municipal Courts, cities do not have the
authority to pass these expensive collection costs onto the debtor for the outstanding debt.
Kent supports legislation which would allow cities to pass onto the debtor all costs
associated with the collection of any delinquent debts.
Water ResourManaizement
Addressing water resource management issues will require increased intergovernmental coordination
among local and regional governments and the state. Kent supports continued state financial
assistance for water supply,wastewater management,groundwater protection,and storm and surface
water facilities and programs. These programs are especially important in complying with state and
federal water quality standards (NPDES,National Pollution Discharge Elimination System). Kent
also supports retention of the authority of local water purveyors to manage their assets by
participating in regional planning, as appropriate, to provide and protect for the current and future
water needs of their customers.
Flood Damage Reduction
Kent contains a number of flood prone areas, both developed and undeveloped, which
require specialized planning. Recent proposed flood damage reduction legislation was
flawed partially due to the fact that it was based on an overall floodway approach which does
not consider all flood prone areas in the state. Kent supports comprehensive flood damage
prevention planning accomplished at the local level as a partnership among impacted cities,
the county, state and affected area interests. Each flood prone area is unique and should be
planned for accordingly. Locally developed and adopted flood damage protection plans must
seek to establish a balance between the need for appropriately designed growth and the need
to reduce further flood damage.
Community Development
Regional Planning, Annexation Law, and Land Use Regulation/Regulatory Reform
Kent supports retention of city authority to review the impacts of an annexation on the
overall operation of the City and to make the final determination regarding acceptance of
petitions for annexation. Kent supports legislation that would reduce boundary adjustment
requirements, expedite transfer of property tax from the County to the City, and provide
direction for land use and permitting functions in newly annexed areas.
Kent also supports practical solutions to private property disputes that address specific
concerns of property owners including regulatory reform, if necessary. These solutions
should not alter the Constitutional definition of takings, place an undue financial burden on
3
taxpayers, or diminish local governments' ability to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of their communities.
Growth Management
The State Growth Management Act creates challenges for state, county and cities. To meet
these challenges,the Legislature must continue to monitor the efforts of local agencies and
address any necessary additional refinements to the Act in an effective and timely manner.
Such refinements may include clarification of the role and responsibilities of the state in
developing policies and capital plans in conformance with locally adopted comprehensive
plans, thus assuring the adequacy of funding,sources to provide adequate infrastructure,
urban services, housing and employment opportunities within urban growth areas.
Kent continues to support the Growth Management Act as an essential and responsible
planning tool. Kent supports:
> legislation that further defines, coordinates, simplifies and streamlines land use
decisions and permitting under the GMA as well as under the State Environmental
Policy Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Such legislation should balance the
benefits of statewide uniformity with the need for local communities to govern
themselves; and
> legislation authorizing GMA-planning cities to adopt technical amendments to their
GMA plans and regulations more than once a year.
Finally,the City opposes any legislation which would allow for the siting of major industrial
or commercial facilities outside of urban growth areas.
Private Property Rights
Kent supports practical solutions to private property disputes that address specific concerns
of property owners, including continued regulatory reform. These solutions should not
change the constitutional definition of takings, place an undue financial burden on tax
payers, or diminish local governments' ability to protect public health, safety and welfare.
Kent opposes legislation requiring compensation for actions taken to fulfill state mandated
planning and environmental actions unless the state provides that compensation.
Criminal Justice
The City opposes legislation and/or efforts to remove the authority of municipalities to provide local
law enforcement services, regardless of the potential for service contracting. The City also opposes
actions or legislation which would transfer incarceration responsibilities from the state or county to
municipalities without additional funding.
Criminal Justice Funding
The Legislature has recognized the need for additional funding support from local criminal
4
justice agencies when they enacted the City/County Criminal Justice Assistance Act. The
issues facing cities, crime and limited fiscal capacity, which were present when the Act was
approved are still present today. Kent supports continued funding of the Act.
Radar Testimony
Current state law requires that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors utilize the
testimony of expert witnesses, when the defense specifically requests said witness, to
introduce the speed readings of radar detection devices.The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has established minimum performance specifications for speed measuring
devices that create reliability sufficient to justify their acceptance. Many traffic infractions
were decriminalized to create a uniform and expeditious system for adjudication. Yet these
expert testimony requirements have cost the City thousands of dollars each year, and cause
unnecessary dismissals and delays. Kent supports legislation allowing for the admission in
court of the readings of speed measuring devices without the need for additional expert
testimony if the device satisfies specific requirements established by the Legislature. Kent
would also support alternative legislation which would allow the City to impose the cost of
witness fees in cases where the infraction is found to have been committed.
DWI Court Costs
Kent supports legislation to strengthen DWI laws. The City also supports legislation to
allow recovery of necessary public expenses including detention costs which result from
incidents involving drunk driving convictions.
DWI Legislation
Kent supports legislation to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and the impact of such
actions on accident victims. Specifically, Kent supports:
► administrative license suspension
► mandatory ignition interlocks as effective interdiction;
► victim's panels at the discretion of the court with established standardized guidelines;
and
► mandatory use of occupant safety systems including seat belts and safety seats for
small children.
Youth and Education Programs
Child Abuse
Kent supports funding for programs designed to prevent child abuse/neglect.
Child Care
Kent supports budget provisions to enhance the Department of Social and Health Services'
ability to enforce its daycare licensing requirements, to improve support services for daycare
providers,and to ensure the accessibility to child care for all citizens. The City will carefully
monitor legislation clarifying its role in regulating the siting and operation of daycare
facilities.
5
Funding of Youth Programs
ding to local governments for initiating and
Kent supports legislation improving fun
expanding youth services.
City/School District Partnerships
Kent supports legislation that will minimize barriers to cities and other local governments
partnering with school districts to provide community programs, and to jointly develop land
owned by school districts. Kent also supports state programs which recognize city/school
district cooperative efforts to address locally identified youth issues.
Solid Waste Recycling and H zardo us Materials
The transportation,handling, storage, and disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials continues
to be important. Kent supports approaches to waste disposal that are environmentally sensitive and
advocates recycling efforts and aggressive waste reduction. Specifically, Kent supports:
♦ regional planning and approaches to solid/hazardous waste materials management
with special attention paid to the significant role cities play in the process; and
♦ legislation to clarify the authority of counties and cities to set recommended
voluntary minimum service standards for non-residential collection of recyclables;
Transnortation
Transportation planning remains a high priority for Kent and is vital to maintaining our
quality of life and economic viability. Specifically, the City supports:
♦ a legislative review of sources available to fund transportation needs, such as a local
option gas tax, or sales tax on gas,
♦ legislation to specify that local government has first right of refusal on abandoned
transportation rights-of-way, and
♦ incentives for use of public transit and ridesharing.
Trails Funding
Present Trails Network funding can only be spent in rights-of-way. The rules governing this
funding should then be amended to allow expenditure of the funds on trails and paths outside
of street right-of-way. This is especially important as the City of Kent works to provide safe
access to schools for children.
6
RScognition of and Respect for Diversitv
The City of Kent is committed to upholding the basic principles and values on which our nation was
founded including respect for individual rights and tolerance of differences. The City supports
aggressive protection of the civil liberties of all Washington citizens.
Health and Hnman Services
Public Health Care
Kent supports legislation passed during the 1993 Legislative Session which makes counties
responsible for the delivery of public health services through the appropriation of additional
motor vehicle excise tax revenues previously dedicated to cities. Further, the City would
urge resistance to any efforts to repeal or amend the provisions of the 1993 legislation.
Domestic Violence
mestic violence law which will afford additional
Kent supports refinements to current do
protection to victims and enable improved enforcement and prosecution of domestic violence
cases.
T 1eco - -ications ^aid Electric Industry Deregulation
Cable Television and Telecommunications
Kent supports legislation that protects the right of local government to assess franchise and
other fees,to negotiate franchise agreements, and to exercise other controls on the operation
of telecommunication business in the public rights of way.
Electric Deregulation
Kent supports energy utility regulation based on the following principles:
A. Local governments should retain the authority to manage industry facilities within
the public right-of-way and the authority to tax the utility providers.
B. Electricity service should be available to customers at prices that are affordable.
C. Non-economic bypass and the inappropriate shifting of costs of the electric system
between or among customers does not constitute fair and efficient competition.
Customers of continuing monopoly service should benefit, at least not be harmed.
from choices made by customers with access to competitive options.
D. The long-term safety, integrity, reliability and quality of the bulk electric system and
retail electricity service should not be jeopardized.
E. Consumers should be afforded a broad range of choice in electricity service and
pricing options.
F. Development of competitive electricity markets should not undermine environmental
protection, energy efficiency, resource diversity and technological innovation.
G. The public should maintain a voice in the industry's regulatory process and the
interests of customers should continue to be balanced with the opportunity for
shareholders to earn fair returns.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: S. 188TH AND 80TH S. STREET VACATION - RESOLUTION
SETTING HEARING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by Public Works
Committee, adoption of Resolution No. 13 Da setting .January 20,
1998, as the public hearing date for the South 188th and 80th
Street Vacation.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and Public Works
Director memorandum
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3M
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
December 4, 1997
PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wickstrom
Connie Epperly Tom Brubaker
Gary Gill
ABSENT: Judy Woods
South 188th and 80th Street Vacation
Wickstrom stated that we received a petition for a vacation of 88th Street which is located on the
north end of the City. The street is in essence only a half street. We need to receive the petition
and go to Council within a 30 day period and establish a Resolution for setting a public hearing
date. Wickstrom stated that there is no recommendation on whether we approve it or deny the
request, only that we are setting a public hearing date.
Committee unanimously recommended adoption of the resolution setting a hearing date for the
South 188th and 80th Street Vacation.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
December 3, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Street Vacation - South 188th Street
Authorization
We have received a valid petition from Pacific Northwest Group W to vacate a portion
of South 188th Street. In accordance with State law, a Public Hearing thereon must be
held. As such, we recommend adoption of a resolution which sets the Public Hearing
Date.
ACTION: Recommend adoption of a resolution setting a hearing date for the South
188th Street, street vacation.
L 51.0'0 1 '32'76'
R - 389.26
L - 105.64
EX. IC1 LY 80TH
/ PLACE SO. EX. w
—\ I 5x0E
s 2 3.—
r � .
N
1 PROPOSED ACCESS }
TO LOT I
1 ,
G
1
_ o
M m o
K EN-1 AfZ-7- (,�ORP �f3/LI� 1 4r28 L
130.00,
ct CNoRP�c SiiE l
_I
P }
Nl ;.-1
t
W r1 -
! r _ LOT 1 '
AREA - 3171472 S.F.
rED
-Z V.
1V\ V
2
m
y z Q�-
,.s�irr'r
cr
? a� _
_ ?ROP7SE0 ACCESS _ CO' STORM ORaINAGE
t
�( TO LOT 2 EASEMENT PER qEC.
I NO. 7501220041
1 a ' LOT 2
° 4aREa
Q EX,_12" 'N N 1'4—52• c c .� ...._ 1 EX.�12 N - .'lt 468...i
2' 0
E?. 72 SS �3-80TH AVE.EY—e• So —
— < -z.
� �I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Kent, Washington,regarding
the vacation of a dedicated, open portion of South 188th Street
located between 80th Place south and 80th Avenue South, and setting
the public hearing on the proposed street vacation for January 20,
1988.
WHEREAS, a petition, attached as Exhibit A, has been filed by various property
owners to vacate a dedicated, unopened portion of South 188th Street located between 80th Place
south and 80th Avenue South in the City of Kent, King County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, these property owners own at least two-thirds of the property abutting that
portion of South 188th Street that is now being sought to be vacated; and
WHEREAS, the petition is in all respects proper. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A public hearing on the street vacation petition requesting the vacation
of a portion of South 188th Street shall be held at a regular meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00
p.m., Tuesday, January 20, 1988, in the Council Chambers of City Hall located at 220 4th Avenue
South, Kent, Washington, 98032.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall give proper notice of the hearing and cause the notice
to be posted as provided by state law, Chapter 35.79 RCW.
1
ecti n 3. The Planning director shall obtain the necessary approval or rejection or
other information from the Public Works Department and other appropriate departments and shall
transmit information to the Council so that the Council may consider the matter at its regularly
scheduled meeting on January 20, 1988.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this
day of , 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this _day of 1997.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent. Washington, the_day of , 1997.
(SEAL)
PALAWPLES0LUT1\Srvncui.Es BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
2
MAIL T0; APPLICANT_ �4GI<I]�/ A r-f -a �'J�
Gerald B. McCaughan' ktm^_: '#@R yo Trammell Crow Company
CITY OF KENT
220 So. 4th Ave. Address: 1687 114th Avenue SE, Suite 250
Kent, NA 98032
Bellevue, WA 98009
Phone: (425) 453-8600
STREET ANOJOR ALLEY VACATION APPLICATION AND PETITION
Dear kayor and Kent City Council:,
We, the undersigned abutting proper y owners, hereby respedtfully request that
certain S. 188th hereby be vacated. ` (General Location)
Street R.O.W_
Legal Oescrfption
See .attached legal description
z
L I v ,.
i
Clrr OF KENT
CITY CLERK
BRIEF'STATEM91T WHY VACATION IS BEING SOUGHT
A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 188TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY LOCATED BETWEEN 80TH =PLACE SOUTH
AND 80TH AVENUE' SOUTH LIES.'M4ACE11T TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
W=a IS 30' . CONDITION-#13 OF THE MDNS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 10, 1992 FOR THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMT STATES THAT IN LIEU OF PROVIDING A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION, THAT PORTION
OF-SOUTH 188TH STREET MAY BE VACATED SUBJECT To -APPROVAL BY':TBE CITY. SINCE ACCESS
TO ME SITE IS AVAILABLE FROM BOTH BOTH PLACE- SOUTH AND 80TH AVENUE SOUTH, THE DEVELOPER
IS REQUESTING TO VACATE THIS PORTION OF SOUTH. 188TE STREET TO OBTAIN THE ADDITIONAL
PROPERTY- -
Sufficient proof, copy of deed contract etc. supported by King County
TdX Rolls shall be Submitted for.verification of signatures_ Without
these a -ORREM title report shall be required. When•Corporations,
Partnerships etc. are being Signed for; then proof of individual's
authority to sign for sate shall also be subar tted.
Attach a color coded map of a scale of not less than 1' = 200' of the area
sought for vacation. (NOTE) Map must•carrtspond with legal description.
ABU`MHG, PROPERTY OWNERS TAX LOT #
SIGNATURES AND ADDRESSES LOT, $LOCK b PLMSEC, TUN. RG
* see attached 362304-9026 (KNCP Phase IV & V1
signature block SE 36-23-04E
* see attached 362304— 9004 (KNCP Phase I 1 1)
signature block SE 36-23-04E
S150.00 Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt No.
Appraisal Fee Paid Treasurer's Receipt Ro.
Land Value Paid _ Treasurer's Receipt 11a.
Deed Accepted Date
Trade Accepted _ Date „D,T f1 // 1
William G. Williams III
Vice President,Equitable Real Estate Investment
Management,Inc., as Advisor to State of California Public
Employee's Retirement System,Venturer, and as
Advisor to California State Teachers' Retirement System,
VenturerLE
h �
Il
r
CC n'CLERKT
11� LC r
Cc fl,
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
(Leases) � ,1 e
C;
C, OF N-e''JT
The undersigned, California State Teachers ' RetirementCSystem
("CALSTRS") and State of California Public Employees ' Retirement
System ("CALPERS") , being the sole joint venturers in Pacific
Northwest Group A, a joint venture ("PNGA") , hereby appoint William
G. Williams III as the true and lawful attorney for CALSTRS and
CALPERS as joint venturers in PNGA, , and theirand for their use and benefit to executelall Ofand
property, and all amendments, modifications, extensions and
terminations thereof, as well as any and all necessary or
appropriate related documentation for any and all real property now
or hereafter owned by PNGA.
Giving and granting unto our said attorney in fact full
authority and power to do and perform an
y all
necessary or incident to the performance andn executi nheof acts Of
Powers herein expressly granted with power to do and perform all
acts authorized hereby; as fully to all intents and purposes as
PNGA or the undersigned as its sole joint venturers might or could
do if personally present.
This Special Power of Attorney may be terminated as to real
property located in a particular county b Written
instrument of revocation in the office of the recorder or auditor
Of such county.
Dated this {7i day of
1991.
C IA STATE TEACHERS '
RET EMENT SYSTEM
i
By: �
Its: Chiefs '
Officer
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
By:-1
Its u 0 Inv stment Officer
CITY Or- KE,NT
NOV 0 a 1997
s � z j "
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ;S97
) ss. Cliy CF KE`JT
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO ) CITY GL" ,
On this day of in the year 1991, before me,
A A 4. a a notary�'' pu lc—i-n and for said county and state,
personal y appeared os„T� personally known to me
Q to be the
CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS
person who executed this instrument as Chief 1' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowOfficer of
ledged to
me that said public agency executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
OFFICI,u,SE L
ANKME H.LOPES
m NOTARY 3UC.CuFO1V0
SkNAA"O COUNTY
MYCW .EU.,,u,.�,iyy� t ry Public i d for the State
of California.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO jss.
�On t is /�/ day 0 in the year 1991, before me,
�s ,a nota p lic in and for said county and state,
personally appeared personally known to me
(or proved to me on &asis of satis evidence) to be the
person who executed tnstrument asp
of
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ' RETIREMENT nvestmenSYSTEM, and
acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
i
Notary public i and rj the State
of California. /
'-��N��NuumAam�NNN:CIIIBIBIUlU1N11a:ialpllllllllllUNIIUILIIIIIIL
L. STOKES
:oc,;ur PUBLIC-CAUrOLNU = CITY
A'..1
M'z t .c9LA1ENT(}CCUl
h7 ca..r.mr,Errs, Pis..�. 1994 Cr KT";,.
. ..«....ry....x....qu.......................�n. ... S
NO V 0 41997
EA/GI/yEtrr»vv Utr
11/21/97 16:56 FAX 2062518782 BARGHAUSEN ENG Q 002/008
lU/
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Z 4
(South 188th Street Right-of-Way To Be Vacated) CITY
CITY ENT
K
The North 30.00 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 36, Township
23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying West of 80th Place South, as conveyed to King County by
deeds recorded under Recording Nos. 3542123 and 3542124;
AND
That portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M.
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northwest comer of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Section 36;
THENCE South 01" 47' 28" West, 30 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said point being further described as lying North 01° 47' 28" East 1283.53 feet from the
Southwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 36;
THENCE South 880 17' 48" East, 120 feet;
THENCE South 74" 10' 17" West, 99.72 feet to a point of nontangent curvature to the left;
THENCE along said curve to the left, having a radius of 25 feet, the center of which bears South
01° 42' 12" West, an arc distance of 39.23 feet, through a central angle of 39° 54' 44';
THENCE North 01" 47' Z8" East, 55 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, as conveyed to
the City of Kent for street purposes under deed recorded under Recording No. 7501220005.
RECEIVED PROPERTY MANAGEmE,IT
GATE
project: Kent North Corpotare park
November 21, 1997
D75/snvbd
61771-001
15*32*56'
51.60
51.60 " R - 389.26 •.
L - 105.64 —/
1 EX. IU N
80TH PLACE SO. EX. 1iJ• w
to
r-- --- -- - — EX. 24' SS :) _
S 3.45.01• w 520.13' • .
0 \ 1_ N
1 PROPOSED ACCESS 3
TO LOT I
I �
� c
� N
1'41'28' E O
K FN r NO (Z-ni CO 12 t • �l 11'-�� 130.00'
(Noy Pic S T E l
c A l`Uyl
N
t1 _J
LOT ti
AREA = 317,472 S.F.
rED
.z�
o` tn
a•n,. 1 v��ti i�
� m
Q c.
nl
? a _ _ PROPOSED ACCESS ., .I 20- STORM DRAWAGE
EASEMENT PER JEC.
i TO LOT 2 i II NO. 7501220041
II j
LOT 2 lUoR PAG Si'T�t i 1
AREA = 93,075 S.F. II
pEX_1.2' w N 1'4 52' E EXJ12' w t t-X 468.32' o _I� n rl E:,. 12' W ..
EN. 18' SD
fi EX. 72• SS 5- 80TH- -AVE-- —L x.7- ss - - --
a �I
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December qJ 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KING COUNTY OPEN
SPACE BONDEND BFUND,
CLARK LAKE
WETL
CEPT
AND
UDGET
2 , SU1IIdARY STATEMENT: To accept the balance of $20, 155
remaining in the 1989 King County Open Space Bond Fund and
amend the Clark Lake Wetland budget.
The $20, 155 balance remaining in the 1989 King County Open
Space Bond Fund has become available to Kent due to the
annexation. As approved by the Parks Committee, staff
recommends accepting these funds and amending the Clark Lake
Wetland budget.
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of the letter and outline of project from King
County
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $20, 155
SOURCE OF FUNDS: King County Open S ace Bond Fund Balance
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3N
King County
Office of Open Space
Water and Land Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources
506 Second Avenue,Suite 708
Seattle,WA 9810.1-2311
(20(;) 296-7800
(206)296-0516 F.i\
October 8, 1997
Lori Flem. Parks Administrator
City of Kent
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
RE: Semi-Annual Reports for Period Ending September 30. 1997
Dear Ms. Flem:
It is time to provide a status report on funds maintained by King County for the city. Per Interlocal
Agreement we need to prepare a semi-annual report. Since we prepared a combined report, which
reported expenditures through March of this year. we are requesting that you provide us with data for
this report on activities ending September 3Oth. The next report will be prepared ending March 31,
1998.
The report will continue to be a combined report addressing remaining funds in the 1989 Open Space
Bond, 1993 Conservation Futures Acquisition Bond, Conservation Future Levy Tax and Waterways
2000 funds. The form attached shows remaining funds according to King County accounting records
as of September 24, 1997. Included on the form are the 1996 interest on remaining 1989 Open Space
bond funds, which are included in the 1998 CIP budget, and the 1997 shared costs.
Please provide us with an explanation of what the remaining funds will be used for, and a timetable as
to when these funds are expected to be expended. Send the completed form back to the Office of Open
Space by October 29th, 1997.
Thank you for your timely cooperation. If you have any questions please call me at 296-7778.
Sincerely, /.
Robert F.H.Kniestedt
Program Analyst III
Enclosure
RK:lw
(ocmba 97-Seri Ann RWOMdoc) '
OCT 14 '97 03: 12FM 1z0E2960516
CLARY, LAKE ACQUISITION
Sponsoring Jurisdiction: Kent/King County
^e Planning Area: Sacs Creek
Council District: 9 1 000 (1989 dollars) (50$ King County
Acquisition Costs : $2 , 13
and 50t Kent)
Estimated Future Development Cost: $47 , 500 ( 1988 dollars
Estimated O & M Cost: $2 , 500
FRCJECT DESCRIPTION:
the
Inclusion of acquisition of the Clark Lake project i ect
rtion of the bond issue is proposed beca
County' s po use p" j
meets the following selection criteria: ( 1) the property
action in order to be preserved; and (2 ) the
requires early
property provides public access to water.
This proposed acquisition consists of 104 acres, located about
one l an we tCounty Paand the one mile east of the City-eek Trail , one mile northwest
eKentf Lake
meridian -=.
prenerty is in four ownerships and is located in close prox_lar
isition of
to a rapidly developedyar ccess to an area higa of the coun-y. h in pen pace land
Lake will provide p i flat property and
It is a relatively
recreational value . � t,, tl and west ends of
includes potential shoreline access o -,,a norms.. a..�
Clark Lake.
ACuUISITT_CN COST ASSi;1!PT_ICNS :
including project
:he estimated cost c of this project , including
is based an an
administrat= on , is 2 , 130 , 000 . T •e relim .ary
appraisal on one prcperty completed in May 1988 and a p -
value estimate on three parcels completed in November
0065 , 000 each)
This cgsC of
faca dstheoCitylofbKertared equally ($ ,
by 'Kin
unty
PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ESTIMATED COSTS :
As a passive, open space park, development of this site would not
be extensive. The an ed future development Will inclill take udeca
within five years of City of Kent ownership access improvements
parking lot, picnic tables, picnic shelter,
to the shoreline and signs. An approximate cost for this passive
development is anticipated to be $47 , 500 (1988. dollars) based
upon costs of similar items development elsewhere in the County
park system in 1987.
A cooperative agreement between King County and the City of Kent
is anticipated to share the costs of development and 0&M on this
project.
ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:
r"T Maintenance of this site is anticipated to include only litter
pickup, sign, picnic shelter, and parking lot repair; and site
1987 costs similar
1 O&M costs are estimat d to be about $2 , 500per ye r ties in
KING COUNTY OFFICE OF OPEN SPACE
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
PROJECT PROGRESS APRIL 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
CITY: KENT
PROJECT Clark Lake
PROGRAM 1989 Onen Space Bond
Budget As of September 24, 1997 : $ 608,551
PLUS: 1996 Interest to be allocated in 1997 238
LESS: Expenditures through 9/24/97 588,18
LESS: 1997 Shared Costs
BALANCE AVAILABLE: $ 20,155
PROJECT STATUS UPDATE:
Please provide brief description of work needed to be performed to expend`Balance Available".
PROJECT COMPLETION SCHEDULE:
Please provide an estimated schedule for expenditure of"Balance Available".
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SALE OF JEAN AUSTIN PROPERTY - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval to sell the Jean Austin
property and amend the Playground Equipment budget with the
revenue for future renovation, acquisition or development.
On November 18, 1997, Council accepted 0.27 acres of land
donated by Kent citizen Jean Austin. The property was
appraised at $48, OOo. As authorized by the Parks Committee,
staff recommends selling the property and using the profit to
amend the Playground Equipment budget to fund future playground
renovation, acquisition or development.
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of quit claim deed
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FIBCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $ selling price
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Revenue from sale of surplus land
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 30
Property Management
CITY OF KENT
220 - 4th Avenue South
Kent WA 93032-5394
(206) 3 9-3300
Grantor(s): Jean H. Austin. as her separate estate
Grantee(s): City of Kent
Legal Description: Ptn. Lot Blk -i City View Addition
Assessor's Propery Tax Parcel Account Number(s): 1:9860-0230-04
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THE GRaNTOR. Jean H. Austin. as her separate estate for and in consideration of mutual.
benefits derived. conveys and quit claims the following described real estate situated in the County
of Kins. State of Washington. including any after acquired title:
The West 100.00 feet of the North 110.00 feet of Lot 3 Block 4 City
View Addition Volume 14 Page 50 King County Washington
The Grantor conveys and grants to the City of Kent, individually and as the representative
of all the people of the City of Kent,the real property described herein forever for the public purpose
of parks and recreation. Should this property described herein be sold by the City of Kent, all net
proceeds from the sale of the property shall only be used for acquisition,development,or renovation
1 of 2
of parks and recreation facilities or for parks and recreation purposes and shall not be diverted to the
aeneralfund.
Dated this �C day of
, 1997.
ice.-----
A AN H. AUSTN
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) /✓/
j ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JEAN H. AUSTN is the person who
d that she signed this instrument. on oath stated
appeared before me. and said person acknowledge
that she was authorized to execute the instrument. and acknowledged it to be her free and voluntary
act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
WINESSETH my hand and seal this 20 day oY f:'-yv 1997.
NOTARY PUB C in and for the State of Washington.
residing at
1v commission expires
P'LAW�C ONTRACTvW STIN.CON
2of2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PARK LAND ACQUISITION BUDGET - ACCEPT INTEREST AND
AMEND BUDGET
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Accept the $148, 000 in interest accrued
in the Park Land Acquisition Account and amend the budget for
future land acquisition.
As authorized by the Parks Committee, staff recommends
acceptance of this interest and amending the Park Land
Acquisition Account budget in order to purchase additional land
in the future.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $148 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Park Land Acquisition Account interest
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3P
' J
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SOOS CREEK TRAILHEAD QUIT CLAIM DEED TO KING
COUNTY - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of the quit claim deed to King
County for the Soos Creek Trailhead property and to forward the
documents to Mayor White for signature.
The Soos Creek Trailhead parcel was inadvertently included in
the annexation of Lake Meridian Park to the City of Kent. As
approved by the Parks Committee, King County is requesting a
quit claim deed be executed to become legal owner of the Soos
Creek Trailhead again.
3 . EXHIBITS: Copy of letter from King County
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3Q
�I
King County
Propern'Semices Dildsion
Dc11a]'t:neni 02
Cunstn:ction and Fac;1iTies`Sang ement
Kin,Cnunn'Administration Builciti,
500 Fottrlh Aveml, fioo_m 500
Seattle.1\'ashlR2ton;IB104
(206)296-7,470
TDD(206)296-0100
FAX(206)296-0196
November 5, 1997
Helen Wickstrom, Park Administrator
City of Kent Parks Department
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
RE: Lake Meridian Park
Dear Ms. Wickstrom:
Enclosed is the original Quit Claim Deed for the City's reconveyance of certain parcels of
County-owned property known as the Soos Creek Trailhead. These parcels were inadvertently
included in the conveyance of Lake Meridian Park to the City of Kent. This reconveyance is
at the request of the County's Parks and Recreation Department If you have any questions,
please call Tom Eksten, Parks Trail Coordinator, at 296-7808.
Once the conveyance has been approved by the City Council and the deed signed by the
appropriate parties, please return the original to my attention for recording.
Sincerely,
Carol I. Thompson, Inventory& Sales Officer
CT
Enclosure: Deed
Assessor's Map
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9. 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: CHERRYWOOD FINAL PLAT FSU-95-9 - SET MEETING DATE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Set January 6, 1997, as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat application by
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the Cherrywood Final
Plat. The subject subdivision is 4 .73 acres in size and is
located at 26235 114th Avenue SE. The City Council approved
the Cherrywood preliminary plat on June 18, 1996.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4. RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3R
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: GLENN KARA FINAL PLAT/RE-PLAT FSU-96-13 - SET
MEETING DATE
2 . SUMXARY STATEMENT: Set January 6, 1997, as the date for a
public meeting to consider a final plat application by
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the Glenn Kara
Re-Plat Final Plat. The subdivision is nine (9) acres in size
and is located at 9840 S. 222nd Street. The city Council
approved the Glenn Kara re-plat preliminary plat on July 2,
1996.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: 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
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3S
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: SALE OF SURPLUS VEHICLES - AUTHORIZATION
2 . BUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization to declare certain Equipment Rental
vehicles no longer needed by the City as surplus and authorize
the sale thereof at the next auction.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes and Public Works
Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3T
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
December 4, 1997
PRESENT: Tim Clark Don Wickstrom
Connie Epperly Tom Brubaker
Gary Gill
ABSENT: Judy Woods
Srplus Vehicles
Don Wickstrom explained that every year the Public Works Department goes through and
surpluses vehicles based on their "end of life" and create a list of vehicles to take to public auction
at Fife.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization to declare this equipment in surplus and
authorize the sale thereof at the next public auction.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
December 3, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Surplus Vehicles &.Equipment
Attached is a list of Equipment Rental vehicles and equipment which are no longer
needed by the City. As such, we are requesting that they be declared as surplus and sold
at the next State auction.
ACTION: Declare this equipment as surplus and authorize the sale thereof at the next
State of Washington auction.
Public Works Operations
AMI IORAVD U1I
Phaae:359-3395 Fax: 359-3664
November 10, 1997
To: Don Wickstrom,Public Works Director
From: Steve Hennesso, let Superintendent
Thru: Eddy Chu, Operations Manager PV
Subject: Surplus Vehicles/Equipment Authorization Request
I am requesting authorization to surplus the following vehicles/equipment that have been
replaced with the 97 purchases and are no longer needed by Fleet Services. All of these
vehicles meet Fleet Services replacement point system. These vehicles will be sold to the
highest bidder at the next Public Auction.
VEHICLES
UNIT# YR. SERIAL# MILEAGE DESCRIPTION
8711 * 84 353061 67,000 Dodge 1/2 Ton Pickup
8715 * 86 159736 95,800 Chev C-20 Utility Body
8755 * 84 135542 71,000 Chev C-30 Utility Body
8771 * 86 166164 117,000 Chev Suburban
* Meets Fleet Services Replacement Point System of 20. (1)point per yr.
(1) point per IOK
EQUIPMENT
5329 90 536 NA Jacobson Flail Mower
(needs major overhaul)
71 171275282 45 KW Diesel Generator
This unit was replaced at City Hall and was surplused to Public Works Warehouse for
disposal at the next vehicle/equipment auction.
cc: Frank Olson
Bill Price
Dianne Sullivan
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT KENT SPRINGS CUSTOMER REMOVAL WATER MAINS - ACCEPT
AS COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept as complete the Kent Springs Customer Removal
project and release of retainage to Kar-Vel Construction, Inc.
upon standard releases from the State, and release of any
liens. The original contract amount was $353, 841.28. The
final project costs was $334 , 601. 86.
The project consisted of 3, 174 LF of 8" and 1, 618 LF of 12"
water main, 11122 LF of 1" water service line for 30 services,
7 fire hydrants and various related appurtenances.
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RFa MEND D BY: Public Works i ecto
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. NBIIDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQp1RED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3U
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT SPRINGS CUSTOMER REMOVAL WATER MAINS - CHARGE
IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Committee, authorization for the Public Works Department to
establish a Charge in Lieu of Assessment for the total amount
of $261,829.47 distributed to the affected properties as
calculated
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Committee minutes, Public Works
Director memorandum and vicinity map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3V
Committec unanimously recommended adoption of a resolution setting a hearing date
for the Willis St. street vacation.
Kent Springs.Customer Removal Watermain Charge in Lieu of Assessment
Wicicstrom explained that on the main we built on 152nd south of Kent Kangley we had
a pocket of City of Kent water customers even though it's situated in Water District
#I I I - thev are all tied into our transmission main we put in a distribution system
there; turned it over to WD #111 and then as properties that weren't City customers connect
to that system, we will want reimbursement. Widcstrom stated that we spent about
$261,000 for those properties that were not previous customers and can now connect -
we will recoup about $110,000. Of the properties that were large customers and could
develop into smaller parcels, we expect to get another $57,000 in the near term. Over
the long haul, the way their houses set, they may eventually re-develop and we should
get reimbursement from that. He said that in the next 10 years we should be getting
$168,000 back on our investment.
In response to Clark, Wicicstrom explained that because this is within Water District
#111,we turn the mains over to them, they will now be the District's watermains unless
people come in want to connect - the District will get a release from us after they have
paid the Charge in Lieu of Assessment and then they will be allowed to connect. These
are all properties that were off our transmission main dating back to the 1930's.
Committee unanimously recommended authorization for the Public Works Department
to establish a Charge in Lieu of Assessment for the total amount of $261,829.47
distributed to the affected properties as calculated.
Commute TrijReduction (C TR) Interlocal Agreement
Wicicstrom said that we receive a certain amount of funds from the state to implement
commute trip reduction. He said that every biennium the money is allocated from the
state to the county and then to us. This is an agreement that is re-executed every two
years between the City and County and this is the process by which we receive $72,000
for the first year. He stated that these funds are deposited into our Commute Trip
Reduction fund and can only be used for that purpose.
Committee unanimously recommended execution of the CTR Interlocal Agreement.
2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 10, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains (152nd to 156th Ave SE)
Charge in Lieu of Assessment
The Department of Public Works requests the approval for establishment of a charge in lieu of
assessment for the recently constructed Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains project.
The location of the water mains and the properties affected by the charge are shown on the
attached map. The total amount to be collected is $261,829.47 which is distributed to the
properties as explained below.
The City constructed these water mains, however, Water District #111 will own and operate the
mains. The City previously entered into an agreement (signed 8/12/97) with the District which
provides for the District's cooperation in helping the City in collecting these charges from those
who connect. At that time the reason for the project was explained (see attached memo dated
7/9/97) and that a charge in lieu of assessment would be requested with the actual amount being
based on final project costs. The final costs are now know.
The total cost of$290,797.08 was distributed to each property based on front footage. Properties
not previously connected to the Kent Springs transmission main are charged the full amount as
calculated. For previous City customers, the City is responsible for a portion of the cost
associated with the existing service, therefore the parcel total is reduced. The City will fund the
cost for the area of one minimum lot in accordance with the zoning code. The property is subject
to the balance for the remaining area of the parcel. The attached table shows the calculation for
each property.
The City share is $28,967.61. Of the $261,829.47 to be collected, $110,696.43 represent
properties not previously connected to public water supply. These properties have potential to
connect. Properties of transferred City customers are currently serviced by one residential size
connection, however, have potential for development and the need for additional service. The
most likely to develop parcels represent $57,314.04. Therefore the potential amount that may
actually be collected is estimated at $168,010.47.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Public Works Department to establish a charge in lieu of assessment for the
total amount of $261,829.47 distributed to the affected properties as calculated on the
attached table.
Kscrcll.wpd/MKV October 10, 1997
file 10.1
i
5E 270 1 PL
S _ L
E
KENT SPRINGS SE 272 5 TTRANS. MAIN
zA -'
I FIRE
r -- STA.
EXISTING a_ se z�� �r-
W.D. 111 � W
WATER F'
- MAIN
_ — PROPOSED
_. WATER MAIN
L �S2Wr _
x.
cr
i J --
SE- 79 PE ; PARCEL NO.
SE 278 S7
I
i S .29d" 5T �,' SCALE: 1"=400'
now
w MAP "B"
FUTURE CUSTOMERS
CHARGE IN LIEU
OF ASSESSMENT
KENT SPRINGS CUSTOMER REMOVAL
WATER MAINS - L 52ND TO L 56TH AVE SE
KENT SPRINGS CUSTOMER REMOVAL WATER MAINS (152ND TO 156TH)
CHARGE IN LIEU OF ASSESSMENT
PARCEL NO. FRT. FT. TOTAL COST ZONING MIN. LOT LOT AREA CITY SHO 00 PARCEL 3 903.74
1' 95.00 3,903.74 10.00 4,931.04
2- 120.00 4,931.04 2,235.16
10.000
3 5.00 4,725.58 CC
11 18,975 2,490.43
4 165.00 6,780.18 CC 10,000 18,975 3,573.22 3,206.96
5 4..04 .7311
SR6 5,700 32,728 11,,217123..2991
96
16404 6,740 5,566.75
5.528.52
.700
7 192.54 7,911.86 SR6 5.700 31,629 1,425.83 6,486.03
g 157.02 6,452.27 SR6 5,700 19,308 1,904.80 4,547.47
9 156.83 6,4 .46 SR6 . 5,700 41,856 877.61
44 5,566.85
156..83 6,44 . SR6 5,700 41,822 878.33 ,586269..123
10 1
11 26635 10194 .86 SR6 5700 41,788 , .
12 139.16 5,718.36 SR6 5700 1 61 889.08 4 8 13 139.16 5,718.36 SR6 5,700 37,175 876.79 q,g41.90
14 139.16 5,718.36 SR6 5,700 37,189 876.46
15 139.16 5,718.36 SR6 5,700 37,203 876.13 4,842 23
03
16 192.27 7,900.76 SR6 5,700 35.163 1,280.73 6.64856
17 192.26 7,900.35 SR 5.700 35.974 1,251.79 I 6,619.56
18 192.27 7,900.76 SR6 5,7100 35.150 1.2
19 188.00 7,725.30 SR6 5,700 33,840 1,3 01.1.20
6,48.75
0.0000 7,47 .75
20' 182.00 71478.75 0.00 5,286.90
21' 128.66 5,286.90 0.00 3,903.74
22- 95.00 1 3.903.74 0.00 4,109 20
23' 100.00 4, 09 1 .20 0.00 5,287.31
24' 128.67 5,287.31 0.00 4,109.20
25' 100.00 4-109.20 0.00 5,287.31
26' 128.67 5,287.31 0.00 5,177.59
27' 126.00 5,177.59 1 1 0.00 1 7,101.11
28' 172.81 7,101.11 0.00 1 8,218.40
29' 200.00 8,218.40 I 0.00 t 12.688.80 1
30' 1 308.79 1 12,688.80 1 1I 31" 329.38 13.534.89 NCC 10.000 82,328 1.644.02 1 11 87
,,890890..37
32" 150.00 I 6,193.80 1 700 I 41,850 839.51 1
33' 165.97 6,820.04 1 0.00 1 6,820.04
34' 165.96 6,819.63 11 0.00 I 6,819.63 i
35" 331.93 13.639.67 SR6 5,700 210.830 368.76 I 13.270.91
36" 292.70 12.027.63 SR6 5.700 42.253 1.620.00 10,405.
4,109.20
20
37' 100.00 4,109.90 1 16,422.89
38" 419.86 17,252.89 SR6 5.700 118,483 830 00 8,560.29 1
39' 1111 :' 8.560.29 1 0.00 1 5,547.42
40' 135.00 5,547.42 0.00 1 1,362.75 1
41' 32.921 1,352.75 28.967.61 261,829.47.1
TOTAL 7,076.73 290,797.08 290,797 0 1
TOTAL COST 1 1 110.692.43 1
NON-CUSTOMER I 1
151.137.04 .
CUSTOMERS 57,314.04
CUSTOMERS LIKELY TO DEVELOP
NOTES:
1. Each property must extend main across frontage. Therefore distribution to each parcel is by front footage.
Comer properties are based on longest side only.
2. For transferred KSTM customers, the City will pay for one minimum lot in accordance with the zoning based on
square footage and percentage of total lot area. The balance of the parcels charge is the owners responsibility.
All non-customer parcels must pay the full amount.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
JULY 9, 1997
TO: Public Works Committee
FROM: Don Wickstrom
RE: Kent Springs Customer Removal Water Mains (152nd to 156th Ave SE)
Agreement with Water District#111
Attached is an agreement that has been executed by Water District#111 that provides for
the transfer of water mains and 30 Kent Springs transmission main customers to the
District. See Map A in the agreement for location of the to be transferred mains and
customers. The agreement also provides for the District's cooperation in collecting and
transmitting to the City a charge in lieu of assessment from future District customers that
connect to the transferred mains originally funded by the City.
Existing distribution mains feeding directly from the Kent Springs transmission main serve
24 of these customers. These mains are small, old, substandard and in very poor
condition. New 8 inch minimum size mains meeting current standards replacing the old
mains and connected to the District's system are required to allow the transfer of 22 of
these customers. Another 8 customers (6 with service connections directly to the Kent
Springs transmission main) can transfer to existing District mains without the requirement
for a new replacement main.
A construction contract was recently awarded for the construction of the water mains and
related facilities within WD #111 to facilitate the transfer of the 30 Kent Springs
transmission main customers to the District. Once completed, these water mains will be
owned and operated by the District and the District will become the water purveyor for
these 30 customers.
The intent is that the City will pay for the replacement mains as required for the 22
customers and the Districts connection charges for all 30 customers. Fees for one 5/8" x
3/4" meter and the current number of units served are included. This will replace the
facilities and service that is currently provided to these customers. Four of the customers
connected to the transmission main owe a pay back agreement through the District for their _
share of the existing District main cost. These customers do not have an existing City
distribution main, therefore the City is not responsible for the cost of a replacement main.
As usual, the property owner is responsible for the initial main installation cost.
1
kscrpwc.wpd/MKV
file 10.1
The City customers are scattered throughout the vicinity. Therefore the project will provide
water main availability to other properties. Also, some of the customer properties are not
fully developed. The usual procedure for City funded projects includes the establishment
of a charge in lieu of assessment to recover the initial costs of construction from those who
connect. In this case the City is paying the cost to replace the existing service for current
Kent customers but wishes to recover costs from future District customers. Potential future
customers are properties not currently serviced by the City which could connect to these
new mains or portions of current Kent customer properties that develop thereby requiring
a larger meter or addition service connections. See Map B in the attached agreement for
future customer properties. The agreement will be in effect for 30 years.
The actual amount of the charge will be determined once final project costs are known. The
currently estimated costs are as follows.
Cost distributed to non customer properties $126,000
Cost distributed to current customer properties 133,000*
City share for current customers
(Replacement of 1 existing service for
1 minimum size lot) $330,000
Total distributed cost
Current customers most likely to develop 65,000
ACTION RE :IUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement with WD #111 on behalf of the City.
(NOTE: The final amount of the charges will be determined based on actual project costs
following project completion. At that time the charge in lieu of assessment will be brought
before the committee for approval.)
2
kscpwc.wpWMKV
file 10.1
r
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PETTY CASH - ORDINANCE AND CHANGE FUND
AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their December 2, 1997 meeting, adoption of
Ordinance No. �3119 increasing the Petty Cash Fund portion of
Ordinance No. 3159 from $1,500 to $1,800. Also as recommended
by the Operations Committee at that meeting, authorization to
change the Change Fund authorization limit from $15 to $25.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director, ordinance, and technical
worksheets
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3W
Date: November 24, 1997
To: Mayor and Council
From: May Miller, Finance Director
Subject: Petty Cash Fund Increase
After a review of Ordinance No. 3159, we are requesting an increase of$300 in the "Petty Cash
Account" area of the ordinance increasing the account from $1,500 to $1,800. This is due to
growth in the city and related increased program or service demand, primarily in the Parks area.
Maximum individual amounts are also recommended to increase from $15 to $25 in 1998 to
keep pace with current trends. This, however, does not affect the total increase requested above
and is just a procedural change.
A review of the Ordinance amounts for the Change Account and Police Buy Funds show that
they are sufficient and will remain the same.
Please see the attached memo from Customer Services and Accounting recommending this
adjustment.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommend authorization to increase Petty Cash Fund portion of Ordinance No. 3159 from
$1,500 to $1,800.
Memorandum
To: Mayene Miller- Finance Director
CC: Tom Vetsch - Customer Service Mgr.
Laurie Murray - Accounting Mgr.
Cheryl Lopez - Senior Acctg. Tech.
From: Ada Marvosh - Financial Analyst-Customer Services
Laurie Murray -Accounting Manager-Finance Dept.
Date: October 27, 1997
Subject: Petty Cash Increases
As a result of our audit of Petty Cash and Change funds through 12/31/96, we recommend the following adjustments as requested
below:
I) The maximum amount should increase from$15.00 to$25.00. The change is recommended for two reasons. In most cases,
the requests were for more than the limit amount that we currently hold as the standard ceiling. This was especially evidenced by
the last winter storm situation. (Increased activity due to weather: October-February,and July-August).
II)In addition,Kent Commons has submitted a request to increase their Petty Cash due to increase service demands. The Cultural
Arts Division needs are related to the cultural programs and instructors requests.The other two division requests are due to
increased usage during peak periods.
The requests for increases to Petty cash accounts are as follows:
Department Current Level Recommended Increase Department New Total
Finance 925.00 75.00 Finance 1,000.00
Police/fail 75.00 Jail 75.00
Fire 75.00 Fire 75.00
PW/Shops 100.00 100.00 Shops 200.00
Pks/Commons 100.00 Commons 100:00
Pks/Sr Center 50.00 50.00 Senior Center 100.00
Pks/Maintenance 75.00 25.00 ParksMaintenance 100.00
PW/Admin. 100.00 PW/Admin. 100.00
Pks/Resource .00 50.00 Pks/Resource 50.00
Grand Total $1,500.00 $ 300.00 $ 1,800.00
Recommended changes to the Petty Cash/Change fund Ordinance # 3159.
f
Mayene AIiler - Finance Director City of Kent
Dated:� �
i
� I
. i 1
it P �
ORDINANCE NO. _5 9
V
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of �
�v the City of Kent, Washington,
amending Chapter 3 .41 of the Kent
I City Code, creating new Kent City
111 Code Sections 3 .41 . 700 , 3 .41 . 710 ,
and 3 .41 . 720 , creating an
investigative buy account for the
City of Kent Police Department,
establishing the amount thereof and
authorizing the finance manager to
transfer monies to the fund and j
other amendments .
I
t
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES i
i
HERESY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS :
I
Section 1 . Chapter 3 .41 of the Kent City Code is
hereby amended as follows :
CHAPTER 3 .41. GENERAL ACCO=S
PART 1 . GENERALLY
Sec. 3 .41. 010 . Personal cash advances prohibited.
In no event shall any fund or account be used for
personal cash advances secured by check or other I .O .U.
ij
Investigative Account
'i
!I
PART 2 . CHANGE ACCOUNT
' I
Sec. 3 .41.200 . Created.
There is hereby established in the office of the
finance manager a special account to be known as the change
account .
i
Sec. 3 .41.210 . Amount and authorization.
The amount of the change account shall be five thousand ',
dollars ($5 , 000 . 00) . The finance manager is hereby authorized to
issue a check from the general account to the change account in
an amount necessary to raise the change account to the currently
;; authorized amount .
I
I
PART 3 . PETTY CASH ACCOUNT
I
Sec. 3 .41.300 . Created.
There is here established a special account to be known .
as the petty cash account . e
Sec. 3 .41.310 . Amount.
The amount of the petty cash account shall not exceed
one thousand five hundred dollars ($� , 5 . 00) and the finance
manager is hereby authorized to esta lish the account .
Sec. 3 .41.320 . Reimbursement.
The finance manager is authorized to issue checks by
way of reimbursement to the petty cash fund whenever necessary to
keep the account solvent, but in no event less often than once
per month. A reimbursement voucher shall accompany each payment
2
I
i
I
� I
to the account with receipts substantiating the expenditures
attached thereto.
PART 4 . GAMBLING BUY ACCOUNT
Sec. 3 .41.400 . Created.
There is hereby established in the office of the
finance manager a special account to be known as the gambling buy
account .
I
I
Sec. 3 .41.410 . Amount and authorization.
The amount of the gambling buy account shall not exceed !
two thousand dollars ($2, 000 . 00) . The finance manager is hereby
authorized to issue a check for up to that amount transferring
funds from the general account to the gambling buy account. The
police chief and the finance manager agree that the actual amountil
or cash in the account on a regular basis will be kept at a
minimum, as good business practices would suggest .
i
Sec. 3 .41.420 . Application for use.
The funds of the gambling buy account shall be for the
use of the police department gambling enforcement activities .
Application for the use of such funds shall be approved by the
chief of police and submitted to the finance manager.
PART 5 . CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BUY ACCOUNT
Sec. 3 .41.500 . Created.
There is hereby established in the office of the
finance manager a special account to be known as the controlled
substance buy account .
3
I
�,I
f
�i
n
Sec. 3 .41.510 . Amount and authorization.
A. The amount of the controlled substance buy account
shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20 , 000 . 00) . The
finance manager is hereby authorized to issue a check for up to
that amount transferring funds from the general account to the i
controlled substance buy account, consistent with the amount
included in annual budget . The police chief and the finance
manager agree that the actual amount of cash in the account will
be kept at a minimum, as good business practices would suggest .
B . In the event of an emergency situation, as
determined by the chief of police, and upon joint approval of the ,
chief of police and the finance manager, the amount of the fund
may be temporarily increased up to twenty thousand dollars
($20 , 000 . 00) for the duration of the emergency period. The
finance manager is authorized to deposit such funds to the
controlled substance buy account as is necessary to raise the
account to the approved amount .
Sec. 3 .41.520 . Application and use.
The funds of the controlled substance buy account shall ,
be for the use of the police department controlled substance law
enforcement activities . Applicaticn for the use of such funds
shall be approved by the chief of police and submitted to the
finance manager.
PART 6 . FLASH MONEY ACCOUNT
Sec. 3 .41.600 . Created.
There is hereby established in the office of the
finance manager a special account to be known as the flash money
account .
i a
!I
i
I'
!; I
�I
it I
it
�I
Sec. 3 .41. 610 . Amount and authorization.
I
The amount of the flash money account shall be one
hundred thousand dollars ($100 , 000 . 00) . The finance manager is
I
hereby authorized to issue a check in that amount transferring I
I
funds from the general account to the flash money account . j
Sec. 3 .41. 620 . Application and use.
The funds of the flash money account shall be for the
use of the police department law enforcement activities .
Application for the use of such funds shall be approved by the
chief of police and submitted to the finance manager.
i
I
PART 7 . INVESTIGATIVE BUY ACCOUNT.
'I I
Section 3 .41.700 . Created.
There is herebv established in the office of the
finance manacrer a svecial account to be known as the
Investigative Buy Account .
i
I
Section 3 .41 .710 . Amount and Authorization.
A. The amount of the account shall not exceed ten
thousand dollars ($10 , 000 . 00) . The finance manager is herebv
authorized to issue a check for ur to that amount transferring
funds from the general account tc the investigative buy account .
The notice chief and the finance manager agree that the actual
amount of cash in the account on a regular basis will be kent at
a minimum as good business practices would suggest
B . In the event of an emergency situation, as
determined by the chief of eolice and upon joint apvrovai of the
chief of police and the finance manager, the amount of the fund
may be temporarily increased up to twentv thousand dollars
I
5
I!
I
I�
(520 000 001 for the duration of the emergency period. The
finance manager is authorized to deposit such funds to the
investigative buy account as is necessary to raise the account to
i
the annroved amount .
I
Section 3 . 41 .720 . Application for Use.
The funds of the investicative buv fund account shall
be for the use of Kent police Denartment ' s investicative
enforcement activities act immediately known to be narcotics or
gambling related,-- the furtherance of which recuires the
expenditure of funds . Ann ligation for the use of said fund shalli
be aooroved by the chief of police and submitted to the finance
manager.
Section 2 . Any act consistent with the authority and
prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified i
and confirmed.
Section 3 . Severability. If anv 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 a . Effective Date. This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
jI /WHITE', MAYOR
'' S
,I
'i
I,
ATTEST: I
i
pp i
CITY CLERK (DEPUTy�
-06.uNR SW 9&)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROG A. LUBOVICH, CITY AT
I
i
PASSED T� day of 199 .
APPROVED day of 1991 .
PUBLISHED day of 1994 .
_hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance
No . 3 /S9 , passed by the City Council of the City of Kent,
Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as
hereon indicated. �/4Q (SEAL)
CITY CLERK CDEPury)
�ONN/4 .SLJfj C.J
i
buyaccnt.ord
.I 7
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, amending Section 3.41.310 of the
Kent City Code relating to the amount held in the City's
petty cash account.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Section 3.41.310 of the Kent City Code is hereby amended
as follows:
Sec. 3.41.310. Amount.
The amount of the petty cash account shall not exceed one thousand €w gighl
hundred dollars-(8,— �) 1 00.00 and the finance manager is hereby authorized to
establish the account.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any one or more sections, sub-sections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days after passage and publication as provided by taw.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11997.
APPROVED: day of 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 11997.
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
P-V.WORDMANCTET YCSH
2
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WRITE-OFFS - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their December 2 , 1997 meeting, authorization to
write-off uncollectible accounts receivables for 1997 in the
amount of $4, 114 .95.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director and technical support
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-01
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3X
Date: November 17, 1997
To: Operations Committee _
From: May Miller,Finance Director
Subject: Council Approved Write-Offs
This year,the Council approved write-off request for miscellaneous accounts receivable slightly
declined. Unpaid invoices associated with traffic accidents that damaged city property account
for$3,186.33 of the total requested.
There were also four unpaid sponsorships. In order to maintain our relationship with sponsors,
heavy handed collection efforts are not advisable;therefore, I recommend writing-off these four
accounts totalling $400.
I am also requesting that we write off a sewer account. This property was sold at a foreclosure
action. The amount collected did not cover our costs,therefore, it is necessary for this account to
be written off for$201.80.
The remaining items to be written off total $326.82.
The following is a summary of the write-off requests for the last five years:
1992 $53,351.59
1993 17,574.83
1994 8,520.11
1995 1,846.25
1996 5,084.06
1997 4,114.95
The attached bar chart provides you with a visual breakdown of the last six years. Also attached
is a copy of our current collection procedures as well as a detailed list of the accounts to be
written off along with a brief description of the service rendered by the city.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize write-off of$4,114.95 for uncollectible accounts receivable for 1997.
PR/MMllgd 120297ops.wpd
The City's Collection Process
(Miscellaneous Invoices)
1. Invoices are mailed throughout the month. Invoices are all due on the 15th (fifteenth) of the
following month.
2. Each month on or about the 15th (fifteenth).of the month a collection letter is sent out on
each delinquent account. The letters vary in intensity based on the level of delinquency. If
a phone number is available then the customer may be called.
3. If after several attempts we have still not received payment from the customer the department
that issued the invoice is notified. At this point the issuing department may write a letter or
call the customer directly.
4. The Attorney's Office is notified of delinquent invoices of significant amounts. If the
Attorneys Office deems the invoice collectable, they may tale the individual or company to
court to recoup the invoiced amount or they may recommend transferring the account to a
collection agency.
AGING SCHEDULE-Write-offs 1997
Fund Org Date Customer Amount Service Invoice
001 5528 28-May-96 Davis, Ruth 1,870.72 Accident 16046
001 5530 07-Aug-96 Messick, Stephen 117.44 Accident 16500
001 5530 14-Nov-96 Lui, Pualoa 110.50 Accident 16797
001 5530 18-Dec-96 Groubey, Ross 579.89 Accident 16841
001 5530 18-Dec-96 Romero-Najera, Elisco 507.78 Accident 16842
Total Accidents: $3,186.33
001 6733 10-Apr-96 Rowley,James 60.00 Day Camp 16151
001 6734 07-May-96 Yarbrouth, Heather 35.00 Day Camp 16154
Total Day Camp: $95.00
410 5550 24-Aug-96 D G Hydroseeding 70.49 Hydrant Permit 16490
410 5550 10-Oct-96 D G Hydroseeding 151.33 Hydrant Permit 16701
Total Hydrant Permits: $221.82
001 2261 23-Jul-96 Zackey, Jonathan T 10.00 Photograph Duplication 16402
Total Photograph Duplication: $10.00
001 6200 29-Jul-96 Fair Harbor Marina 100.00 Sponsorship 16124
001 6200 29-Jul-96 Omni Travel 100.00 Sponsorship 16126
001 6200 29-Jul-96 Auguri Ristorante 100.00 Sponsorship 16122
001 6200 29-Jul-96 C & B Awards 100.00 Sponsorship 16123
Total Sponsorship: $460.00
440 1633 30-Apr-91 Easter, Patrick 201.80 Sewer Account 395-038!
Total Sewer Accounts: $201.80
Total 1997 Write-offs: $4,114.95
Accounts Receivable
Write-offs (by year)
55000
50000 ---- - - - - -- - -- - - --- -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - --- -
45000 T__ -- - - - - ----------- - --- - - - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -
T
40000 T --- - - - ----------- - --- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - ----- - - --- - - - - ----- -- -
35000 - -- - - - - - - - - - - --------- - - - -- - - - - --- - --- - - - - - - - ----- - ------ - --- - ---
0 30000 - -
-- - - - - ------- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - ------ - ------- - - ---- - - -
25000 T__ --- - - - - --- - - - --- ---- - - -- - - - - - - - - ------ - - --- -- --- - ------ -- - - -- - - -- -
20000 - - - - - ------ - -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - --
15000 I - -
-- -- - ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---- - -- -- - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - -
5000
10000
- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - ---- - - - -- - - - ----------- ---
0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Year
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: 1997 BUDGET ADJUSTMENT - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Operations
Committee at their December 21 1997 meeting, adoption of
Ordinance No. 3.--�)7`1 for budget adjustments made after July 1,
1997. This technical housekeeping adjustment totals $9, 2031403
and approves a line of credit in an amount not to exceed
$200, 000 to cover housing and community development costs at
year-end until they are reimbursed by King County.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director, ordinance, and technical
worksheets
4. RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3Y
Date: November 26, 1997
To: Operations Committee
From: Mayene Miller, Finance Division Director
Subject: Budget Adjustment Ordinance for Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Authorization is requested to approve the gross budget adjustment ordinance totaling
$9,203,403 for budget adjustments made after July 1, 1997. This ordinance is primarily a
housekeeping adjustment, consolidating individual budget items into one adjusting
ordinance.
Please note that$7,222,057 has been previously approved by Council or expected to be
approved at the 12/9/97 Council meeting. Of this amount, $2,052,870 was previously
approved in prior years,primarily for capital projects. This corrects budgets to the
appropriate amount for sale of land to Benaroya L.L.C., FEMA grant for 1996 & 1997 wind
storm damage and various other project corrections. The remaining $5,169,187 already
approved, or expected to be approved, is primarily for capital projects that have received
grants, such as the$1,879,812 TIB Grant for the 196th Street Corridor, and also establishes
the budget for the South King County Narcotics Task Force program.
The balance of$1,981,346 has not been previously approved by Council, but needs to be
approved to be in compliance with the State Auditor's requirements. This is primarily to
transfer$1,000,000 of additional one-time-only General Fund sales tax received in 1997 to
the Central Services Fund and to use this to establish the $1,000,000 budget which will begin
the city wide automation project. The balance is largely to provide $67,442 required to close
out completed projects, $23,000 for the Golf Complex to purchase range balls and mats for
the Driving Range, and other miscellaneous adjustments of($109,096).
The attached pages show a detailed listing of these changes by fund, including council
authorization dates for the amounts previously approved and brief explanations for those not
previously approved..
In addition to the budget adjustments, a line of credit in an amount not to exceed$200,000 is
needed for housing and community development funds to cover year-end expenditures until
they are reimbursed by King County.
Council Action:
Approve the budget adjustment ordinance for adjustments made after July 1, 1997 totaling
$9,203,403.
Approve a line of credit in an amount not to exceed$200,000 to cover housing and
community development costs at year-end until they are reimbursed by King County.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
amending the 1997 Budget for adjustments made since July 1,
1997 and authorizing an additional line of credit from the General
Fund to the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG)
to cover expenditures.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The 1997 City budget is hereby amended to include budget fund
adjustments as follows:
FUND BUDGET
General Fund 1,144,051
Street Fund 424
Youth/Teen Fund (119,756)
Capital Improvements 609,860
Criminal Justice 569,286
Environmental 85,985
Housing& Community Development 37,966
Other Operating Projects 61,577
Street Capital Project 21135,320
Park Capital Project 3,003,831
Other Capital Project 358,744
Water 57,272
Sewerage 36,283
Golf Complex 31,155
1997 Budget
Equipment Rental 2,086
Central Services 1,006,692
Facilities Fund 182,61.7
Total Gross Budget S 9,203,403
Less:
Internal Service Funds (83,585)
Other Transfers (1,441,247)
Internal Transfers (353,074)
$(1,377,906)
TOTAL BUDGET $ 7,325,497
SECTION 2. Authorization of a line of credit from the General Fund to the
Housing and Community Development Fund(CDBG) in an amount not to exceed $200,000.00.
The funds will only be used as needed.
SECTION 3. 5everability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
2 1997 Budget
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11997.
APPROVED: day of 11997.
PUBLISHED; day of 1997.
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
p:Vaw1 ordfnanclbadget97
3 1997 Budget
City of Kent
Budget Adjustment Ordinance
Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Additional Appropriations
Adjustment
Carryover Ordinance Ordinance Adjustment Total
Fund Budget #3322 #3358 Ordinance Budget
001 General Fund 43,945.090 1,469,639 1,144,051 46,558,780
110 Street Fund 3,889,067 489,116 424 4,378,607
140 Youth/Teen Programs 514,382 70,506 (119,756) 465,132
150 Capital improvement 3,930,152 1,011,966 609,860 5,551,978
160 Criminal Justice 767,058 1,782,589 302,051 569,286 3,420,984
170 Environmental Mitigation 11,600 421,611 (2,524) 85,985 516,672
180 Housing&Community Development 1,210,451 576,263 37,966 1.824,680
190 Other Operating Projects 1,588,688 264,372 (132,444) 61,577 1,782,193
211 Voted Debt Service 1,835,428 1,835,428
212 Councilmanic Debt Service 2,807,429 2,807,429
250 Special Assessment 2,730,714 2,730,714
310 Street Capital Projects 32,239,573 3,252,669 4,181,345 2.135,320 41,808,907
320 Parks Capital Projects 11,797,304 349,844 1,870,525 3,003,831 17,021,504
330 Other Capital Projects 1,990,661 203,000 (39,030) 358,744 2,513,375
410 Water 31,839,258 9,612,563 674,590 57,272 42,183,683
440 Sewerage 39,317,857 31,422,908 5,247,366 36,283 76,024,414
480 Golf Complex 253,000 2,855,760 24,640 31,155 3,164,555
510 Fleet Services 77,000 2,005,802 57,000 2,086 2,141,888
520 Central Services 1,585,263 3,004,875 237,479 1,006,692 5,834,309
530 Fire Equipment Fund 120,393 583,314 703,707
540 Facilities Fund 4,386,014 1,227,082 182,627 5,795,723
560 Insurance 5,671,742 60,000 5,731,742
620 Firemen's Relief&Pension 209,150 209,150
680 Economic Development 11,085 11,085
Total Gross Budget 122,677,713 125,802,902 17,332,621 9,203,403 275,016,639
Less:
Internal Service Funds 12,137,194 307,214 83,585 12,527,993
Other Transfers 251,000 9,211,044 1,963,632 1,441,247 12,866,923
Internal Transfers 8,964,236 13,220,839 1,804,451 353,074 24,342,600
Total Net Budget 113,462,477 91,233,825 13,257,324 7,325,497 225,279,123
BE C:%USERS%WKS197BC197A00R02.WB1 26-Nov 97
City of Kent, Washington
1997 Combined Operating Statement
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
General Fund 44,945,206 45,414,729 (469,523) 6,482,889 6,013,366
Approved by Council-Prior Year 105,957 108,909 (2,952) (2,952)
Approved by Council-Current Year 13,000 10,000 3.000 3,000_
Budget Correction (79,219) 40,537 (119,756) (119,756)
Other Changes (15,395) 91,615 (1,000,000) (1,000.000)
44,969,549 46,558,780 (1,589,231) 6,482,889 4,893,658
Special Revenue Funds
Street 4,923,074 4,378,183 544,891 1,277,952 1,822,843
Other Changes 424 (424) (424)
4,923,074 4,378,607 544,467 1,277,952 1,822,419
Youth ITeen Programs 463,842 584,888 (121,046) 244,631 123,585
Budget Correction (119,756) 119,756 119,756
463,842 465,132 (1,290) 244,631 243,341
Capital Improvement 4,405,531 4,942,118 (536,587) 1,551,714 1,015,127
Approved by Council-Current Year 602,582 (602,582) (602,582)
Other Changes 7,278 (7,278) (7,278)4,405,531 5,551,978 (1,146,447) 1,551,714 405,267
Criminal Justice 1,655,277 1,992,640 (337,363) 488,063 150,700
Approved by Council-Current Year 583,768 583,768
Other Changes 6,518 (14,482) 21,000 21,000
2,245,563 2,561,926 (316,363) 488,063 171,700
Environmental Mitigation 343,659 419,087 (75,428) 153,313 77,885
Approved by Council-Prior Year 73,911 (36,797) 110,708 110,708
Approved by Council-Current Year 12,074 122,782 (110,708) (110.708)
429,644 505,072 (75,425) 153,313 77,885
Housing&Community Development 576.263 576,263
Approved by Council-Current Year 37,966 37,966
614,229 614,229
Other Operating Projects 75,000 131,928 (56,928) 144,147 87,219
Approved by Council-Prior Year 4,429 4,429
Approved by Council-Current Year 57,148 57,148
136,577 193,505 (56,928) 144,147 87,219
Debt Service Funds
Voted 1,850,707 1,835,428 15,279 40,183 55.462
Councilmanic 2,807,429 2,807,429
Special Assessment 2,137,993 2,700,714 (562,721) 2,198,427 1,635,706
Capital Projects Funds
Street Projects 6,998,834 7,434,014 (435,180) 459,815 24,635
Approved by Council-Prior Year 79,262 79,262
Approved by Council-Current Year 2,055,634 2,055,634
Other Changes 424 424
9,134,154 9,569,334 (435,180) 459,815 24,635
BE C:\USERS\WKS\978C\97ADORD2.WB1 26-Nov-97
City of Kent, Washington
1997 Combined Operating Statement
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
Parks Projects 2,125,540 2,214,912 (89,372) 174,580 85,208
Approved by Council-Prior Year 1,808,534 1,834,161 (25,627) (25,627)
Approved by Council-Current Year 849,615 849,615
4,783,689 4,898,688 (114,999) 174.580 59,581
Other Projects 128,686 163,970 (35,284) 35,284
Approved by Council-Current Year 344,466 344,466
Other Changes 7,278 7,278
480,430 515,714 (35,284) 35,284
Enterprise Funds
Water 7,252,197 7,701,899 (449,702) 3,964,672 3,514,970
Approved by Council-Prior Year 5,234 5,234
Other Changes 26,019 (26,019) (26.019)
7,257,431 7,733,152 ,96 3,4
(475,721) 34,672 88,951
Sewerage 18,706,231 25,997,807 (7,291,576) 9,156,728 1,865,152
Approved by Council-Prior Year 15,773 15,773
Approved by Council-Current Year 20,510 20,510
18,742.514 26,034,090 (7,291,576) 9,156,728 1,865,152
Golf Complex 2,601,418 2,563,187 38,231 (237,247) (199,016)
Approved by Council-Prior Year 8,155 8,155
Other Changes 23,000 23,000
2,632,573 2,594,342 38,231 (237,247) (199,016)
Internal Service Funds
Equipment Rental 1,950,941 1,997,B02 (46,861) 2,456.838 2,409,977
Approved by Council-Prior Year 2,086 2,086
1,953,027 1,999,888 (46,861) 2,456,838 2.409,977
Central Services 3,070,094 3,062,354 7,740 21,256 28,996
Other Changes 1,000,000 1,000,000
Meridian Valley/Del Mar Annexations 6,692 6.692
4,076,786 4,069,046 1,740 21,256 28,996
Fire Equipment 451,348 703,707 (252,359) 826,599 574,240
Facilities 4,109,657 4,535,197 (425,540) (149,317) (574,857)
Approved by Council-Prior Year 127 127
Approved by Council-Current Year 182,500 182,500
4,292,284 4,717,824 (425,540) (149.317) (574,857)
Insurance 5.327,037 5,731,742 (404,705) 4,068,385 3,663.680
Trust and Agency Funds
Firemen's Pension 206,380 209,150 (2,770) 2,420,820 2,418,050
Economic Development 15,330 11,085 4,245 13,174 17,419
BE C:\USERS1WKS%7BC197AD0RD2.wB1 26-Nov-97
City of Kent, Washington
1997 Combined Operating Statement
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
Beginning Gross Budget 117,127,674 128,110,233 (10,982,559) 35,792.906 24,810,347
82,129
Approved by Council-Prior Year 2,103,468 2,021,339 82.129 (710.290)
Approved by Council-Current Year 4,142,281 4,652,571,
710,290)
Budget Correction (79.219) (79,219) (1012,721)
Other Changes 1,021,825 2,034,546 (1,012,721) '
Meridian Valley I Del Mar Annexations 6,692 6,692
New Gross Budget
124,322,721 136,946,162 (12.623,441) 35,792,906 23,169,465
Less:
Internal Service Funds 12,527,993 12,527,993
Other Transfers 12,615,923 12,615,923
Total Budget 99,178,805 111,802,246 (12,623,441) 35,792,906 23,169,465
BE CAUSERS1WKS\97BM97AD0RD2.WB1 26-NOV-97
City of Kent
General Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 43,945,090
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 1,469,639
45,414,729
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 1/16/96 2,952
Transfer Out-Fire Physical Fitness Fund 10/1/96 105,957
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms
Previously Approved with Council Date 4/15197, 6/3/97 24,510
Internal Computer Services
14209
Internal Printing/Graphics 4/15/97, 6/3/97 38,
Internal Property Rental 4/15/97,6/3/97 ,174
74
Transfer Out-Central Services 4 6l3/97 (38, )
Transfer Out-Facilities Management 4/15/97,15/97,6!3l97 (38,17474)
Financial Services Cost Allocation-SKC Narcotics Task Force g7/1/97
6/97 , 00
(30 )
Youth/Teen-Pea Patch Program 9/16/97 2,500
Resource Center-Stew Pot Theater
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount ,537
2 1 40
Youth/Teen Program Coordinator(salaries&benefits)
Police(salaries&benefits) 3 (25,537
605
Police-Ditty Bags
Transfer Out-Automation Project 4 1,000,000
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 1,144,051
Total Expenditures 4 ,558,7
80
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 43,793,429
639
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 1,082,376
Beginning Fund Balance , ,
Ending Fund Balance (3,93030,71515)
45,414,729
Budget Adjustment Sources
FEMA Disaster Revenue 105,957
Puget Sound Urban Resources Grant 10,500
2500
DSHS Grant 9,,219
Transfer In-Youth/Teen Fund (7505 6
Transfer In-Criminal Justice 1.00
05
Transfer In-Confidential Fund (2
Ending Working Capital 1,119,708
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 1,144,051
Total Sources of Funding �46,558.780
�e
1 -Budget correction to move program coordinator budget from Youth!Teen Fund to General Fund
2-Reallocate balance of criminal justice accreditation salary to Drinking Driver Task Force.
3-Return amount budgeted for police ditty bags to Confidential Fund (decided not to purchase at this time)
4-Transfer additional one time only sales tax received in 1998 to Central Services Fund for city wide Automation Projects.
BE C:%USERS%WKS197BC197A00RD2.WB1 2&No 97
City of Kent
Street Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 3,889,067
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 489,116
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 4,378,183
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 424
Transfer Out-Traffic Safety NTMP Device
424
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
4,378,607
Total Expenditures ...... ��
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 4,722,939
Budget Ordinance No.3358 489,116
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 528,279
Beginning Fund Balance (1,362,151)
Ending Fund Balance 4,378,183
Budget Adjustment Sources
424
Ending Working Capital
424.
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
4,378,607
Total Sources of Funding ....... i
1 -Transfer adjustment needed to close project.
BE CAUSERS\WKS\97BC\97A00RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Youth / Teen Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No.3322 514,382
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 70,506
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 584,888
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 (40,537)
Move Program Coordinator to General Fund 1 40,537
Transfer Out-General Fund (program coordinator) 2 (119,756)
Transfer Out-General Fund (correct 1996 over transfer)
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
(119,756)
465,132
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 512,435
Budget Ordinance No.3358 70,506
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 257,073
Beginning Fund Balance (255,126)
Ending Fund Balance 584,888
Budget Adjustment Sources
(119,756)
Ending Working Capital
(119,756)
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
465,132
Total Sources of Funding — ���'
1 - Budget correction to move program coordinator budget from Youth!Teen Fund to General Fund
2-Reduce transfer out to General Fund for Youth/Teen Programs to correct transfer over expenditures in 1996.
BE CAUSERS\WKS\97BC197AD0RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Capital Improvement Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 3,930,152
Budget Ordinance No.3358 1,011,966
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 4,942,118
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved with Council Date 11/26/96 130,500
Transfer Out-Miscellaneous Projects 11/26/96 72,500
Transfer Out-Fire Prevention/Dev Services Remodel 11/26/96 28,000
Transfer Out-Police Admin Remodel 11/26/96 82,000
Transfer Out-Public Bldg Major Mtc 7/15/97 239,582
Transfer Out-Court Property Purchase 9/16197 50,000
Transfer Out- East Hill Park Expansion 11/18/97 (35,000)
Transfer Out-Playground Safety 11/18/97 (10,000)
Transfer Out-Park Improvements 11/18/97 (5,000)
Transfer Out-First Avenue Plaza 11/18/97 (30,000)
Transfer Out-Park Master Plans 11/18/97 65,000
Transfer Out-Neely Soames Home Renovations 11/18/97 15,000
Transfer Out-Kent Memorial Park Tot Lot
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 6,553
Transfer Out-Station#75 Purchase 1 725
Transfer Out-Power Generators
609,860
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
5,551,978
Total Expenditures ....... �
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 4,346,711
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 1,011,966
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 762,425
Beginning Fund Balance (1,178,984)
Ending Fund Balance 4,942,118
Budget Adjustment Sources
609,860
Ending Working Capital _
609,860
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
5,551,978
Total Sources of Funding
1 -Transfer adjustment needed to close projects.
RF CWSERSIWKS197BC%97ADORD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Criminal Justice Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 1,780,589
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 302,051
Carryover Budget . 767,058
Internal Transfers 2,000
2.851,698
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved with Council Date
South King County Narcotics Task Force 7/1/97 547,481
Law Enforcement Education Partnership Program 9/2/97 29,355
Drinking Driver Task Farce 9/2197 13,932
Range Repair&Maintenance 9/2/97 (7,000)
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount
Criminal Justice Accreditation(salary&benefits) 1 (5,605)
Transfer Out-General Fund 1 5,605
Traffice Equipment-RJC 2 6,518
Transfer Out-GF for Police Ditty Bags 3 (21,000)
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 569,286
Total Expenditures 3,420,984
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 1,512,169
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 302,051
Carryover Budget 767,058
Internal Transfers 2,000
Beginning Fund Balance 276,505
Ending Fund Balance (8,085)
2,851,698
Budget Adjustment Sources
Federal Grant-SKCNTF 247,916
Local Match-SKCNTF 84,151
Seized Asset Proceeds-SKCNTF 215,414
LEEPP Grant 29,355
WA State Safety Commission Grant 13,932
Transfer In-Police MDT Sales (482)
Ending Working Capital (21,000)
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 569,286
Total Sources of Funding 3,420,984
1 -Reallocate unexpended criminal justice accreditation salary to Drinking Driver Task Force.
2-Transfer budget to cover balance of RJC traffic equipment project
3-Return amount budgeted for police ditty bags to Confidential Fund (decided not to purchase at this time)
BE CIUSERS%WKS%97BC197AD0RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Environmental Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 421,611
Budget Ordinance No.3358 (2,524)
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 11,600
Carryover Budget 430,687
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved with Council Date 11/26/96 (24,723)
Environmental Programs 3118/97 12,074
KC City Optional Program-Special Recycling Events 5/6/97 33,187
KC Waste Reduction Recycling 5120197 27,014
Department of Health-Special Recyling Events 8/5/97 38,433
Dept of Ecology-Solid Waste/Recycling Containers
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 85,985
516,672
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 342,648
Budget Ordinance No.3358 (2,524)
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 11,600
Carryover Budget 173,429
Beginning Fund Balance (94,466)
Ending Fund Balance 430,687
Budget Adjustment Sources
47,552
King County Grants 38,433
DOE Referanda 26139 Gant
85,985
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
516,672
Total Sources of Funding ........ ��
BE C:\USER5IWKS%97BC197AD0R02.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Housing & Community Development
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 576,263
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 0
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1,210.451
Carryover Budget 1,786,714
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved with Council Date 9/16/97 37,966
Springwood Park Trail -Grant
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 37,966
1,824,680
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No.3322 576,263
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 0
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1,210,451
Carryover Budget 1,786,714
Budget Adjustment Sources
Supplemental Community Development Block Grant
37,966
37,966
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
1,824,680
Total Sources of Funding
BE CAUSERS\WKS\97BC\97A00R02.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Other Operating Projects Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 264,372
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 (132,444)
Carryover Budget 1,588,688
1,720,616
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds
Fire Physical Fitness Fund 1/16l96 4,429
Previously Approved with Council Date
In-City Transit Projects-Grant 711/97 49,860
Lake Meridian!Old Fishing Hole Clean Up-Grant 11/18/97 7,288
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 61,577
Total Expenditures 1782,193
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance No.3322 235,000
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3358 (132,444)
Carryover Budget 1,588,688
Beginning Fund Balance 29,372
1,720,616
Budget Adjustment Sources
Transfer In from General Fund 2,952
Contributions
1,477
Oil Rebate Grant 49,860
KC Water Quality Grant 7,288
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 61,577
1,782,
Total Sources of Funding3
BE C:%USERS\WKS\97BC\97AD0RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Street Capital Projects Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No.3322 3,252,669
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 4,181,345
Carryover Budget 32,239,573
39,673,587
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 1 55.388
Pedestrian Walkways-SEPA 1 15,581
272nd Corridor-SEPA 1 8,293
224th-228th Corridor-SEPA
Previously Approved with Council Date 6/3/97 1,879,819
196th Corridor-Stage 2(bridge) 9/16/97 72,000
244th/228th Corridor
792
Pedestrian Walkways /97 31,
Commute Trip Reduction Agreement 10/21/21/97 72,030
30
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 2 424
Traffic Safety NTMP Device
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 2,135,320
Total Expenditures ...
41,808,907
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance !1 No. 3322 3,252,669
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3358 4,181,345
32,239,573
Carryover Budget 39,673,581
Budget Adjustment Sources
424
Transfer In-Street Fund 72,000
PSE Underground Conversion Agreement 1,879,812
TIB Grant 72,030
King County Grant 31,792
Street Vacation Revenue 79,262
Contributions- SEPA
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 2,135,320
41,808,907
Total Sources of Funding .....
1 -Per State Environmental Police Act Ordinance#2494.
2-Transfer adjustment needed to close project.
BE CAUSERSIWKS197BC197A00RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Parks Capital Projects Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 349,844
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 1,870,525
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 11,797,304
Carryover Budget 14,017,673
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 4/16/96 24,607
Interurban Trail 4116/96 6,924
Lake Fenwick Trail 4/16/96 (5,904)
Paths and Trails 4/16196 43.177
Interfund Interest on Lagoon Property Purchase 5/7/96 1,694,678
Park Land Acquisition 11/26/96 98,787
Park Improvements
Previously Approved with Council Date 9116/97 25,000
Bereiter House Restoration 9118/97 597,859
East Hill Park Expansion 9116/97 19,358
Kiwanis Tot Lot#4 9/16197 44,000
Clark Lake Wetlands 9/16/97 (151,726)
Grant Matching 10/21/97 11/18/97 13,601
Playground Safety 11118/97 (5,000)
First Avenue Plaza 11/18/97 (30,000)
Park Master Plans 11/18/97 4,560
Adopt APark 11/18/97 3,640
Lake Fenwick Trail 11/18/97 66,719
Neely Soames Home Renovation 11/18/97 15,000
Kent Memorial Tot Lot 11/18197 5,755
Parks Open Space-East Hill 11/18/97 12,000
132nd Street Park 11118/97 5,640
Park Improvements 11/18/97 14,333
Linda Heights Renovations 11/18/97 12,613
Garrison Creek Renovations 1219197 20,155
Clark Lake Improvements 12/9/97 148,000
Parks Land Acquisition
Internal Transfers 4/16/96 31,531
Internal Transfer Out-Lake Fenwick&Interurban Trails 4/16/96 231,531
Internal Transfer Out-East Hill Park Expansion 19/16/97 17,859
Internal Transfer Out-132nd Street Park 11/18/97 1,000
internal Transfer Out-Neely Soames Home 11/18/97 11.719
Internal Transfer Out-Garrison Creek Renovations 11/18/97 12,613
Internal Transfer Out-Linda Heights Renovations
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 3,003,831
17.021,504
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No.3322 265,929
Budget Ordinance No.3358 1,870,525
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 11 797.304
Carryover Budget 83,915
Beginning Fund Balance 14,017,673
ev r.a iCC0C1 eMg1Q7RCt97AnnR02 W81 25-NOV•97
City of Kent
Parks Capital Projects Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Budget Adjustment Sources
94
Proceeds from Sale of Land 1,678,1088
Transfer In-Capital Improvement Fund 0,0
30 ,000
IAC Grant 25,000
KC Landmarks& Heritage Commission Grant 48,601
KC Youth Sports Facility Grant 43,177
Sale of Land 148,192
Fee In Lieu of Assessments 44,000
Mitigation Fees-Puget Sound Energy 35,755
KC Open Space Bonds 1,759
Sale of Plans and Maps 12,000
Sale of Surplus House 4,560
Contributions 151,640
Interest Income 25,627
Ending Working Capital
Internal Transfers 82,679
Internal Transfer In-Park Improvements 151,726
Internal Transfer In-Grant Matching 96,133
internal Transfer In-Fee In Lieu East Hill 31,531
Internal Transfer In-Paths&Trails 1,719
Internal Transfer In-Green River Trail 14,333
Internal Transfer In-Fee in Lieu West Hill 12,613
Internal Transfer In-Fee in Lieu East Hill
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 3,003,831
17,021,504
Total Sources of Funding
BE C:%USERSIWKS197BC197AD0RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Other Capital Projects Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No.3322 203,000
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 (39,030)
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1,990,661
Carryover Budget 2,154,631
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 11/26/96 102,392
Miscellaneous Projects
Previously Approved with Council Date 7/15/97 239,582
Court Property Purchase 9/2197 7,000
Range Bullet Traps 9/2/97 (7,000)
Transfer Out- Range Repair&Maintenance 10/7/97 1,246
Bum Props 10f7/97 1,246
Police MDT-Misc Police Equipment
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 6,553
Station#75 Purchase 1 725
Power Generators 2 (6,518)
Police MDT-Misc Police Equipment 2 6,518
Transfer Out-Traffic Equipment RJC
Internal Transfers 912/97 7,000
internal Transfer Out-Range Bullet Traps
358,744
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
2,513,375
Total Expenditures '...... ��
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 203,000
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 (39,030)
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1.990,661
Carryover Budget 2,154,631
Budget Adjustment Sources
349,252
Transfer In-Capital Improvement Fund 2,492
Sewer Reimbursement from Latecomers
Internal Transfers 7,000
Internal Transfer In-Police MDT Sales
358 744
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
2,513,375
Total Sources of Funding ........ �
1 -Transfer adjustment needed to close projects.
2-Transfer budget to cover balance of RJC traffic equipment project.
RF cwsFRS\WKS\97BC\97ADORD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Water Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 7,001,309
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 674,590
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 31,839,258
Carryover Budget 2,611,254
Internal Transfers 42,126,411
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 10/1/96 5,234
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 26,019
272nd Corridor
Internal Transfer 1 26,019
Transfer Out-272nd Corridor
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 57,272
Total Expenditures --�42,183,683—
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 7,069,881
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 674,590
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 31,839,258
Carryover Budget 2,611,254
Internal Transfers 2,391,404
Beginning Fund Balance (2,459,976)
Ending Fund Balance 42,126,411
Budget Adjustment Sources
5,234
FEMA Disaster Revenue 26,019
Ending Working Capital
Internal Transfers 26,019
Internal Transfer In-Water Operating
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 57,272
42,183,683
Total Sources of Funding
1 -Transfer adjustment needed to close project.
BE C:\USERS\WKS\97BC\97A00R02.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Sewerage Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No.3322 22,492,435
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 5,247,366
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 39,317,857
Carryover Budget 8,930,473
internal Transfers 75,988,131
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 1011/96 15,773
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms
Previously Approved with Council Date 8/5/97 3,540
Valley Detention-native plant nursery 10/21/97 2,570
Valley Detention-native plant arboretum 11/18/97 14,400
Mill Creek Trunk
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
36,283
76,024,414
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 17,750,732
Budget Ordinance No.3358 5,247,366
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 39,317,857
Carryover Budget 8,930,473
Internal Transfers 5,982,363
Beginning Fund Balance (1,240,660)
Ending Fund Balance 75,988,131
Budget Adjustment Sources
15,773
FEMA Disaster Revenue 3,540
Urban Resources Partnership Grant 2,570
King County Grant 14,400
Judgments/Settlements(Boeing fine)
36,283
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
76,024,414
Total Sources of Funding
0o r.xnC=DCIwMSl97Rr197ADrPD2.WBI 26-Nov-97
City of Kent
Golf Course Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 2,538,547
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No.3358 24,640
Carryover Budget 253,000
Internal Transfers 317,213
3,133,400
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms 10/1/96 8,155
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount
Golf Maintenance 1 23,000
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 31,155
Total Expenditures 3,164,555
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 2,601.418
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 24,640
Carryover Budget 253,000
Internal Transfers 317,213
Beginning Fund Balance 183,207
Ending Fund Balance (246,078)
3,133,400
Budget Adjustment Sources
FEMA Disaster Revenue 8,155
Golf Equipment Rental 15,000
Taxable Food Sales 8,000
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 31,155
Total Sources of Funding 3 =
1 - Purchase additional range balls and mats.
BE CAUSERS\VVKS%97BC197AD0RD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Fleet Services Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 1,933.802
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 57,000
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 77,000
Carryover Budget 72,000
Internal Transfers 2,139,802
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 10/1/96 2,086
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms
2,086
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
2,141,888
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No. 3322 1,920,941
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 57,000
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 77,000
Carryover Budget 72,000
Internal Transfers 1,936,927
Beginning Fund Balance (1,924,066)
Ending Fund Balance 2,139,802
Budget Adjustment Sources
2,086
FEMA Disaster Revenue
2,086
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
2,141,888
Total Sources of Funding
RF cuiBFRSkWKS1976C197ADORD2.WB1 25-Nov-97
City of Kent
Central Services Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
Budget Ordinance No.3322 2,824,875
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 585,
1 263
180,000
Carryover Budget , , 00
Internal Transfers 4,827,617
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved with Council Date 4/15/97,6/3/97 6,692
Printing/Graphics Operating Supplies-Annexation
Not Previously Approved for the Budget Amount 1 1,000,000
Automation Project
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures 1,006,692
Total Expenditures 5,834,309
Sources of Funding
Budget Ordinance No. 3322 2,832,615
479
Budget Adjustment Ordinance No. 3358 ,
1,58585,26363
Carryover Budget 180,000
Internal Transfers (7,740)
Ending Fund Balance 4,827,617
Budget Adjustment Sources
24.510
Computer Services Revenue 20,901
Printing Revenue 961,281
Transfer In-General Fund
Total Budget Adjustment Sources 1,006,692
5,834,309
Total Sources of Funding
1 -Transfer additional one time only sales tax received in 1998 to Central Services Fund for city wide Automation Projects.
BE CAUSERS\WKS\97BC\97AD0RD2WB1 25-Nov-97
city of Kent
Facilities Fund
Budget Adjustments after July 1, 1997
Source of
Authorization Expenditures Funding
Expenditures
No. 3322 3,308,115
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 1,227,082
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1,077,899
Internal Transfers 5,613,096
Budget Adjustment Expenditures
Previously Approved in Prior Year or Other Funds 10/1/96 127
FEMA-96/97 Winter Storms 11/26/96 82,000
Public Building Major Mtc 11/26/96 28,000
Police Admin Remodel 11/26/96 72,500
Fire Prevention/Dev Services Remodel
Total Budget Adjustment Expenditures
182,627
5,795,723
Total Expenditures
Sources of Funding
No.3322 3,108,115
Budget Ordinance No. 3358 1,227,082
Budget Adjustment Ordinance 1,077,899
Internal Transfers 850,069
Beginning Fund Balance (650,069)
Ending Fund Balance 5,613,096
Budget Adjustment Sources
127
FEMA Disaster Revenue 182,500
Transfer In from Capital Improvement Fund 38,174
Public Office Building Revenue (38,174)
Transfer In-General Fund
182,627
Total Budget Adjustment Sources
5,795,723
Total Sources of Funding ..... �
i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent,
Washington, amending the 1997 Budget for adjustments
made since July 1, 1997 and authorizing an additional line
of credit from the General Fund to the Housing and
Community Development Fund (CDBG) to cover
expenditures.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The 1997 City budget is hereby amended to include budget
fund adjustments as follows:
FUND
BUDGET
General Fund 1,144,051
Street Fund 424
Youth/Teen Fund (119,756)
Capital Improvements 609,860
Criminal Justice 569,286
Environmental 85,985
Housing & Community Development 37.966
Other Operating Projects 61,577
Street Capital Project 2,135,320
Park Capital Project ),00,831
Other Capital Project 358,744
�
Water 57�'--'12-
Sewerage 36,283
1997 Budget
Golf Complex 31,155
Equipment Rental 2,086
Central Services 1,006,692
Facilities Fund 182.627
Total Gross Budget $ 9,203,403
Less:
Internal Service Funds (83,585)
Other Transfers (IA41,247)
Internal Transfers (353,074)
$(1,877,906)
TOTAL BUDGET $ 7,325,497
I
SECTION 2. Authorization of a line of credit from the General Fund to
the Housing and Community Development Fund (CDBG) in an amount not to exceed
$200,000.00. The funds will only be used as needed.
i
.SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. motive Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by
law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
2 1997 Budget
ATTEST:
i
,
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of , 1997.
APPROVED: day of 11997.
i
PUBLISHED; day of 11997.
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
P:\LAW\ORDINANC9UDGET97 WPD
3 1997 Budget
V
Kent city Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - REAPPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment
of Ron Banister to continue serving as a member of the Kent
Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors.
Mr. Banister' s new term will continue until 12/31/2001.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR �n
DATE: DECEMBER I, 1997
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO THE KENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I have reappointed Ron Banister to continue serving as a member of the Kent Economic
Development Corporation Board of Directors. Mr. Banister's new term will continue until
12/3 1/2001.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT AND
REAPPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor's reappoint-
ment of Brad Bell to continue serving as a member of the Kent
Human Services Commission. Mr. Bell's new term will continue
until 1/1/2001.
Confirmation of the Mayor's appointment of Steve R. Anderson to
serve as the non-voting agency representative to the
Commission. Mr. Anderson is the Executive Director of the
Children' s Therapy Center. He has been an agency provider in
Kent for the past 10 years and will bring his valuable
experience and expertise to the Commission.
Mr. Anderson will replace Mary Lou Becvar, whose term will
expire on 1/1/98 . Mr. Anderson' s appointment will begin
January 1, 1998 and continue to January 1, 2000.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7. CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3AA
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
7!'1L
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1997
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT AND APPOINTMENT TO KENT HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION
I have reappointed Brad Bell to continue serving as a member of the Kent Human Services
Commission. Mr. Bell's new term will continue until I/1 12001.
I have also appointed Steve R. Anderson to serve as the non-voting agency representative to the
Commission. Mr. Anderson is the Executive Director of the Children's Therapy Center. He has
been an agency provider in Kent for the past 10 years and will bring his valuable experience and
expertise to the Commission.
Mr. Anderson will replace Mary Lou Becvar, whose term will expire on I/l/98. Mr. Anderson's
new appointment will begin January 1, 1998 and continue to January 1, 2000.
1 submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
Kent city Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD - APPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment
of Jon Johnson to serve as a member of the Land Use and
Planning Board. Mr. Johnson served as a member of the Kent
City Council for 20 years and is familiar with Kent issues and
long term planning. He will bring a wealth of experience to
the Board and will be a valuable asset.
Mr. Johnson will replace Tom Brotherton, who will vacate his
position on the Board as he begins his term as a City
Councilmember. Mr. Johnson' s new term will become effective
1/1/98 and continue to 12/31/2000 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3BB
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER. CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE. MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1997
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO KENT LAND USE AND PLANNING BOAM)
I have appointed Jon Johnson to serve as a member of the Land Use and Planninu, Board. N1r.
Johnson served as a member of the Kent City Council for 20 years and is familiar itli [went issues
and long term planning. He will bring a wealth of experience to the Board and ��ill he a yaluahlc
asset.
Mr. Johnson will replace Tom Brotherton, who will vacate his position on the Board as he begins
his term as a City Councilmember. Mr. Johnson's new term will become effective 111 '98 and
continue to 12/31/2000.
I submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE - REAPPOINTMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s appointment
of Mike Buckingham to continue serving as a member of the Kent
Drinking Driver Task Force. Mr. Buckingham" s new appointment
will continue to 1/1/2001.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Ma or White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3CC
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE. MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1997
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT TO KENT DRINKING DRIVER TASK FORCE
I have reappointed Mike Buckingham to continue serving as a member of the Kent Drinking Driver
Task Force. Mr. Buckingham's new appointment will continue to 1/1/2001.
1 submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
o'
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: KENT BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD - REAPPOINTMENTS
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Confirmation of the Mayor' s
reappointments of Donna Gregory and Steve Nuss to continue
serving as members of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. New
appointments for Ms. Gregory and Mr. Nuss will continue to
12/31/1999 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum from Mayor White
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Mayor White
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS•
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3DD
MEMORANDUM
TO: CHRISTI HOUSER, CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENTT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JIM WHITE, MAYOR
DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1997
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENTS TO KENT BICYCLE ADVISORY BOARD
I have reappointed Donna Gregory and Steve Nuss to continue serving as members of the Kent
Bicvcle Advisory Board. Nexk appointments for Ms. Gregory and Mr. Nuss will continue to
12/31/1999.
1 submit this for your confirmation.
JW:jb
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SPUR TRACK FRANCHISE -
ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY. STATEMENT: Adoption of ordinance No. ;,39Q relating
to the Union Pacific Railroad Spur Track Franchise.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company is currently operating a
spur crossing across S. 196th Street west of the Boeing Defense
property. Originally, Union Pacific Railroad obtained a
franchise to operate this spur in our right-of-way. However,
that franchise has expired by its own terms and Union Pacific
Railroad has not yet obtained a new franchise from the City.
The attached ordinance constitutes an offer of a new franchise
with the City.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION•
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 3EE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, granting to the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, a Utah corporation, its successors and assigns,
the right, privilege and authority to construct, maintain and
operate a railroad spur track upon and across South 196th
Street in the City of Kent, King County, Washington.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of a franchise ordinance of the City of
Kent (Ordinance 2309), passed on September 8, 1981, the Union Pacific Railroad
Company, a Utah Corporation ("UPRR") constructed. maintained and operated a railroad
spur track at common grade upon and across South 196th Street in the City of Kent, the
centerline of said street in the North 1/2 of Section 2, Township 22 North, Range 4 East,
W.M., located in King County.. Washington: and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2309, by the terms of its Section 10. was effective
as a franchise grant to UPRR for ten years: and
WHEREAS, on or about October t3. 1991. the franchise granted in
Ordinance 2309 expired by the terms of Section 10 of that Ordinance: and
WHEREAS. UPRR is currently operating the subject spur crossing without
a franchise; and
WHEREAS. a separation of grade of said crossing is neither practicable or
justified; NOW, THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Ordinance
as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION2. The City of Kent. Washington, ("City") grants to the Union
Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah Corporation, its successors and assigns ("UPRR").
subject to all conditions contained in this Ordinance, the franchise and privilege of
maintaining and operating one railroad spur track at common grade upon and across South
196th Street in the City of Kent. Washington, at the location described in Exhibit A.
provided that the maintenance and operation of this track shall be performed in a manner
consistent with the terms and conditions of this franchise ordinance and satisfactory to the
City's Public Works Director and any other applicable authority.
SECTION 3. UPRR shall maintain and operate this track at common grade
with South 196th Street. If the City determines that the public use and necessity require
that the configuration and/or grade of South 196th Street be changed in location. width.
elevation, super elevation. or any other aspect, then UPRR shall alter its track and crossing
to conform with the changed configuration and/or Trade. The City's Public Works Director
must approve the design of any alteration to this track and crossing before UPRR
commences construction. The City shall use its best efforts to provide reasonable notice
to UPRR of its decision to change South 196th Street. UPRR shall coordinate construction
of the planned alterations to its track and crossing with the City so as not to delay the City's
plans for the street. In any event. UPRR shall complete its spur track work no later than
the date the City completes its work on South 196th Street, unless the City gives its written
approval to UPRR extending the time for the spur work.
SECTION4. UPRR, at no cost to the City. shall maintain, operate and alter
this track and crossing across South 196th Street as this street now exists or as the street
may change. alter or modify in any manner during the term of this franchise. if the City
requires the change. However. this franchise shall not prevent UPRR from charging any
other party to which UPRR may have granted or assigned an interest in this track. crossing
or franchise all or a portion of the cost of maintaining, operating or altering this track and
crossing.
SECTION 5. UPRR, at its sole expense. shall replace the existing crossing
pad with a crossing pad of a type and design approved by the City's Public Works Director
across the entire right-of-way, including sidewalks, when requested by the City. UPRR
shall install signalized gate arms at the crossing upon the City's request. UPRR shall install
the crossing pad or gate arms within six (6) months from the date it receives notification
from the City to make these changes: however, if these changes are subject to prior
authorization from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission ("WUTC"),
then this six (6) month time period shall apply from the date of WUTC authorization or
approval.
UPRR's failure to install these items within this six (6) month period shall
immediately terminate this franchise ordinance. with no notice required, and UPRR. its
customers, agents and assigns. shall immediately lose all right and authority to use this
crossing. Accordingly, the City may, at its sole option. restrict. block. close or remove the
track and crossing.
SECTION 6. UPRR shall not store railroad cars within or upon the City's
South 196th Street right of way, nor shall UPRR stop cars within this right of way for
switching operations, nor shall UPRR use this track or crossing in any manner that
unreasonably interferes with travel within the City's right of way. Moreover. UPRR shall
not allow railroad traffic to utilize this track and crossing from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. an
3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. However, the City's Public Works Director is authorized to
shorten or remove these time restrictions, either permanently or temporarily. if he or she
determines, in his or her sole discretion,that modification of these time restrictions would
not impair the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 7. The City maintains the same control over South 196th Street
within this franchise area as it has over other public streets within the City's jurisdiction.
This franchise shall not restrict the rights of the City or other franchise holders in the Citv
to enter upon South 196th Street within this franchise area for the purpose of locating.
relocating, constructing, maintaining, repairing, or removing any public works. utilities. or
facilities under or over this track and crossing, but this work shall not unnecessarily
interfere with the movements of railroad traffic over this track and crossing.
SECTION 8. The City may require signalization, gates, sawbucks, signs,
or other traffic flow control, warning or protective devices or measures to protect the public
health and safety. UPRR shall construct, operate and maintain these requirements at no
cost to the City. Further, UPRR will construct or install these requirements promptly, but
in anv event within one year from the date the City issues its requirements: however, if
approval of these requirements is subject to prior authorization from the WUTC, then this
one year time period shall apply from the date of WUTC authorization or approval.
SECTION 9. UPRR shall defend. indemnify and hold the City. its officer.
officials, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries.
damages, losses or suits. including all legal costs and attorney fees, arising out, of or in
connection with the performance of this franchise ordinance, but only to the extent of
UPRR's negligence or comparative fault. This indemnification includes liability for
crossing design, signalization design, and/or maintenance. and road maintenance within the
crossing area. It also includes any failure or omission on the part of UPRR to perform any
action required by this franchise.
4
The City's inspection or acceptance of anv of UPRR's work when completed
shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification.
No act, inspection, approval or omission by the City shall affect UPRR's
obligation to fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City. its officials, officers,
employees, agents and volunteers.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of
this franchise ordinance.
SECTION 10. Nothing granted in this franchise shall release UPRR from
obtaining all permits or other authorizations required by the City to maintain, operate,
repair or alter the track and crossing or to do any of the work contemplated by this franchise
ordinance.
SECTION 11. If the City finds that UPRR has failed to comply with any
term or condition of this franchise, as determined by the City. UPRR's failure to comply
shall constitute a breach of this franchise. In the event of UPRR's breach, the City may
revoke this franchise after giving UPRR 30 days prior written notice. This notice shall also
state the grounds for revocation. Once revoked. UPRR. its customers. agents and assigns,
shall immediately lose all right and authority to use this crossing, and the City may, at its
sole option, restrict, block, close or remove the crossing.
SECTION 12. If the spur crossing that is the subject of this franchise has
not been in use for one (1) year or longer, this franchise shall automatically be revoked.
Once revoked, UPRR, its customers, agents and assigns, shall immediately lose all right
and authority to use this crossing, and the City may, at its sole option, restrict, block, close
or remove the crossing.
5
SECTION 13. The franchise privileges granted in this ordinance shall be
effective for ten (10) years from and after the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 14. UPRR shall have no right to receive any award in
condemnation, whether direct or inverse, as a result of this franchise.
SECTION 15. UPRR shall pay all the City's reasonable municipal costs,
expenses, or liabilities incurred by the City because of this franchise.
i
SECTION 16. The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of
any of the terms and rights contained herein, or to exercise any option herein conferred in
one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of those
terms and rights and they shall remain in full force and effect
SECTION 17. In any claim or lawsuit for damages arising from either
party's performance of this franchise ordinance, each party shall be responsible for payment
of its own legal costs and attorney's fees incurred in defending or bringing that claim or
lawsuit: however, nothing in this subsection shall limit the City's right to indemnification
under Section 9 of this franchise ordinance.
SECTION 18. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the
provisions of this franchise ordinance shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a
duly authorized representative of the City and UPRR.
SECTION 19. Any assignment of this agreement by UPRR without the
written consent of the City shall be void.
SECTION 20. If any one or more sections, subsections. or sentences of this
ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the
6
validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION21. UPRR shall,within thirty (30) days from the date of passage
of this ordinance, file with the City Clerk its acceptance of the terms, provisions and
conditions of this franchise.
SECTION 22. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days
from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE. MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED day of
1997.
i
APPROVED: day of 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 1997.
1 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
Citv of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
"LAW\ORDINANC.UPRRPRAN ORD
7
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Consent Calendar
1. SUBJECT: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
#ZCA-97-3 - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Adoption of Ordinance No. 33�1 regard-
ing Zoning Code Amendment No. ZCA-97-3 , as recommended by City
Council Planning Committee on November 18 , 1997 . On August 19,
1997 , the City Council held a public meeting on this item to
consider the recommendation of the Land Use & Planning Board' s
recommendation, and it was sent to the Planning Committee for
further review. The revisions to the Land Use and Planning
Board' s recommendation are outlined in the August 19 , 1997 memo
to the City Council.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance; City Council Planning Committee minutes
of 11/18/97 ; City Council minutes of 8/19/97 ; memo to the City
Council dated 8/19/97 ; staff report dated 7/28/97 ; Land Use and
Planning Board' s minutes of 7/28/97 ; and memo dated 8/19/97
from the Law Department
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Planning Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 3FF
CITY OF
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FA,Y(_'53) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 18. 1997
Planning_Committee Members Present City Attomev's Office
Tim Clark Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney
Jon Johnson
Judy Woods
Planning Committee Members Absent
Leona Orr. Chair
Planning_Staff Other
James P. Harris, Planning Director Eric Wells, Polygon Northwest
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Gary Young, Polygon Northwest
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant
Councilmember Jon Johnson opened the meeting. He remarked that he would be Acting Chair as
Leona Orr was absent.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Kevin O'Neill)
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner. Planning Department, reminded the Committee that this is a regulator,
review request made by a private citizen. Polygon Northwest. He stated that in April the Planning
Committee reviewed this proposal and decided to have the request heard by the Land Use and
Planning Board. The Land Use and Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended approval
of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) request to the City Council in July with amendments as
listed in the memo to the City Council dated August 19, 1997. In August, City Council requested that
this item be sent to the City Council Planning Committee for further review. However, this item was
delayed to allow the applicants to meet with surrounding property owners. He reminded the
Committee that the applicant is asking for the change for a specific site; however, if this request is
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th Avenue Fence
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
--O ath \VENUE Sot'TH ' KENT.W kSHINGTON I)X(W iXQS TELEPHONE
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 18, 1997
Page 2
approved it will be a change in the Zoning Code for the entire City. Basically, the amendment is for
three things; one, to allow PUDs in single family zoning districts, but only on parcels of 100 acres or
more in size; second, that the PUD would allow attached units; and third,to allow a PUD master plan
process so the project could be approved conceptually and then built in phases. One change that was
made by the Land Use and Planning Broad was that the phasing would take place in 7 years and not
10.
Planning Director Jim Hams commented the Committee is discussing a policy amendment to the
Zoning Code and not a specific site.
Councilmember Woods asked that if this was approved, could a company could come in and make
an application to construct a PUD.
Mr. O'Neill replied affirmatively. Furthermore, if an application was submitted there would be
specific steps that would be taken to consider the request. The applicant would be required to conduct
a community meeting prior to the public hearing. The application would be reviewed under SEPA,
and there would be a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. In addition, there would be notice
to adjoining property owners of the public hearing. Furthermore, in some case, if the underlying
zoning use was different, the request would go to the full City Council for final review and approval.
Mr.O Neill suggested that the motion be the same as that recommended by the Land Use and Planning
Board on August 19, 1997 with conditions and with the addition that under permitted uses, that if
dwelling units were to be attached in a PUD, they would have to be condominiums. Mr. O'Neill
commented that the word "condominium" would be a defined term in the Zoning Code.
Tim Clark MOVED and Judy Woods SECOND the above motion.
Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the motion should also amend Section
15.04.080 of the Code. He explained that this amendment would allow the City Attorney's Office to
review the proposal on the condominium and maintenance changes to the Zoning Code.
Judv Woods asked if Tim Clark would accept the "friendly amendment". Tim Clark accepted.
Tim Clark asked if the housing would be owner-occupied.
Eric Wells, representing Polygon Northwest, commented that the housing developed would be sold
as owner-occupied. Mr. Wells stated that Mr. Gary Young and himself have already met with the
neighbors regarding this project. Polygon Northwest realizes that if this PUD action was approved
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th Avenue Fence
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 18, 1997
Page 3
by City Council, they would need to hold another community meeting and then go through the
requirements outlined.
Councilmember Woods commented that changing this policy doesn't necessarily mean that a project
is currently being planned. Ms. Woods remarked that making this change indicates that there is a
change in the way of thinking that everyone would have a single family residence on individual
property to a change that more people will be living in condominium-style housing.
Acting Chair Johnson asked for a vote. Motion carried.
PROPOSED 108TH AVENUE FENCE (SUMMIT APARTMENTS)
Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, informed the Committee that the owner of the apartment
complex has submitted an application to construct a perimeter fence on the property. The application
is being processed.
Councilmember Woods commented that there is a posting on the site that a fence will be constructed
with an access gate.
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
No action was taken on this item. It will be heard at the next City Council Planning Committee
meeting.
Councilmember Woods asked that there is some way to designate what type of multifamily housing
is being built; whether it is condominiums, senior housing or regular multifamily.
Mr. Harris commented that the senior housing has been identified and named the ones that are built
on the valley floor.
There followed a general discussion concerning the construction of owner-occupied multifamily-style
housing in the area.
The next meeting will be held on December 9, 1997 at 3:30 PM.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM.
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th Avenue Fence
Downtown Strategic Action Plan
Kent City Council Minutes
August 19 , 1997
PLATS approve the Singh Final Plat with 18 conditions,
as recommended by staff. Houser seconded and the
motion carried.
REZONE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Granville Southern gezone RZ-97-1. The Hearing
Examiner has recommended approval of an appli-
cation to rezone approximately 18 .93 acres of
property from SR-1, Single-Family Residential,
maximum allowable density of 1 unit per acre, to
SR-3 , Single-Family Residential, maximum allow-
able density of 3 .63 units per acres. The
property is located at 20450 92nd Avenue S. ORR
MOVED to accept the Findings of the Hearing
Examiner, to adopt the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of approval of the Granville-
Southern Rezone, and to direct the City Attorney
to prepare the necessary ordinance. Bennett
seconded and the motion carried.
ZONING CODE (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4C)
AMENDMENT Planned unit Development Regulations ZCA-97-3 .
The Land Use & Planning Board has recommended
amending the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
section of the Zoning Code (15.040.080) . The
proposed amendments are to allow PUDs to be
developed in single-family zoning districts as
long as the site is at least 100 acres in size;
to allow attached dwelling units to be developed
with a PUD in a single-family zone; and to allow
a phased master plan process for the review and
approval of PUDs on large sites. The Land Use &
Planning Board held a public hearing on this
matter on July 28 , 1997 .
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner, explained that the
staff report in the agenda packet was not the
correct report, but that he faxed all the
councilmembers the correct one yesterday. He
noted that this proposal came in as a regulatory
review by Polygon Northwest to amend the existing
Planned Unit Development ordinance in the City.
He noted that the applicants are asking for
three things as follows: 1) that Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) be allowed in single-family
zoning districts; 2) that within a PUD area
attached units be permitted; and 3) to allow a
phased master plan process for approving a PUD.
O'Neill explained that currently planned unit
developments are not allowed in single-family
i zoning districts. He noted, however, that the
1
9
Kent City Council Minutes
August 19 , 1997
ZONING CODE amendments proposed would limit PUDs to those
AMENDMENT sites which are 100 acres or more in size. He
noted that the City's current PUD ordinance
requires that a PUD be a specific development
with building footprints and elevations, etc. He
noted that there are currently no provisions for
allowing larger, more conceptual master plan
processes which would then allow phased develop-
ment to occur over time.
O'Neill noted that the Land Use and Planning
Board held workshops on July 14 and July 21, and
a public hearing on July 28th. He noted that the
Board' s recommendation is to approve the appli-
cant's request with several provisos. Upon Orr' s
request, O'Neill went through the provisos. He
noted that there are several recommended amend-
ments to the ordinance which are outlined on
pages 61 7 & 8 of the July 28th staff report.
He also noted that there were some amendments
done by the Land Use and Planning Board which are
indicated on the August 19th memorandum.
O'Neill noted that the current PUD ordinance
allows up to a 20 percent density bonus but that
the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending
the attached units not be allowed any density
bonus. He noted that the Planning Board is also
recommending that attached dwelling units in a
single-family PUD be capped at two stories in
height, and that the attached dwelling units be
condominium units as opposed to rental units.
O'Neil.1 noted that the Planning Department
advised the Land Use and Planning Board that a
ruling from the City Attorney' s Office is needed
to determine whether or not it would be permis-
sible. He noted that a memorandum has been
distributed to Council, from the City Attorney' s
Office, stating that it would be permissible, in
his opinion. O'Neill noted that a major part of
the Land Use and Planning Board' s recommendation
is to allow a phased master plan conceptual pro-
cess to be in place. He noted that the gross
density of any PUD or Master Plan Development
would be the same as the underlying zoning
district. He noted that any Phased Master Plan
would require at least 35% of the site be devoted
to open space which is the same as the existing
PUD Ordinance. He also noted that a Phased
Master Plan Development would be reviewed with
the same process as a Planned Unit Development
10
Kent City Council Minutes
August 191 1997
ZONING CODE which requires a community meeting, a public
AMENDMENT hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and would
use the same review criteria as a PUD. O'Neill
noted that the Land Use and Planning Board is
recommending that any PUD which allows a use that
is not allowed in the underlying zoning district,
be approved by the City Council. He explained
that the current ordinance allows
fort with the
Hearing
Examiner to actually approve
appeal
to the Council. He noted that part of the Land
Use and Planning Board's recommendation is that
if a use is permitted in a PUD that the under-
lying zoning district doesn't allow, that the
Council will have the final authority to act on
those PUDs.
Upon Houser's question, O'Neill explained that
the issue of how much of a certain percentage of
total units would be allowed for multifamily was
discussed at length at both the Land Use and
Planning Board's workshops and the hearing. He
noted that the range anywhere from 75% to 50% had
to be single-family. He noted that the final
motion from the Planning Board, however, was to
not have a percentage at all because there would
be an adequate review process on any PUD with a
community meeting, hearing examiner meeting, and
the City Council for final action.
O'Neill concurred with Mayor White that the
Planning Board, at that time, was not aware of
the provision for condominiums. He clarified for
Houser that, at the hearing, the applicants noted
their intent to build condominiums but that the
Planning Board wanted to make it a requirement
in the amendment because they didn't have the
opinion of the City Attorney, at that point,
about whether or not it would be permissible. He
further clarified for Houser that the Council has
the option of requiring that all multi-family be
condominiums as part of the amendment. O'Neill
explained for Houser that under the existing PUD
ordinance, any residential PUD on ten acres or
more is allowed to have commercial uses. He
noted that the only testimony at the public
hearing was from the applicants. O'Neill noted
for Houser that the notices are published in the
South County Journal, posted at the Kent Library
and City Hall. McFall explained that the South
County Journal is the City's official newspaper.
11
Kent City Council Minutes August 19 , 1997
ZONING CODE Orr noted that, in her opinion, this item has
AMENDMENT not had enough public input to warrant making a
decision to move forward. ORR MOVED for this
item to go back to the Planning Committee for
further review and possibly some revisions before
moving forward. Houser seconded. Clark noted
for Council President Houser that the Planning
Committee will make sure that notices go into the
Federal Way news. Houser noted that the Lakes
project has been done beautifully and that this
type of project can be done well but that she
has concerns and wants to make sure that everyone
has an opportunity to speak before the Council
about it.
Orr noted that one of her initial concerns was
the lack of any public input at the Land Use and
Planning Board's public hearing. She noted that
a comprehensive plan was adopted by the Council
approximately two years ago to insure that no new
opportunities would be created for multi-family
housing on either the East of West hills. She
noted that around 1990 the City did a City-wide
reduction in multi-family opportunities, specifi-
cally on the East hill, and now there' s the
possibility of 450 units of a multi-family style
development on 200 acres of single-family zoned
property. She expressed that this goes against
everything Council has done for the last few
years, and that it concerns her greatly. She
noted that the City eliminated the PUD from the
single-family zones based on petitions received
by the. Council from a citizens group a few years
ago because of the concern that single-family
land was going to be used up in a multi-family
style development. She hoped that the Council
would have an opportunity to review this item
thoroughly before it proceeds any further and
gets beyond where Council has the option to make
some types of restrictions.
Bennett noted that he is opposed to multi-family
.dwellings, but that he views condominiums and
townhouses a little differently. He noted that
he had moved into The Lakes development for a
year from a single-family dwelling and found it
quite enjoyable. He noted that he has since
bought a condo on the south end of town and that
he enjoys the life style very much. He noted that
the neighbors are wonderful, that everyone looks
out for everyone, and it gives him the ability to
12
Kent City Council Minutes
August 19 , 1997
ZONING CODE downsize but still have the comforts of a single-
AMENDMENT family dwelling.
Johnson noted that it is important to recognize
this as an opportunity for someone to develop a
PUD, but that the Council is not granting a PUD
at this time. He noted that this process is a
part of the regulatory review and that Council
needs to examine whether or not there should be a
pUD process allowed in the City. He emphasized
that the Land Use and Planning Board is recom-
mending an amendment to the City' s regulations
and that PUDs should be permitted. He noted that
the PUD being proposed is unique in that it
requires a property to have a minimum of 100
acres in size in order to develop a PUD. He
noted that it is not the same type of development
that caused the City to amend the zoning code
outlawing PUDs a few years ago. He noted that
the laws have changed with the Growth Management
Act and the King County-Wide Policies where
cities have to adhere to and accept additional
housing. He noted that the question for the city
is how do we accommodate the future residents
with state and county mandates. He noted that a
PUD is one way to accomplish this goal. He noted
that the regulatory review process is necessary
and that a public hearing has to be held so he
supports going ahead with this issue and opposes
a motion of sending it back to the committee.
Mayor White noted that the motion before the
Council is to send this issue back to the
Planning Committee. The motion carried with
Johnson opposed.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4D)
General Conditional Uses ZCA-97-5. The Land
Use and Planning Board recommends that
Section 15 . 08. 030, General Conditional Uses,
be amended to include private schools to be
permitted as Conditional Use permits. Currently,
private schools do not need to go through the
Conditional Use process, as do public schools.
Planning Director Harris explained that the
reason for this amendment is to have the
conditional use permit in place for both the
public and private schools so that they will be
on the same playing field level. Upon Clark' s
question, Harris read the definition for schools
13
CITY OF `ITTI
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FA,((253) 850-?544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1997
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN ONEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-97-3 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE (POLYGON NORTHWEST)
Attached for your consideration is the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board
regarding several proposed amendments to the planned unit development (PUD) ordinance. The
request to amend the ordinance was submitted by Polygon Northwest. The request was reviewed
by the City Council Planning Committee at their April 15, 1997 meeting, and the committee voted
to send it to the Land Use and Planning Board for their consideration. The Board reviewed the
request in workshops held on July 14 and July 21, 1997, and conducted a public hearing on
July 28, 1997. The Board then deliberated on the request and made its recommendation at the
July 28 meeting.
As outlined in the staff report to the Board dated July 28, 1997 (attached), the applicant seeks three
changes to the existing PUD regulations,which are outlined in Section 15.04.080 of the zoning code.
Specifically, the applicant seeks to allow PUDs to be developed in single-family zoning districts,
as long as the site is at least 100 acres in size (currently, PUDs are not permitted in any single-family
zoning district); seeks to allow attached dwelling units to be developed within a PUD in a single-
family zone; and, requests allowing a phased, master plan process for the review and approval of
PUDs on large sites. At the July 28 meeting,the Land Use and Planning Board voted to recommend
approval of amendments to the PUD Ordinance as recommended by staff in the staff report, with
certain revisions. These revisions are outlined below.
1. Require multi-family dwellings constructed within a PUD in a single-family zoning district
to be no more than two stories in height.
2. Allow no on-street parking within a master planned development PUD.
3. Require an applicant for a master planned development to demonstrate documentation of
coordination with the school district.
Memo To: Mayor Jim White and City Council Members-
Subject: #ZCA-97-3 - Amendments to Planned Unit Development Ordinance
Page 3
4. Reduce the time period for obtaining all development permits for a master planned
development from.ten years to seven years.
The Board also wished to make a revision to the staff recommendation requiring any multi-family
dwelling to be owner-occupied(a condominium). The applicant testified at the public hearing that
Polygon intended to construct only condominiums as part of their prospective development.
However, Planning Department staff advised the Board that such a requirement may not be possible
from a legal standpoint. Staff told the Board that a legal opinion would be sought on this question
from the Law Department prior to the item being considered by the City Council. Plannine
Department staff has requested a legal opinion on this issue, and will present this to the Council at
the August 19 meeting.
Staff will be available at the August 19 City Council meeting to discuss the Board's recommendauon
on this zoning amendment and answer any questions.
KON/tb:PUDAMDCC.MEM
cc: James P. Harris, Planting Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
;ITY Of
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
JULY 28, 1997
MEMO TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE
AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN 0-NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #ZCA-97-3 - AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE (POLYGON NORTHWEST)
INTRODUCTION
In April, 1997, Polygon Northwest submitted a regulatory review request to amend the regulations
in the zoning code relating to planned unit developments (PUD). Specifically, the applicant
wishes to allow PUDs to be developed in single-family zoning districts, as long as the site is at
least 100 acres in size (currently, PUDs are not permitted in any single family zoning district).
The applicant is also seeking changes to the permitted uses in a single family PUD, and would like
to add a provision allowing a phased, or "master plan" approval process for PUDs. The City
Council Planning Committee reviewed this request on April 15, 1997, and voted to send it on to
the Land Use and Planning Board for your consideration.
This memorandum will present some background information on the City's regulations pertaining
to PUDs, will analyze the issues related to the applicant's request, and present a staff
recommendation. The issues relating to this application were reviewed at the July 14 workshop,
and were also discussed on the tour which was conducted on July 21.
BACKGROUND
The provisions relating to planned unit developments are found in Section 15.04.080 of the zoning
code. The intent of the PUD is to "create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site
design, and protect and enhance naaual and community features." As outlined in the zoning code,
PUDs allow some mixing of commercial and residential uses, and also allow more flexibility with
regard to development standards such as minimum lot size.
Planned unit developments have;�n permitted arpazt of therKent zoning code since 1973. In
1987, the Planning Commission.reviewed a new-planned unir development ordinance, which,
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 2
among other things, shortened the review time and refined allowable density bonuses for PUDs.
After referring the amended provisions to the Planning Committee for review, the City Council
adopted the amended PUD ordinance in August, 1988 (Ordinance #2802).
In 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG)
which requested that the City Council consider revisions to the PUD ordinance which would
require that all units in single-family PUDs be detached (previously side-by-side single family
attached units had been allowed) and establishing a minimum lot size in single-family PUDs of
7,200 square feet. In July, 1991, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to look at
the PUD ordinance and address these concerns. The Planning Commission examined several
alternatives, and recommended to the City Council that PUDs simply not be permitted in single-
family residential zoning districts. The City Council concurred with this recommendation, and
adopted Ordinance #3007 on October 15, 1991, eliminating the ability to develop a PUD in
single-family zoning districts.
PROPOSAL
The applicant, Polygon Northwest, seeks to allow PUDs in single-family zoning districts;
however, this would be limited to only those sites which are 100 acres or more. Polygon has been
constructing homes for the past several years in The Lakes development, which is a large master-
planned community, and would like to undertake a similar type of master plan development on
the Kent Highlands property, which is located on West Hill and is currently zoned SR 3. Polygon
feels that the PUD provisions, as amended, would potentially allow them to construct a similar
type of master planned development (albeit at a lower density) on the Kent Highlands property
as has been constructed at the Lakes.
Specifically, the applicant is requesting the following amendments:
1. Allow PUDs in single-family zoning districts, but only if the site is 100 acres or more.
2. Allow attached dwelling wets in PUDs—currently, the PUD ordinance allows only those
uses which are permitted in the underlying zoning district, with the exception that
residential PUDs of 10 acres or more may also allow commercial uses. Attached dwelling
units are currently not permitted in single-family zoning districts.
3. Allow a phased, or. "master plan"process for PUDs—currently, the PUD ordinance
requires that the gearing Examiner review and approve a specific development plan,
including site plans, landscaping plans, and building elevations. The applicants are
requesting a process which would allow for the approval of a large conceptual, or master
plan for a whole site, which could then be constructed in phases, with each phase
undergoing development review. This is similar to the way the Lakes project has been
constructed. The Lakes project was approved as a "contract rezone", which stipulated
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 3
densities for various parts of the development; currently, the zoning code has no provision
for allowing phased, master plan projects.
ANALYSIS
Allowing PUDs in single-family areas
Planned unit developments are typically appropriate as a means to provide some diversity in
housing and land uses, and also as a means of protecting open space and environmentally sensitive
areas. This may be particularly appropriate in a fairly developed city such as Kent, since many
of the remaining sites available for development contain some type of environmental constraint,
such as steep slopes, wetlands, or creeks. A planned unit development can therefore allow a site
to contain both development and usable open space by clustering the development on a portion
of the site, and leaving the rest of the site protected. The city's current PUD ordinance, for
example, requires that thirty-five (35) percent of the total site area of a PUD be preserved for
common open space. Furthermore, PUDs are often particularly appropriate on larger sites, as is
being requested by the applicant, since a large site potentially provides greater opportunities for
creative site planning.
Amending the zoning code to provide the option of planned unit developments within single-
family zoning districts is supported by many of the goals and policies in the Kent Comprehensive
Plan. The plan discussed allowing more diversity in housing types, while at the same time
protecting environmentally sensitive areas. The PUD process is potentially an ideal way of
meeting these goals. Some of the applicable goals and policies in the plan are noted below.
Goal LU-9 - Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, options, and densities
throughout the city and the Potential Annexation Area.
Goal LU-10 - Encourage high-quality site and building design for all residential
developments.
Goal LU-20-Protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas via the adoption of City
regulations and programs which encourage well-designed land use patterns such as
clustering and planned unit development. Use such land use patterns to concentrate
higher urban land use densities and intensity of uses in specified arras in order to preserve
natural features such as large wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and forests.
Policy H4.1 - Revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes,
manufactured housing on single-family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and
other options which increase the supply of affordable home ownership opportunities.
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 4
Policy H-9.1 - Promote diversity in style and cost by allowing innovative mixtures of
housing types and creative approaches to housing design and development.
As noted, allowing PUDs in single-family zones, and allowing more flexibility with regard to
housing types in those PUDs, is consistent with these goals and policies. In addition, restricting
single-family PUDs to sites of 100 acres or more can help ensure that single-family areas in
general retrain single-family (since the applicants are asking for the opportunity to attach units
in PUDs), and at the same time ensure that a PUD be on a large enough site to allow for
innovative site planning and protection of open space and environmentally sensitive areas.
Housing types
As noted, the applicant has requested the option of attaching dwelling units as part of a PUD
located in single-family areas. Many of the comprehensive plan goals and policies noted above
discuss providing more options with regard to housing. Also, restricting single-family PUDs
which would allow attached units to sites of 100 acres or more would provide opportunities for
these developments to be planned in such a way as to minimize impacts to surrounding single-
family neighborhoods, particularly given the existing requirement that at least 35 percent of a
PUD be common open space. It is also important to note that the total number of units in any
PUD, regardless of housing types, would still be regulated by the underlying zoning district. For
example, a PUD in a SR-3 zone could only contain 3.63 units per acre, regardless of the type of
units. The exception to this is that the current PUD ordinance allows up to a 20 percent density
bonus for the provision of certain amenities (see Section 15.04.080(D)). Therefore, the requested
amendment would help enable difficult sites, such as the Kent Highlands site, to be built out at
the densities envisioned by the comprehensive plan, which might otherwise be difficult to
accomplish without the clustering of units.
The Board has several options to consider with regard to how the amended provisions would allow
units to be attached in a single-family PUD. These options are outlined below:
• Provide flexibility with regard to allowing attached units, and have staff, hearing
examiner, and city council review as part of PUD application
• Allow attached units, but do not allow any density bonuses if multi-family dwellings are i
part of the PUD
• Require that multi-family buildings to be no more than two stories
• Only allow attached side by side units (townhouses), not vertically stacked
• Allow attached units, but restrict the number of units per building
• Only allow a certain percentage of total units to be multi-family
The applicants have requested flexibility with regard to the mix of units in a large PUD, since a
PUD occurring on a large site would likely be constructed in phases over time. It is important
again to emphasize that regardless of the unit mix, the overall density of the underlying zoning
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 5
district would still regulate the total number of units to be constructed. One way to make this
clear would be to remove the density bonus option in a PUD located in a single-family district.
Master plan process
With regard to the request to allow for a conceptual master plan process, this type of process
makes sense for larger sites, and was also utilized (under the provisions of a contractual rezone)
in the development of the Lakes project. This type of process would also be appropriate in the
future for sites which might be developed in phases or combining different uses. For example,
the draft Downtown Subarea Action Plan recommends that the Borden site be developed under
a master plan process; however, there currently is no provision in the zoning code for such a
master plan to be reviewed. The amendment to the PUD ordinance as requested by the applicant
would provide such a process.
Under a master plan process, a conceptual plan would be reviewed by staff and the hearing
examiner as part of the approval process, as opposed to a specific site plan. The conceptual plan
submittal would include total number of units to be built, description of uses, a generalized
circulation plan, phasing plan, and show areas on the site to be preserved. Upon approval, it is
envisioned that each phase of the project would be reviewed for consistency with the master plan,
and approved administratively if in compliance with such plan.
PUD Approval
As noted earlier, part of the applicant's request involves allowing attached dwelling units in a
single-family PUD. Attached dwelling units are typically not permitted in single-family zoning
districts. Furthermore, the existing PUD ordinance allows commercial uses (those permitted in
the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) district) in a residential PUD of over 10 acres
in size. Commercial uses are also typically not permitted in residential zoning districts.
Under the current PUD ordinance, decisions on PUDs are made by the hearing examiner (Section
15.04.080(E)( )). The hearing examiner's decision is final unless it is appealed to the City
Council. However, the City's Law Department feels that approving a PUD which permits uses
which are not typically principally permitted in the underlying zoning district is ultimately a
legislative function(similar to a rezone), and should therefore be approved by the City Council.
RECOM3 ENDATTON
After review of the applicant's request, and based upon the analysis of issues as outlined above,
staff recommends that the Land Use and Planning Board make the following recommendations to
the City Council to amend the regulations pertaining to planned unit developments, as outlined
below:
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 6
I. Amend Section 15.04.080(A) of the zoning code as follows:
A. Zoning districts where permitted. PUD's are permitted in all zoning districts with
the exception of the A-1, agricultural, ,
€8tnily-zees- zone provided. however. that PUDs in SR zones are only allowed
if the site is at least 100 acres in size.
Also amend Section 15.04.080 (C)(2) as follows:
C. Development standards. The following development standards are minimum
requirements for a planned unit development.
Zones Minimum site acreage
ne 0 ac e
Multifamily (MRD, None
MR-G, MR-M, MR-H)
Commercial, office and None
manufacturing zones
IL Amend Section 15.04.080 (B)(1) and (B)(4) as follows:
B. Permitted uses.
1. Principally permitted uses. The principally permitted uses in PUD's shall
be the same as those permitted in the underlying zoning classifications
except as provided in subsection Bl(41 below.
4. Exceptions. In residential PUD's of ten (10) acres or more, commercial
uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses
permitted in the neighborhood convenience commercial district. In PUD's
lOOatrd 'n SR z linos are permitted_ provided that if
a 1? n a a'nQle- milt/ 20 inQ district nooses to * �dr �Iti- mile
dweLlinQs. the density bones provisions outlined in Section 15.04.080(D)
shall not apply. '
M. Add a new subsection to Section 15.04.080 as follows:
Master an anorovaLr. The master plan process is intended to allow atroroval of a
Qenerali,ed. conceptual development plan on a site w ich would then be constructed in
phases over a loneer period oftime than a typical planned unit development. The master
-I- - - I- I -11 i 11�_ • .,1 •• , !• 1 � 1 1 Y._ 1 ' � i •1(
• + 11 "• 1 � . •• 11 1 1 1 •. 1 " • •/• , • 1 " • f_. 1 1•. 1. - • •
• - - •• 11 1 1 - 1 . 11• - 1 • 1• • •� • ••K� . 1• r l s1 . 1• !•
• - • • • - • rl • 1 • 11 !.� - • -. ---
1• 1 ••
1-6
•
' 1 C• •i• • tt 1 • ' 1• • tll ' - l_ 1• ideitill
i 11-. • 1 • • 1 • • 1 • w 1• ' EY. 1 1 t of f - 1•
1•WiTi iTT4M• • ttl 74 • 1. Ws . ✓. l •l lk• • 1 - • 1 1 1 ' y.. PII 1 1
. fr t • 1 • tll
1 • 1 � _ • ' • 1 1 1 • / 1 • 11 ' • ft
/I / I i rl ht rat • / 1� 1:1 y 1 . , •J•
/ I I s7W Mal, 1 • 1 r l•,r-+. • 11 7.ti r 1 As W. r • 1 1 .
•. 111 • 1 qV. •!. • •11 17:•
-L Iff! -1/ / rp l—!I-!� •1t1 -!t U 11 . 7l-J r 1 qr w-. 1 • 1 1 . 1 11
• : !.// / .ffl�!fl �U I tI / I/ /J.II L.-! I I o 9II 11 -I -f r MUMS .
•iy y4P -i• q wY 1 • ,a'S• • 1 1_ 1 : 1 1� W-rVW7
• • •11 y1 1 •. l -�• • • 1 Ydl 1 1 11 '
Amendment to Planned Unit Development Regulations--#ZCA-97-3
July 28, 1997
Page 8
found to be consistent, approved administratively, as outlined in Chapter 15.09�21
this Titl.
7 Lmg limits The master plan agnroved by the hearing examiner or city council.
as provided in Section 15 04 080(E) shall be valid for a period of up to ten (10)
y w At the end of this ten year period development permits must be issued for
all phases of the master plan development An extension to time may be requested
by the applicant Such an exteg5ign May be °ranted by the planning director for
a period of not more than two (2) additional vears.
L Modifications Once approved requests for modifications to the master pla_1t
proiect shall be made in writing to the planning director The planning director,
shall «ahe a determination as to whether the requested modification is maior or
minor as outlined in Section 15.04.080(H).
IV. Amend Section 15.04.080(E)(7) as follows:
7. Hearing examiner decision. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision
within ten (10) working days from the date of the hearing. Parties of record will
be notified in writing of the decision. The decision is final unless notice of appeal
is filed with the city clerk within fourteen (14) days of receipt by the developer of
the decision. For PUD's which involve a nrinr_inally permitted use which is
typically not nermitted in the underlying zoning district, the hearing examiner shall
forward a recommendation to The rip, Council, which shall have the final authority
to act on the PUD within thirty (30) clays of receipt of the hearing examiner's
the city council shall. at a regular nublic_meeting. consider the
anvlic�ation.
If you have any questions, or need further information prior to the July 28 public hearing, please
contact me at 850-4799.
KON/tb:PUDAMDPH.MEM
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
ZONING
3 15.04.080
2. Group homes class I-A.
B. Accessory uses. Permitted accessory uses
are as follows:
I. Service buildings.
2. Storage buildings and storage of recre-
ational vehicles.
3. Recreational buildings.
C. Development standards.The standards and
Procedures of the city mobile home park
code shall apply.
(Ord. No. 2958, § 10, 1-2-91)
Croce refersncef--(,*Aral requirement3 and standards
for mobile home park design,§1104.520;mobile home parks,
ch. 12.05.
Sec. 15.04.080. Planned unit development,
PUD.
The intent of the PUD is to create a process to
Promote diversity and creativity in site design,
and protect and enhance natural and community
features. The process is provided to encourage
unique developments which may combine a mix-
ture of residential, commercial and industrial
uses. By,using flexibility in the application of
development standards,this process will promote
developments that will benefit citizens that live
and work within the city.
A. Zoning districts when permitted, PUD's
are permitted in all zoning districts with
the exception of the A 1, agricultural, RA,
residential agricultural, and R1, single-
family residential zones.
B. Permitted uses.
1. PMinCpauY Peed uses. The princi-
patty permitted uses in PUD's shall be
the same as those permitted in the
dying Ong classifications.
2. Conditional wee. The conditional uses
in PUD's shall be the same as those
Supp.No. 14 1166.3
ZONTN'G § 15.04.080
permitted in the underlying zoning of this section. If an adjacent property
classification. The conditional use is undevelopable under this title, the
permit review process may be consoli- hearing examiner may also reduce the
dated with that of the PUD pursuant perimeter building setback require-
to procedures specified in subsection F. ment to the minimum standards in the
of this section. city building and fire codes.
3. Accessory uses. Accessory uses and 4. Maximum height of structures. The
buildings which are customarily inci- maximum height of structures of the
dental and subordinate to a principally underlying zone shall apply. Multi•
permitted use are also permitted. family transition area requirements
4. Exceptions. In residential PUD's of ten shall apply to any multifamily devel-
(10) acres or more, commercial uses opments (as provided in section
may be permitted. Commercial uses 15.08.215)except where specifically ex-
shall be limited to those uses permitted emoted by administrative design re-
in the neighborhood convenience dis- view(as provided in section 15.09.045).
trict. The hearing examiner :nay authorize
C. Development standards. The following de- additional height in CC, GC, DC, CM,
velopment standards are minimum require- Ml, M2 and M3 zones where crocosed
ments for a planned unit development: development in the PUD is compatible
with the scale and character of adja-
1. Minimum lot size exclusion. The min- cent existing developments.
imum lot sue requirements of the dis- 5. Open space.
tricts outlined in this title shall not
apply to PUD's. a The standard set forth in this sub
2. Minimum site acreage. Minimum site section shall apply to PUD residen-
acreage for a PUD is established ac• tial developments only. Each PUD
carding to the zoning district in which shall provide a minimum of thirty-
the PUD is located, as follows: five (35) percent of the total site
area for common open space. In
Minimum mixed use PUD's containing resi-
Zones Site Acreage dential uses, thirty-five (35) per-
Multifamily (MR-D, None cent of the area used for residen-
MR-G, MR-M, MR-M tial use shall be reserved as open
space.
Commercial, office and None b. For the purpose of this section,
manufacturing zones open space shall be defined as land
3. Minimum perimeter building setback. which is not used for buildings,
The minimum perimeter building set- dedicated public rights-of-way,
back of the underlying zone shall apply. traffic circulation and roads,
Multifamily transition area require- parking areas, or any kind of
meats shall apply to any multifamily stomp. 0 n includes but
developments (as provided in sectionspate
is not limited to privately awned
15.08215),e=ept where specifically ex-
empted by administrative design re- woodlands, open fields, streams.
view(as provided in section 15.09.045). wetlands, severe hazard areas,
The hearing examiner may reduce sidewalks, walkways, landscaped
building separation requirements to areas, gardens, courtyards or
the minimum required by the building lawns. Common open space may
and fire departments according with provide for either active or passive
the criteria set forth in subsection F.1. recreation.
1167
§ 15.04.080 PMNT CITY CODE
c. Open space within a PUD shall be by the applicant and approved by
available for common use by the the planning director. Vehicular
residents, tenants or the general parking areas may be provided by
public, depending on the type of onstreet parking or offstreet
project. parking lots. The desig
n of such
6. Streets. If streets within the develop. parking areas shall be in accor-
ment are required to be dedicated to dance with the standards outlined
the city for public use,such streets shall in chapter 15.05.
be designed in accordance with the c. One-way streets. One-way loop
standards outlined in the city subdivi. streets shall be no more than one
sion code and other appropriate city thousand five hundred (1,500) feet
standards. If streets within the devel- long.
opment are to remain in private own- d. Onstreet parking. Onatreet parking
ership and remain as private streets, shall be permitted. Privately
the following standards shall apply: owned and maintained ''no
a. Minimum private street pavement parking"and'fire lane"signs may
widths for parallel parking in res- be required as determined by the
idential planned unit developments. city traffic engineer and city fire
Minimum private street pavement department chief
widths for parallel parking in res. Pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian walk.
idential planned unit develop• ways shall be constructed of material
ments are as follows: deemed to be an all-weather surface by
No Parking Parking the public works director and planning
Parking One Side Both Sides director.
lheu (feet) (feet) 8. Landscaping.
One-way 20 29 38 70Tet1 a. Minimum perimeter landscaping
Two-way 22 31 40 of the underlying zone shall apply.
atnets Additional landscaping shall be re-
quired as provided in chapter 15.07
The minimum widths set out in and section 15.08.215.
this subsection may be modified b. All PUD developments shall en.
upon review and approval by the sure that parking areas are inte-
city fire chief and the city traffic grated with the landscaping
engineer Providing they are suffi. system and provide screening of ve-
cient to maintain emergency ac- hicles from view from public
cess and traffic safely. A mainte-s private streets.Parking areas shall be con.nonce agreement C veniently located to buildings and
streets within a PUD shall be re- streets while providing for lead-
cond tithe hearing examiner as scaPing adjacent to buildings and
a condition of PUD approval Pedestrian access.
b. Vehicis par, , Adequate c Solid waste collection areas and
vehicular Parking areas shall be waste reduction or recycling collet.
Provided. The required number of tioa areas shall be conveniently
Parking spaces may vary from the and safely located for onsite use
requirements of chapter 15.05 and and collection,and attractively site
shall be approved by the hearing screened.
need finer assessment upon a parking 9. Sign. The sign regulations of chapter
I�.06 shall apply.
.J
1168
ZONING 5 15.04.080
10. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to including but not limited to jogging or
be subdivided for sale or lease, the pro- walking trails, pools, children's play
cedures of the city subdivision code, as areas, etc. Only that percentage of
amended,shall apply.Specific develop- space contained within accessory struc-
ment standards such as lot size, street tures that is directly used for active
design, etc., shall be provided as out- recreation purposes can be included in
Lined in subsection 15.04.080 E. the ten-percent active recreation re-
11. Green River Corridor.Any development quirement.
located within the Green River Cor• 3. Stormwater drainage. A two-percent
ridor special interest district shall ad- density bonus may be authorized if
here to the Green River Corridor spe- stormwater drainage control is accom-
cial interest district regulations. plished using natural onsite drainage
12. View regulations. View regulations as features.Natural drainage feature may
specified in section 15.08.060 shall include streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
apply to all PUD's. 4. Native uegetation. A four-percent den-
13. Shoreline master program. Any devel- sity bonus may be authorized if at least
opment located within two hundred fifteen (15) percent of the native vege-
(200) feet of the Green River shall ad- tation on the site is left undisturbed in
here to the city shoreline master pro-
large open areas.
gram regulations. 5. Parking lot size. A two-percent density
D. Density bonus standards.The density of res- bonus may be authorized if offstreet
idential development for PUD's shall be parking is grouped in areas of sixteen
based on the gross density of the under- (16) stalls or less. Parking areas must
lying zoning district. The hearing exam- be separated from other parking areas
iner may recommend a dwelling unit den- or buildings by significant landscaping
sity not more than twenty (20) percent in excess of type V standards as pro-
greater than that permitted by the under- vided in section 15.07.050.At least fifty
lying zone upon findings and conclusions (50)percent of these parking areas must
that the amenities or design features which be designed as outlined in this subsec-
promote the purposes of this subsection, as tion to receive the density bonus.
follows, are provided: 6. Mixed housing types. A two-percent
I. Open space. A four-percent density density bonus may be authorized if a
bonus may be authorized if at least ten development features a mix of residen-
(10)percent of the open space is in con- tial housing types. Single-family resi-
centrated areas for passive use. Open dences, attached single units, condo-
space shall include significant natural miniums, apartments and townhomes
features of the site, including but not are examples of housing types.The mix
limited to fields, woodlands, water- need not include some of every type.
courses, and permanent and seasonal 7. Project planning and management A
wetlands.Ezcluded from the open space two-percent density bonus may be
definition are the areas within the granted if a design/development team
building footprints, land used for is used. Such a team would include a
parking:vehicular circulation or rights- mixture of architects,engineers,land-
of-way,and areas used for any land of ape architects and designers. A de-
storage. sign/development team is likely to pro-
2. Active recreation areas. A four-percent duce a professional development
density bonus may be authorized if at concept that would be consistent with
least ten(10) percent of the site is uti- the purpose of the zoning regulations.
lized for active recreational purposes,
1169
5.04.080 KENT CITY CODE
These standards are thresholds, and par- at least one (1) publication in the
tial credit is not given for partial attain- local newspaper at least ten (10)
ment. The site plan must at least meet the days prior to the public hearing.
threshold level of each bonus standard in Written notice shall be mailed first
order for density bonuses to be given for class to all property owners within
that standard. a radius of not less than two hun-
dred (200) feet of the exterior
E. Application process. The application pro- boundaries of the property subject
cess includes the following steps: informal to the application. Any alleged
review process, compliance with the state failure of any property owner to
Environmental Policy Act, community in- actually receive the notice of
formation meeting, development plan re- hearing shall not invalidate the
view,and public hearing before the hearing proceedings.
examiner. b. Nonresidential PUD's not located
1. Informal review process. An applicant within two hundred (200) feet of a
shall meet informally with the plan- residential zone shall not require
ning department at the earliest pos- a community information meeting.
sible date to discuss the proposed PUD. 5. Public notice and hearing examiner
The purpose of this meeting is to de- public hearing. The hearing examiner
velop a project that will meet the needs shall hold at least one(1)public hearing
of the applicant and the objectives of on the proposed PUD and shall give
the city as defined in this title. notice thereof in at least one (1) publi-
2. SEPA compliance. Compliance with the cation in the local newspaper at Ieast
state Environmental Policy Act and ten(10)days prior to the public hearing.
regulations and city SEPA require- Written notice shall be mailed first
ments shall be completed prior to de- class to all property owners within a
velopment plan review. radius of not less than two hundred
3. Development plan review. After in- (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of
formal review and completion of the the property subject to the application.
SEPA process,a proposal shall next be Any alleged failure of any property
reviewed by city staff through the de- owner to actually receive the notice of
velopment plan review process. Com•
hearing shall not invalidate the pro
ments received by the project devel-
ceedings.
oper under the development review
6. Consolidation of land use permit pro-
process shall be used to formalize the cesses. The PUD approval process
proposed development prior to the de- may
velopment being presented at a public be used to consolidate other land use
hearing before the hearing examiner. permit processes which are required by
4. Community infoormadon meeting. other sections of this title The public
hearing required for the PUD may
a. A community information meeting serve as the public hearing for the con-
shall be required for any proposed ditional use permit,subdivision,shore-
PUD located in a residential zone line substantial development and re-
or within two hundred(200)feet of zoning if such land use permits are a
a residential zone.At this meeting part of the overall PUD application.
the applicant shall present the de- When another land use permit is en-
velopment proposed to interested calved which requires city council ap-
residents. Issues raised at the provai,the PUD shall not be deemed to
meeting may be used to refine the be approved until the city council has
PUD plan.Notice shall be given in approved the related land use permit
1170 J
ZONING 4 15.04.080
If a public hearing is required for any b. Unusual environmental features of
of the categories of actions listed in this the site shall be preserved, main-
subsection,the hearing examiner shall tained and incorporated into the
employ the public hearing notice re- design to benefit the development
quirements for all actions considered and the community.
which ensure the maximum notice to c. The proposed PUD project shall
the public. provide areas of openness by using
7. Hearing examiner decision. The techniques such as clustering,sep.
hearing examiner shall issue a written aration of building groups,and use
decision within ten (10) working days of well-designed open space and
from the date of the hearing Parties of landscaping.
record will be notified in writing of the d. The proposed PUD project shall
decision. The decision is final unless promote variety and innovation in
notice of appeal is filed with the city site and building design.Buildings
clerk within fourteen (14) days of re- in groups shall be related by
ceipt by the developer of the decision. common materials and roof styles,
8. Effective date. In approving a PUD, the but contrast shall be provided
hearing examiner shall specify that the throughout the site by the use of
approved PUD shall not take effect un- varied materials, architectural de-
less or until the developer files a com- tailing,building scale and orienta-
pleted development permit application tion.
within the time periods required by this e. Building design shall be based on
title as set forth in subsection G.of this a unified design concept, particu-
section. No official map or zoning text larly when construction will be in
designations shall be amended to re- phases.
flect the approved PUD designation ,
until such time as the PUD becomes Nonresidential planned unit develop-
effective. ment criteria.
F. Review criteria for planned unit develop- a. The proposed project shall have a
meets. Upon receipt of a domplete applica- beneficial effect which would not
tion for a residential PUD, the planning normally be achieved by tradi-
department shall review the a tional lot-by-lot development and
application hen and not be detrimental to present or
make its recommendation to the hearing
examiner. The hearingexaminer potential surrounding land uses as
y shall d i- defined by the comprehensive plan-
tion
whether to grant, deny or condi- b. Unusual environmental features of
revs an application based upon the following the site shall be preserved, main-
tained and incor
porated into the
1. Residential planned unit development design to benefit the development
criteria and the community.
a. The proposed PUD c. The Prop Proj�shall provide
Project shall areas ofopeanesaby the clustering i
have a.beneficial affect upon the ofbuildinga,andby the use of well-
community and users of the devel- designed-landscaping-and open
opment which would not normally specm Landsca
be achieved traditional lot lot psppearancngshaU promote
�' b3'- a coordinated appearance and
development and shall not be det- break up continuous expanses of
rimeatal to existing or potential building and pavement.
surrounding land uses as defined d. The proposed project shall promote
by the comprehensive plan. variety and innovation in site and
1171
15.04.080 FiENT CITY CODE
building design.It shall encourage c. No change in the general location
the incorporation of special design or number of access points is pro.
features such as visitor entrances, posed;
plazas, outdoor employee lunch d. No reduction in the amount of open
and recreation areas,architectural space is proposed;
focal points and accent lighting. e. No reduction in the amount of
e. Building design shall be based on parking is proposed;
a unified design concept, particu- f. No increase in the total square
larly when construction will be in footage of structures to be devel-
phases. oped is proposed; and
g. No increase in general height of
G. Time limits. structures is proposed.
1. Application for deuelopmentpermit. The Examples of minor modifications in-
applicant shall apply for a development clude but are not limited to lot line ad-
permit no later than one (1) year fol. justments, minor relocations of build-
lowing final approval of the PUD. The ings or landscaped areas, minor
application for development permit changes in phasing and timing, and
shall contain all conditions of the PUD minor changes in elevations of build-
approval. ings.
2. Extensions.An extension of time for de- I Major modifications. Major adjust.
velopment permit application may be meets are those which, as determined
requested in writing by the applicant. by the planning director, substantially
Such an extension may be granted by change the basic design, density, open
the planning director for a period not space or other similar requirements or
to exceed one(1)year.If a development provisions.Major adjustments to the de.
permit is not issued within two (2) velopment plans shall be reviewed by
years, the PUD approval shall become the hearing examiner.The hearing ex.
null and void and the PUD shall not aminer may review such adjustments
take effect. at a regular public hearing. If a public
H. Modifications of plan. Requests for modifi- hearing is held, the process outlined in
cations of final approved plans shall be subsection 15.04.080 F.shall apply.The
made in writing and shall be submitted to hearing examiner shall issue a written
the planning department in the manner and decision to approve,deny or modify the
form prescribed the request. Such a decision shall be final.
p p�'g for' The decision may be appealed to the
The criteria for approval of a request fora city council by the filing of written no-
covering original approval of the permit
major modification shall be those criteria fourteen (I4) days of the date lice of appeal with the city clerk wiof thin
which is the subject of the proposed modi• developer's receipt of the hearing ex.fication. aminer's decision-
1. Minornwdifcations.Modifications are (Ord. No. 2802, § 2, 9-"8; Ord. No. 3007, § 2,
deemed minor if all the following cri- 10-15.911
teria are satisfied: ,
a. No new land use is proposed; Sec. 15-04.090. Neighborhood convenience
b. No increase in dens ty, number of commercial district, NCC.
dwelling units or lots is proposed; It is the purpose of the NCC district to provide
small nodal area for retail and personal service
activities convenient to residential area and to
1172 ��
CITY OF �
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
July 28, 1997
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell
at 7:00 p.m. on July '8, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLAlNiNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Steve Dowell, Chair
Brad Bell, Vice Chair
Tom Brotherton
Jerry Daman
Ron Harmon
Sharon Woodford
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
David Malik
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Teresa Beener,Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to approve the
June 23, 1997 minutes. Board member Tom Brotherton explained that the motion made to open the
public hearing(on page 7) was MOVED by Ron Harmon. The motion was amended to reflect the
change. The motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None. j
COMMUNICATIONS
None_
AZCA-97 2 CM-!ZONING LISMO REGULATIONS
NZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEMS
#ZCA-97-S GENERAL CONDrMNAL USES
'_20 Jtp A VF.. SO 'KFNT wASHINGTnN 08011_c8q< '7-r[F�Nn NF 'N.u<o_=znn Gav x gao_ iv
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 1997
Page
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director Jim Hams explained that there will be a Special Planning Committee meeting to
consider the Downtown Strategic Action Plan on Wednesday, August 6, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Citv Council Chamber East. Mr. Harris explained that this is a continuation of the July 15, 1997
Planning Committee meeting.
#ZCA 97 2 - CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS - (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that this item was previously heard by the Land Use
and Planning Board and a recommendation was sent to the City Council. Mr. Satterstrom explained
that this item has been remanded back to the Board from the City Council at the applicant's request
for reconsideration.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the request for a regulatory review was received
from Mr. Glen Sparrow. Mr. Sparrow has requested to expand the permitted uses in the CM-1 zone
to include warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the original recommendation by the Land Use and Planning Board
specifically did not permit trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses. The applicant has
requested that these uses be allowed as a conditional use.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that CM-1 zoning is located in only one area within the City of Kent along
Central Avenue and is less than one percent(i%) of the City's total land mass. The CM-1 zoning
district is adjacent to Manufacturing zones which allow trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer
uses. Staff recommends amending the CM-1 district regulations and adding the following
principally permitted uses:
"Warehousing and distribution facilities and storage of goods and products; provided
however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall be permitted subject to
a request for and approval as a conditional use. "
Mr. Satterstrom explained that a conditional use permit requires a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner. He explained that the Hearing Examiner has the ability to set mitigating conditions on
a case by case basis.
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned who the perspective tenant was- Mr. Satterstrom explained that i
_1
Yellow Freight made the original inquiry on the site;however, it could be another company who -
actually occupies the property in question.
Chair Steve Dowell questioned what other areas this would effect. Mr. Sattersti m explained that
CM-1 zoning is located in only one area. (Mr. Satterstrom identified the area on the map).
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public
hearing. Motion carried.
#ZCA-97-1 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
#ZCA-97.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
97CA-97-5 GENERAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28. 1997
Page 3
John Paul Turner, 3 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100, Bellevue (98005). Mr. John Paul Turner
is an attorney with Rogers & Deutch and is representing the applicant. Mr. Glen Sparrow.
Mr. Turner presented the Board with some pictures that the applicant took of the area. He explained
that 218th has undergone a substantial LID project and presented pictures illustrating the
improvements.
Mr. Turner commented that the property across the street in the industrial zone has extensive
driveways as does the property owned by Mr. Sparrow. He remarked that the Sparrow property was
previously permitted as a trucking terminal. Mr. Turner stated that he concurs with staff s
recommendation.
Board member Harmon MOVED and Vice Chair Bell SECONDED a motion to close the public
hearing. !✓lotion carried.
Mr. Harmon asked for staff to reiterate the original recommendation that was made by the Land Use
and Planning Board. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the original recommendation was as follows:
"Warehousing and distribution facilities and storage of goods and products, provided
however, that trucking terminals and raiUtruck transfer uses shall not be permitted. "
Chair Steve Dowell questioned whether the property could handle a larger building. Mr. Satterstrom
explained that it could be expanded somewhat but the site is restricted.
Mr. Harmon questioned the size of the existing building. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he is
uncertain. Harmon questioned whether the CM-1 zone was established to buffer the heavy
manufacturing from the multifamily residential. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the purpose of the
CM-1 zone is to provide an area for both heavy commercial and industrial uses of land.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the only potential problem staff foresees with the requested
amendment is where the CM-1 zone abutts high density multifamily. Mr. Satterstrom commented
that the CM-1 zone is a relatively small area of land and most of it is already developed. He stated
that the LID improvements on 218th make this area more capable of handling a trucking type use.
W. Satterstrom explained that three circumstances help mitigate the potential conflict between a
trucking use and the multifamily residential. The first is the transition requirements that are written
into the zoning code These regulations apply when you have industrial uses next to multifamily
residential. The second is the grade difference. The multifamily area is located on the hill and the
industrial land is in the valley. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the difference in elevation and grade
helps to separate the two uses. The third is the requirement of a public hearing through the
conditional use process. Surrounding property owners would have an opportunity to go before the
Hearing Examiner and voice any concerns they may have with a trucking terminal next door. The
Hearing Examiner is able to set mitigating conditions when necessary.
#ZCA-97-1 CM-1 ZOMNG DJ=CTREGULA770NS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN7S
NZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28. 1997
Page 4
Mr. Harmon commented that a trucking terminal could be a twenty-four hour seven day a week
operation. Mr. Bell stated that he is comfortable with the Conditional Use process where the
Hearing Examiner can mitigate individual site concerns on a case by case basis.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Harmon SECONDED a motion to recommend that the Cir,
Council adopt the staff recommendation to amend Section 15.04.120(A) and add the following
principally permitted uses:
"Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products: provided.
however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall be permitted subject to
a request for and approval as a conditional use. "
Motion carried.
#ZCA 97 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - (K. O'Neill)
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the City received a request for a regulatory review of
the Planned Unit Development(PUD) regulations from Polygon Northwest. Mr. O'Neill explained
that the Kent Zoning Code currently provides for a PUD in Section 15.04.080. He explained that
the intent of a PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design and
protect and enhance natural and community features. Mr. O'Neill explained that the process is
provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential.
commercial and industrial uses.
Mr. O'Neill explained that PUD provisions in the zoning code go back to the original 1973 zoning
code. Typically the purpose of a PUD is to allow for flexibility for site design in terms of layout.
lot sizes, and uses, but it requires a formal review and approval process which includes a public
hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner.
The applicants have requested three specific changes to the PUD regulations which are outlined on
page 2 of the July 28, 1997 staff report and listed below:
1. Allow PUDs in single-family zoning districts, if the site is 100 acres or more.
2. Allow for attached dwelling units.
3. Allow a phased, or "toaster plan" process.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the Comprehensive Fan goals and: policies in both the Land Use
Element and the Housing Element encourages residential buildout throughout the City in order
to meet the housing targets that are provided for in the Growth Management Act, well at the same
time, protecting the environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands, steep slopes, and creek and
stream corridors. Mr. O'Neill explained that a PUD is a very good mechanism for accomplishing
that. Typically, a PUD is able to cluster the development on the most developable portions of the
4ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DIS77UCT REGULATIONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
..�,-. , �CCJVCDAt rnA1mmnAur.r=
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
Julv '_8, 1997
Pate 5
lot and the environmentally sensitive areas are left alone. In fact, the current PUD regulations
require that 35% of the site be dedicated for common open space.
Mr. O'Neill explained that there were several issues discussed at the July 14, 1997 Workshop
with regard to different housing types. Mr. O'Neill explained some of the options available.
• Flexibility with regard to the different types of housing types and allow it to be reviewed
as part of the Hearing Examiner process.
Allow the attachment of units but not allow any density bonus
Capping any multifamily buildings at two stories
Allowing only side by side units as opposed to vertically stacked units
Restricting the number of units per building in a PUD
Allowing only a certain percentage of overall units to be multifamily
With regard to the master plan process, Mr. O'Neill explained that this process was utilized
during the development of the Lakes project which was a large contract rezone. The Lakes
project, that was approved back in the 1970's, consisted of a an overall toaster plan for a site over
200 acres. The master plan prescribed approved densities within the site and each phase was
reviewed and approved administratively.
The advantage of establishing a master plan approval process in the PUD Ordinance is that it
could be used for a residential PUD or any type of a large development project that was either
going to built out in phases or was going to combine uses. Mr. O'Neill commented that if the
Borden site was ever redeveloped a master plan process could be used.
Mr. O'Neill commented that the City Attorney is concerned that the Hearing Examiner is
currently authorized to approve an application for a PUD. Mr. O'Neill explained that if a use is
not typically allowed in the underlying zoning district (i.e. attached dwelling units in a residential
zone) it becomes more of a legislative action similar to a rezone. Based on the Law Department's
recommendation, if a use is different than what is allowed in the underlying zone, the Hearing
Examiner should review the application, make a recommendation to the Council,and the Council
should have the final approval. Mr. O'Neill explained that this would only be applicable when
the underlying uses differ from the current use. He explained that this would also apply when a M
PUD of ten acres or more includes a commercial use- This.is currently allowed within the existing
regulations and would fall under the same approval guidelines.
Mr. O'Neill explained the proposed changes to the zoning code that are outlined in the
July 28, 1997 staff report.
Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned how many parcels of land this provision would effect Mr. O'Neill
explained that currently there are very few vacant residentially zoned parcels of land that are 100
acres or more. The Kent Highlands site is one. He explained that it would be possible for property
owners to assemble enough land together for a 100 acres PUD.
MZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULdTTONS
MZCA-97.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
MZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 1997
Page 6
Mr. O'Neill commented that the Meridian Valley Country Club is a couple of hundred acres and was
originally approved as a PUD. He explained that this provision would provide a process in the
zoning code to allow further buildout if they decided to do so later.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned the ten year time limit. Mr. O'Neill explained that the
current PUD Ordinance requires that a development permit be brought in within one year of approval
of a PUD. He explained that the purpose for ten years was allowing enough time for a master plan
to be built out in several phases.
Mr. Harmon questioned if a shorter time frame would be appropriate. He suggested a seven year
limit with an option to extend. Mr. O'Neill explained that it would depend on the scope of a specific
project whether seven years would be sufficient.
Board member Sharon Woodford questioned why the limitations were discussed but were not a part
of the staff recommendation. Mr. O'Neill explained that the intent was to offer some suggestions
of limitations based an the concerns that were voiced at the July 14, 1997 workshop. He explained
that not allowing a density bonus is a restriction that is currently allowed.
Ms. Woodford commented that she is concerned with the aesthetics and would like to see some type
of development that would blend in with the single family zone. She commented that side by side
units or townhome designs can be made to look more pleasing to single family residents than if a
three story apartment looking structure was put in. She would like to see the design fit into the
surrounding area. She remarked that the applicant has the same concerns,but this may not mean that
a future developer would.
Vice Chair Brad Bell remarked that the City of Kent, both the Planning Department and the City
Council,has had a history of opposing multifamily development. Mr. Bell commented that in the
early 90's the City practically halted all new multifamily development. He explained that the City
has consistently annexed property with that had multifamily zoning designations in the county and
downzoned the properties to single family designations. Mr. Bell questioned the staff motivation
for completely turning around the City's position.
Mr. O'Neill explained thatthis is not a shift in their position- Mr. O'Neill explained that by allowing
the option to cluster development in the most developable portionr of the site, it allows the site an
opportunity to built out at the densities allowed in the Comprehensive Plan_ He explained that there
is a big difference between allowing for flexibility in developing a:restricted site and a rezone to
MRG or MRM that would allow 16 to 20 units per acre--
Mr. Bell explained that he is not speaking toward rezone but to the actual down zoning of property.
Mr. Bell asked whether he saw anything ordinarily unfair about taking property owners on the
easthilI and downzoning them and now saying okay we can have multifamily on the westhi.1 on a
hundred acres.
#ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICTREGULAT7ONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
#ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 23. 1997
Page 7
Mr. Bell explained that with a 100 acre site that has only 50 acres that are developable the PUD
would double the amount of housing units that can be placed on the site. Mr. O'Neill commented
that it potentially doubles the amount of housing units that can be placed on the developable portion
of the site.but the entire site is still regulated by the underlying zoning. Mr. Bell questioned whether
that was doubling the intensity of the site. Mr. O'Neill stated that the site is regulated for a certain
number of units per acre and that provision would still apply.
Board member Sharon Woodford commented that the applicant has previously spoken to the Kent
School District and discussed allocating some land to use for a school. She questioned whether the
City has any authority to require that an application with a site of 100 acres or more have to allocate
a percentage of land for schools or at least facilitate a discussion with the school district.
Mr. O'Neill explained that the Board has the choice to make that recommendation. He explained
that any large project would go through an environmental review. He commented that mitigating
conditions and factors would be analyzed as part of that.
Ms. Woodford commented that one hundred acres or more has a potential for a lot of families. A
project of that size could easily overpopulate the schools instantly.
Planning Director Jim Harris questioned whether Ms. Woodford was proposing that the regulations
for a PUD with one hundred acres or more have a requirement that a school be placed on the site or
that consideration be given for a school site. Mr. Harris stated that those are two vastly different
concepts. Requiring a development to provide a ten acre elementary school site or a fifteen acre
junior high site may not fit into the school district's overall plan. The school district may want to
locate down the road.
Ms. Woodford questioned what the City had authority to require. She would like to see some
requirement that an applicant must discuss the school district's needs. Mr. Hams commented that
schools are allowed in any zone through a conditional use permit.
Board member Ron Harmon commented that he has some of the same concerns as Ms. Woodford.
He would like to see some consideration given to schools on a hundred acre site. The school district
needs should be considered by the developer of a hundred acre site.
Mr.Harris pointed out that city and school district operations are two separate governmental entities.
To expect the two to work together simply by writing something,into the City of Kent Zoning Code
may be unrealistic. Mr.Harris commented that the Board has some good ideas. The City could
require the developer to work with the school district
Ms. Woodford asked what the City has the authority to do. Mr. Harris explained that the City has
the ability to suggest an idea,but the school district has their own ideas. Mr.Hams commented that
talking with each other is very important.
#ZCA-97-2 CM-!ZONING DIMWCT REGULATIONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UMT DEVELOPMEN7N
#ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28. 1997
Page 8
Board member Tom Brotherton commented that we are all acutely aware of the City Council's
concerns on multifamily dwelling units. He questioned whether the City would have any difficulty
meeting housing targets if the PUD is not approved.
Mr. O'Neill explained that on the particular site in question this is probably the only way that the
density could be accommodated. He commented that is not necessarily the case on the large scale
because the 100 acre requirement limits the use.
Chair Steve Dowell stated that the developers pay the school districts a fee for each dwelling built.
Mr. O'Neill commented that school impact fees are required for each new dwelling unit constructed.
He explained that the fee is different for single family versus multifamily. Mr. O'Neill stated that
single family residences are charged $3,500 per home and multifamily units are charged
approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit.
Chair Dowell questioned the allowance of commercial uses. Mr. O'Neill explained that the current
PUD Ordinance allows commercial uses on any residential PUD of ten acres or more, hence, this
would apply to a hundred acre or more site. He explained that the current Ordinance would only
allow those uses that are currently allowed in the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC)
zoning district.
Chair Dowell questioned what would be some allowed uses. Mr. O'Neill explained that the
principally permitted uses would be any local retail business for sale of new merchandise, as
opposed to a resale or thrift store,personal services such as barber and beauty shops, and any other
retail or personal services use as determined by the Planning Director to be of the same general
character of the local retail businesses and services as well as municipal buildings.
Dowell asked what conditional uses would be allowed. Mr. O'Neill explained that only conditional
uses allowed would be the general conditional uses that are listed in Section 15.08. General
conditional uses would include schools,retirement homes, and those uses that are allowed in every
zoning district as a general conditional use.
Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public
hearing. Motion carried.
Eric Wells,Polygon Northwest,4030 Lake Washington Boulevard,#201,Kirkland,WA 98033.
Mr. Eric Wells presented the Board with a letter(Exhibit 92). W. Wells explained that Polygon
would like an opportunity to build a community. He explained that there are several types of r
communities, multifamily, single family and combinations of the two. Polygon proposes an
opportunity to come in on a large piece of property in the City of Kent and have the flexibility to
provide housing for a variety of different lifestyles, for a variety of different people that can afford
homes at different levels.
NZCA-97.2 CM-!ZONING DISTRICT REGULA770NS
HZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS
a7rA-o7-5 GF-NFRAL CONDMONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 1997
Page 9
Mr. Wells stated that if a hundred acre site is developed with only single family housing with the
constraints you have on development today, road improvements, school impact fees, and the time
required to develop a complicated site with steep slopes and the wetland issues, a lot of people are
priced out of the market. He commented that he sees that today, as the market goes up. He
explained that a variety of different housing needs can be met in a single project with a master
planned community or a large PUD.
Mr. Wells commented that Polygon has had open communication with the school district. He stated
that they do understand the school's needs and stated that school impact fees are set up to address
some of the school district's needs. Mr. Wells commented that when designing a large project you
need to take schools into consideration.
Board member Tom Brotherton commented that some of the concerns for multifamily projects stem
from renters not taking as much pride and ownership in a rental unit. He commented that people
who make an investment and plan to stay for an extended period of time tend to make a commitment
to the community and the area. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Polygon would object to a
requirement that the multifamily housing be built for single ownership or would apartments need
to be included in this development to be saleable.
Mr. Wells explained that Polygon builds homes for sale product. Whether they build side by side
townhomes, single family or detached condominium, or even stacked condominium,they are all for
sale product and that is there intent. He doesn't foresee a difficulty committing to single ownership
dwellings.
Mr. Brotherton commented that one concern is not to degrade the quality of service in the
neighborhood when you bring in a PUD or a large development. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether
Polygon would agree to maintain current service levels. Mr. Wells explained that this may be-
difficult to address. He explained that issues involving parks, traffic, roads, school impact fees,
water, and sewer are brought out during the environmental review and mitigating conditions are set.
Mr. Brotherton discussed an issue if a phased development when a high percentage of the
multifamily is developed first. Mr. Brotherton commented that he would like to see a proportionate
amount of single family development along with the multifamily development in a phased
development Mn Brotherton questioned if this would be a problem.
Mr. Wells explained that from a developer stand point that is their goal. They try to develop a
variety of units simultaneously to offer something to sell for everybody. At the Lakes,Mr.Wells
explained that they have actually opened four separate communities at one time so they could offer
a variety and choice- He commented that restricting a development to a specific proportion could
be difficult to write into the regulations,however,they try to offer a variety. Otherwise,they could
commit business suicide. He explained that the market demand drives their business direction.
#ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISMICTREGULATIONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEYELOPMEN7S
#ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28. 1997
Page 10
Chair Steve Dowell commented that a lot of research has gone into the downtown plan and
dispersing commercial uses sporadically in outlining areas does not concentrate the focus.
Mr. Dowell questioned what type of retail uses if any Polygon was considering. Mr. Wells
commented that it's not Polygon's intent to develop retail or light commercial into the PUD. He
explained that the allowance of some commercial uses is presently allowed in the code and.
therefore. was referenced by staff.
Chair Dowell questioned what type of multifamily rental units Polygon was considering. Mr. Wells
explained that it is not Polygon's intent to build any for rent product. He explained that they intend
to build for sale product. Mr. Wells suggested setting a height restriction of two stories above grade.
ZP
Mr. Dowell questioned what types of units Polygon was considering for the PUD site. Mr. Wells
commented that they are considering a detached condominium, side by side two story townhome,
single level side by side townhome, carriage style two story six-plex with integral garage.
Board member Sharon Woodford questioned whether the Lakes had on-site day care facilities.
Mr. Wells explained that there is a day care that has been there for years. He explained that it is
located in the older Lakes near the apartments. Ms. Woodford questioned whether Polygon had
considered a day care facility for the PUD development. Mr. Wells explained that the day care
facility at the Lakes community seems to be doing well;however,the Lakes is a much larger project
with 240 acres and approximately 2400 units.
Board member Ron Harmon questioned the total acreage of the land under consideration. Mr. Wells
explained that the site is 202 acres. Mr. Harmon commented that 202 acres is not much different
from the 240 acres at the Lakes. Mr. Wells explained that the Lakes was zoned for a much higher
density. The land under consideration for the PUD development is zoned three units per acre.
Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that at three units per acre and_202 acres that would allow for over
600 units not the three hundred as previously referenced. Mr. Wells explained that any reference
made to 300 units was a standardization of three units per acre based on a flat one hundred acre site
not the project specific site. Mr. Wells apologized for any confusion.
Gary Young, Polygon Northwest, 4030 Lake Washington Boulevard #201, Kirkland, WA
98033. Mr. Gary Young explained that he is the principle of Polygon Northwest. Polygon is a '
family based business that started in 1974. He explained that he has personally worked in the City
of Kent since 1980. Polygon has invested seventeen years on a number of different developments.
He explained that land that is remaining for development is land that typically has much more
environmental sensitivity to it- The more difficult properties are generally the last to be developed_
Mr. Young explained that they are not asking for a something specific to benefit their company.
They are asking for an opportunity to work on a specific property. He commented that they do feel
that there are other opportunities in the City that this change could benefit.
#ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED uNrrDEVELOPMENTS
B7!'J_07_S GFNIiRAL CONDITIONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board :Minutes
July 28, 1997
Page 11
He explained that this is not opening the door or providing a single unique opportunity. This is
providing an opportunity to plan and to take into consideration all of the needs of the City.
Mr. Young explained that as a builder and having worked with the City in the past they have a keen
sensitivity of the issues of Kent. They understand the needs for schools facilities and not to have
Kent labelled an "apartment" community.
Mr. Young explained that it is Polygon's intent to provide for a range of housing to allow unique
ownership opportunities. He explained that this change could help Kent meet its target housing
goals.
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing.
Board member Ron Harmon commented that he supports the no density bonus and the master plan
with phased development. He is concerned with a ten year time limit and would feel more
comfortable with seven years. He would like the uses expanded to allow for in-home offices. He
would like to see no more than two side by side units attached, a height limit of two stories above
grade, and some provision for a cohesive agreement or conversations pursued with the school
district. Mr. Harmon stated that he would like to see the proportion of 75% single family and 25 %
multifamily. He also supports limited commercial uses such as a day care center, corner grocery,
or dry cleaners.
Chair Dowell questioned if day care centers were regulated. Planning Director Jim Harris explained
that day care centers are regulated by the state and are allowed in single family zones.
Mr. Brotherton commented that he would like the multifamily units limited to individual ownership.
He remarked that 75/25 seems like a tough proportion. However, he would like to see a mix with
greater than 50% single family. He suggested a letter of instruction to the Hearing Examiner to
ensure that service quality for utilities and roads would not be degraded and if the services had been
degraded by one phase that it must be corrected before the next phase is built. Mr. Brotherton would
like to see a limit on the number of side by side units. He felt two would be too limiting and would
rather limit at four or five.
Ms. Sharon Woodford supports the restriction of individual ownership and a height limit of two
stories. Ms. Woodford remarked that limiting side by side units to two is too restrictive.
Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that he supports the PUD concept and is pleased with Polygon's-
interest- However, Mr. Bell could not support multifamily development in a single family zone
under any circumstance.
Board member Jerry Daman remarked that he is impressed with the whole process. He is
comfortable with what has been presented and with staff's recommendation. He supports the height
restriction of two stories and would like a provision for home occupations.
NZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICTREGULA77ONS
NZCA-97-3 PLANNED uwrDEVELOPMEN7S
NZCA-97-5 GENERAL COND1770NAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28, 1997
Page 12
Mr. Harris explained that home occupations are allowed outright if they meet certain criteria.
Mr. Harmon suggested restricting parking to no on-street parking and Chair Dowell recommended
no retail, no commercial, and no apartment or rental units.
Mr. Young commented that if a restriction was made to require 75% single family and 251/10
multifamily their project would be not be economically viable. He commented that 25% single
family and 75% multifamily would be feasible. Mr. Young also commented that limiting six units
per building is acceptable.
Ms. Woodford asked if staff had some feedback based on the Board's discussion. \
Mr. O'Neill explained that the ownership issue would require a legal interpretation but he felt that
the City would probably not be able to require ownership of individual units. He suggested that this
be left as a part of the Board's recommendation but would be dependent upon a legal interpretation
by the City Attorney.
Mr. O'Neill commented that a height limit could be added to the recommendation. He suggested
that another option would be to regulate any development in a single family PUD to the single
family height limit which is thirty-five feet(35') in the single family zone. Chair Dowell questioned
how high thirty-five feet would be. Mr. O'Neill explained that this would be two and a half stories
or thirty-five feet.
Mr. O'Neill explained that if the Board would like to consider a proportionate amount of single
family versus multifamily they would need to come up with a recommendation. Mr. Harmon
questioned what Polygon would be able to live with. Mr. Young commented that 25%single family
is the most they could handle.
Mr. Brotherton commented that with the unique features of this specific piece of land it is somewhat
restrictive with how it can be built out. He remarked that another project may not have the same
constraints. Mr. Brotherton suggested leaving a proportion up to the judgement of the Hearing
Examiner.
Mr. Harmon asked for the staff's recommendation- Mr. O'Neill explained that there was no staff
recommendation for a specific proportion in the staffreport. He explainedthat an application would
be reviewed by staff,by surrounding property owners in a community meeting,in a formal public
hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner, and by the:City Council- Given this extensive review
process,plus the SEPA and multifamily design review process,staffdid not feel that it is necessary
to specify a certain percentage.
Mr. Brotherton commented that he agrees with what Mr. O'Neill is saying. Putting a specific
number on a requirement is too limiting. He recommended establishing a goal for the Hearing
#ZCA-97-2 CM-!ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVUOPMEN7S
,,.. ...r..m., rmmnTnvjr I/FFC
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 2S, 1997
Page 1
Examiner to maximize the,number of single family residences consistent with the development
under review.
Mr. Harmon MOVED and Mr. Daman SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the staff
recommendation for#ZCA-97-3 outlined in the July 28 staff report and send the recommendation
to the City Council with the following amendments:
• Height limit of two stories
No on-street parking
• Provide documentation of dialogue with the school district
• Require single ownership (pending City Attorney interpretation)
• Seven year time limit with the opportunity to extend to a maximum of hree years
• Require 75% single family and 25% multifamily ratio
Ms. Woodford is uncomfortable with the 75/25 requirement. She commented that Poivgon would
be unable to develop their project. Ms. Woodford MOVED to amend the motion and leave the
proportion of single family versus multifamily units to the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Harmon SECONDED the motion. Motion carried(Bell opposed). The original motion carried
with Bell opposed.
AZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITION USES - (J. Harris)
Planning Director Jim Harris explained that there are a lot of private schools in Kent. He explained
that in fact,there are two schools,within two blocks of where we are sitting tonight. that didn't go
through any type of review. There is nothing in the regulations that require private schools to go
through a review process.
Mr.Hams commented that private schools are very popular today as an alternative to public schools.
He explained that private schools are not considered in the general conditional use section of the
zoning code. He is recommending an amendment to general conditional uses to give private schools
the same requirements as public schools.
Mr. Harmon questioned whether there was any dialogue with the public schools regarding this
matter. Mr. Harris explained that this isn't competition to public schools.
Board member Sharon:Woodford questioned whether a school could be located next to an adult
bookstore Mr.Harrisexplained that:Kent has established adult use guidelines which do not allow
an adult use within 1,000 feet of a school. He explained that if a school already exists an adult use
can not be within 1,000 feet and if an adult use already exists a school will not locate within 1,000
feet
Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Board member-Ron Hannon SECONDED a motion to open the
public hearing. Motion carried- There was no public testimony. Harmon MOVED and..Bell
SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
#ZCA-97 2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULAT70NS
AZCA-97-1 PLANNED UNTTDEIBLOPMENTS
s7rr,r.97_5 C;ENERAL CONDITTONAL USES
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
July 28. 1997
Paee 14
Mr. Harmon MOVED to recommend approval of#ZCA-97-5 general conditional uses as proposed
by the Planning Department and forward the recommendation to the City Council. Brotherton
SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
�Z
J es P. Harris
ecretary
U:\DOC\LANDUSEVvIINUTES\PBMTG7.28
7
r
#ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGUL 77ONS
#ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN=
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
interoffice
MEMORANDUM
to: James P. Hams, Planning Director
cc: Kevin O'Neill, Sr. Planner
from: Roger Lubovich _
re: Amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance
date: August 19, 1997
As we discussed, enclosed is the memo regarding the proposed amendment to the
Planned Unit Development Ordinance.
Please call me if you have any questions.
P:WA W%RUEA125WA=S.ABM
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
' to rof f i ce
� ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE
MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL
to: Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
from: Laurie Evezich, Asst. City Attorney
re: Amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance (Polygon Northwest)
date: August 19, 1997
As you are aware, the Land Use & Planning Board is currently reviewing a proposed
amendment to the City of Kent's PUD Ordinance. The applicant, Polygon Northwest, is proceeding
through the City's regulatory review process to amend the zoning code to allow PUDs and single-
family zoning districts, as long as the proposed site is at least 100 acres in size. The applicant is also
seeking changes to the permitted uses for the proposed single-family PUD and is seeking to have a
"master plan' approval process for such PUDs. The specifics of the proposal are outlined in the
Planning Department's memorandum to the Land Use & Planning Board which I have attached for
your information.
Legally, the proposal presents a potential problem with regard to prohibited spot zoning and
the ancillary claims of violations of substantive due process, equal protection, and 1983 damages.
Spot Zoning is generally described as follows:
Spot zoning is zoning action by which a smaller area is singled out of
a larger area or district and specially zoned for a use classification
totally different from and inconsistent with. the classification of
surrounding land and not in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
When faced with the rezone challenge, our main inquiry is whether
the zoning action bears a substantial relationship to the general
welfare of the affected community.
Save A Neighborhood Environment (SANE) v. Seattle, 101 Wn.'_d 280, 286, 676 P.2d 1006 (1984).
Only where the spot zone grants a discriminatory benefit to one or a
group of owners to the detriment of the neighbors or the community
at large without adequate public advantage or justification will [a]
rezone be overturned.
Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363, 368, 662 P2d 816 (1983).
In the Analysis section of the memorandum to the Land Use& Planning Board, the planning
staff has provided some evidence that the proposal is supported by many of the goals and policies
in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. (See, attached Memorandum.) However, as stated above, when
it can be successfully argued that the proposed zoning amendment "grants a discriminatory benefit
to one or a group of owners to the detriment of their neighborhood or the community at large.
without adequate public advantage," the rezone will be overturned. Id. at 368.
If the City of Kent proceeds with the recommendation for approval of the PUD amendment,
I recommend that the planning staff and counsel include findings of the adequate public advantage
or justification to the community at large, in addition to the compatibility of the PUD in a single-
family zone, to fend off any potential litigation by aggrieved property owners. Ultimately, whether
or not the amendment creates a discriminatory spot of land to the benefit of one or a group of owners
to the detriment of their neighbors will be a question of fact. To the extent that the City of Kent can
make findings to protect itself from potential litigation, it is the recommendation of this office that
such findings be developed and articulated.
If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact
me.
P'.U.A WT[LESW I MROGER2NEM
ORDINANCE NO.
i
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of Kent,
Washington, relating to amendments to the Planned Unit
Development regulations in Section 15.04.080 of the Kent
Zoning Code.
7 ana applicant proposed osed a change to the Kent
WHEREAS, in April, 199 pp p
j Zoning Code regulation pertaining to Planned Unit Developments (PUD), set forth in
Section 15.04.080 of the Kent Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1997, the Land Use and Planning Board
conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the PUD regulations, and
recommended that the amendments be adopted with some revisions; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, the Kent City Council reviewed the
recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board, and voted to send the proposed
PUD amendments to the City Council Planning Committee for further review: and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council Planning
Committee reviewed the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board,and voted
to recommend approval to the City Council of the proposed amendments to the PUD
regulations, as revised by the Land Use and Planning Board, and including a provision
regarding allowing condominiums in a PUD located in a single-family zoning district;
NOW THEREFORE,
I
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Anew section 15.02.091 is added to Chapter 15.02.
amending the Kent Zoning Code as follows:
Section 15.02.091. Condominium Condominium means real property portions
of which are desienated for searate ownership and the remainder of which is designated
for common ownership solely by the owners of those portions Real property is not a
condominium unless the undivided interest in the common elements are vested in the unit
owners and unless a declaration and a survev ma and plans have been recorded.
Condominiums must meet all provisions of Ch. 64.34 RCW.
I I
SECTION2. Section 15.04.080 of the Kent Zoning Code is amended as
follows:
Sec. 15.04.080. Planned unit development, PUD. The intent of the PUD is to
create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design,and protect and enhance
natural and community features. The process is provided to encourage unique
developments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial
uses. By using flexibility in the application of development standards, this process will
pments that will benefit citizens that live and work within the city.
promote develo
A. Zoning districts where permitted. PUD's are permitted in all zoning
districts with the exception of the A-1, agricultural, n ^ m_:a_~.:�L
I
. zone provided,
however. that PUDs in SR zones are only allowed if the site is at least 100
acres in size.
B. Permitted uses.
it
1. Principally permitted uses. The principally permitted uses in
PUD's shall be the same as those permitted in the underlying
except as_provided in subsection
zoning classifications
15.04.080(B)(4).
2. Conditional uses. The conditional uses in PUD's shall be the same
as those permitted in the underlying zoning classification. The
2
j conditional use permit review process may be consolidated with
that of the PUD pursuant to procedures specified in subsection F.
of this section.
3. Accessory uses. Accessory uses and buildings which are
customarily incidental and subordinate to a principally permitted
use are also permitted.
4. Exceptions. In residential PUD's of ten (10) acres or more,
commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be
I'II
limited to those uses permitted in the neighborhood convenience
district. In PUDs located in SR zones attached dwelling units arer
permitted only if they are condominiums created in accordance
with the Washington Condominium Act. Ch. 6434 RCW:
provided that if a proposed PUD in a single-family zoning district
includes condominiums the density bonus provisions outlined in
Section 15 04 080(D) shall not-amty and further provided that no
condominium building may exceed two L L stories.
C. Development standards. The following development standards are
minimum requirements for a planned unit development:
1. Minimum lot size exclusion. The minimum lot size requirements
of the districts outlined in this title shall not apply to PUD's.
2. :Minimum site acreage. Minimum site acreage for a PUD is
established according to the zoning district in which the PUD is
located, as follows:
Zones Minimum Site Acreage
SR zones (SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 SR-4.5. SR-6 100 acres
SR-8)
Multifamily (MR-D. MR-G. MR-M, MR-H) None
Commercial. office and manufacturing zones None
� 3
3. Minimum perimeter building setback. The minimum perimeter
building setback of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily
transition area requirements shall apply to any multifamily
developments (as provided in section 15.08.215), except where
III specifically exempted by administrative design review (as
provided in section 15.09.045). The hearing examiner may reduce
i building separation requirements to the minimum required by the
i
building and fire departments according with the criteria set forth
in subsection F.I. of this section. If an adjacent property is
undeveloP able under this title, the hearing examiner may also
reduce the perimeter building setback requirement to the minimum
standards in the city building and fire codes.
4. Maximum height of structures. The maximum height of structures
of the underlying zone shall apply. Multifamily transition area
requirements shall apply to any multifamily developments (as
provided in section 15.08.215)except where specifically exempted
by administrative design review (as provided in section
15.09.045). The hearing examiner may authorize additional height
in CC, GC, DC, CM, M1, M2 and M3 zones where proposed
development in the PUD is compatible with the scale and
character of adjacent existing developments.
�. Open space.
a. The standard set forth in this subsection shall apply to
PUD residential developments only. Each PUD shall
provide a minimum of thirty-five (35) percent of the total
site area for common open space. In mixed use PUD's
containing residential uses, thirty-five (35) percent of the
i
area used for residential use shall be reserved as open
4
i,
space.
b. For the purpose of this section, open space shall be defined
as land which is not used for buildings, dedicated public
rights-of-way,traffic circulation and roads, parking areas,
II
or any kind of storage. Open space includes but is not
limited to privately owned woodlands, open fields.
streams, wetlands, severe hazard areas, sidewalks.
walkways, landscaped areas, gardens, courtyards
or lawns.
Common open space may provide for either active or
passive recreation.
C. Open space within a PUD shall be available for common
use by the residents, tenants or the general public.
depending on the type of project.
6. Streets. If streets within the development are required to be
dedicated to the city for public use, such streets shall be designed
in accordance with the standards outlined in the city subdivision
code and other appropriate city standards. If streets within the
development are to remain in private ownership and remain as
private streets, the following standards shall apply:
a. Minimum private street pavement widths. Minimum
private street pavement widths for parallel parking in
residential planned unit developments. Minimum private
street pavement widths for parallel parking in residential
planned unit developments are as follows:
No Parking Parking One Side Parking Both Sides
(feet) (feet) (feet)
One-way streets 20 29 38
Two-way streets 22 31 40
5
I�
The minimum widths set out in this subsection may be
modified upon review and approval by the cite fire chief
and the city traffic engineer providing they are sufficient
to maintain emergency access and traffic safety. A
maintenance agreement for private streets within a PUD
shall be required by the hearing examiner as a condition of
I
PUD approval.
b. Vehicle parking areas. Adequate vehicular parking areas
shall be provided. The required number of parking spaces
may vary from the requirements of chapter 1 5.05 and shall
be approved by the hearing examiner based upon a parking
need assessment study submitted by the applicant and
III approved by the planning director. Vehicular parking areas
may be provided by on-street parking or off-street parking
lots. The design of such parking areas shall be in
accordance with the standards outlined in chapter 15.05.
C. One-way streets. One-way loop streets shall be no more
�i
than one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet long.
d. On-street parking. On-street parking shall be permitted.
Privately owned and maintained "no no parking' and ''fire
lane" signs may be required as determined by the city
traffic engineer and city fire department chief.
7. Pedestrian walkways. Pedestrian walkways shall be constructed of
material deemed
to be an all-weather surface by the public works
director and planning director.
8. Landscaping.
a. Minimum perimeter landscaping of the underlying zone
shall apply. Additional landscaping shall be required as
6
j provided in chapter 15.07 and section 15.08.215.
I
b. All PUD developments shall ensure that parking areas are
integrated with the landscaping system and provide
jscreening of vehicles from view from public streets.
Parking areas shall be conveniently located to buildings
and streets while providing for landscaping adjacent to
buildings and pedestrian access.
C. Solid waste collection areas and waste reduction or
recycling collection areas shall be conveniently and safely
located for onsite use and collection, and attractively site
screened.
9. Signs. The sign regulations of chapter 15.06 shall apply.
10. Platting. If portions of the PUD are to be subdivided for sale or
lease, the procedures of the city subdivision code, as amended,
shall apply. Specific development standards such as lot size, street
design, etc., shall be provided as outlined in subsection 15.04.080
E.
11. Green River Corridor. Any development located within the Green
River Corridor special interest district shall adhere to the Green
River Corridor special interest district regulations.
12. View regulations. View regulations as specified in section
15.08.060 shall apply to all PUD's.
j
U. Shoreline master program. Any development located within two
p gr
hundred (200) feet of the Green River shall adhere to the city
shoreline master program regulations.
D. Density bonus standards. The density of residential development for
PUD's shall be based on the gross density of the underlying zoning
district.The hearing examiner may recommend a dwelling unit density not
1 more than twenty (20) percent greater than that permitted by the
underlying zone upon findings and conclusions that the amenities or
design features which promote the purposes of this subsection, as follows,
are provided:
1. Open space. A four-percent density bonus may be authorized if at
least ten(10) percent of the open space is in concentrated areas for
passive use. Open space shall include significant natural features
of the site, including but not limited to fields, woodlands,
watercourses, and permanent and seasonal wetlands. Excluded
from the open space definition are the areas within the building
footprints,land used for parking,vehicular circulation or rights-of-
way, and areas used for any kind of storage.
?. Active recreation areas. A four-percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least ten (10) percent of the site is utilized for
active recreational purposes, including but not limited to jogging
or walking trails, pools, children's play areas, etc. Only that
percentage of space contained within accessory structures that is
directly used for active recreation purposes can be included in the
ten-percent active recreation requirement.
3. Stormwater drainage. A two-percent density bonus may be
authorized if stormwater drainage control is accomplished using
natural onsite drainage features. Natural drainage feature may
include streams, creeks, ponds, etc.
4. Native vegetation. A four-percent density bonus may be
authorized if at least fifteen (15) percent of the native vegetation
on the site is left undisturbed in large open areas.
5. Parking lot size. A two-percent density bonus may be authorized
if off-street parking is grouped in areas of sixteen (16) stalls or
less. Parking areas must be separated from other parking areas or
buildings by significant landscaping in excess of type V standards
I 6
as provided in section 15.07.050. At least fifty (50) percent of
these parking areas must be designed as outlined in this subsection
to receive the density bonus.
6. Mixed housing types. A two-percent density bonus may be
authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing
types. Single-family residences, attached single units,
condominiums, apartments and townhomes are examples of
housing types. The mix need not include some of every type.
7. Project planning and management. A two-percent density bonus
may be granted if a design/development team is used. Such a team
would include a mixture of architects, engineers, landscape
architects and designers. A design/development team is likely to
produce a professional development concept that would be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning regulations.
These standards are thresholds, and partial credit is not given for partial
attainment. The site plan must at least meet the threshold level of each
bonus standard in order for density bonuses to be given for that standard.
E. Master plan approvals The master plan process is intended to allow
approval of a generalized conceptual development plan on a site which
would then be constructed in phases over a longer period of time than a
typical planned unit development. The master plan approval process is
typically appropriate for development which might occur on a site over a
period of several years and in phases which are not entirely predictable.
l. Submittal requirements The distinguishing characteristic between
a Master Plan Development application and a Planned Unit
Development application is that a Master Plan Development
proposal is conceptual in nature However, the Master Plan
application shall provide sufficient detail of the scope of the
development the uses the amount of land to be developed and
4
preserved. and how services will be provided. The specific
submittal requirements are noted below:
a. a written description of the scope of the project. including
total anticipated build-out(number of units of residential.
gross floor area for commercial), and the tvpes of uses
I�
proposed.
I
b. a clear vicinity map. showing adjacent roads:
C. a fully dimensional site plan, which would show the areas
upon which development would occur, the proposed
i
number of units or buildings in each phase of the
development, the areas would be preserved for open space
or protection of environmentally sensitive features, and a
generalized circulation plan. which would include
proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation:
do a eeneralized drainage and stormwater runoff plan;
e. a site map showing_contours at not greater than five (5)
foot intervals and showing any wetlands, streams. or other
natural features
f a description of the proposed phasing_plan
fi documentation of coordination with the Kent school
i
district
j h. certificates of water and sewer availability
io generalized building elevations showing the types of uses
being proposed
2. Density. The gross density of a residential master plan project
shall be the same as the density allowable in the underlyingzoning
oning
district.
3. Open Space. The criteria in 15.04.080 (C5) shall apply_
10
4. implication process The application process fora master plan
aappplication shall be as outlined in 15.04.080(Fl.
5. Review criteria The review criteria for a master plan application
j hall be the same as those outlined in 15.04.080(Gl.
6. Administrative�Droval o�individual phases. Once a master site
I�. flan PUD has been approved�ursuant to Section 15 04080(Fl,
any individual phase of the development shall be reviewed and
approved administrativelv as outlined in Chapter 15.09 of this
Title• provided that for each12hase of development that includes a
II
residential condominium the applicant shall submit a copy of the
condominium declaration recorded against the property. and as
outlined in RCM 64,34.200_
7. Time limits The master-121an approved by the Hearing Examiner
or City Council as2rovided in Section 15 04 080(Fl shall be valid
for a�eriod of into seven !71 years At the end of this seven (71
yeaz period development permits must be issued for all chases of
the master plan development An extension of time may be
requested b the applicant A single extension may be granted by
the planning director for a period of not more than two f2 more
additional years.
8 Modifications. Once aDproved,re uests for modifications to the
master plan proiect shall be made in writing to the planning
director. The planning director shall make a determination as to
whether the requested modification is maior or minor as outlined
in Section 15 04.080(I).
F. Application process. The application process includes the following steps:
informal review process, compliance with the State Environmental Policy
Act, community information meeting, development plan review, and
public hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
� 11
1. Informal review process. An applicant shall meet informally with
the planning department at the earliest possible date to discuss the
proposed PUD.The purpose of this meeting is to develop a project
that will meet the needs of the applicant and the objectives of the
city as defined in this title.
2. SEPA compliance. Compliance with the State Environmental
Policy Act and regulations and city SEPA requirements shall be
completed prior to development plan review.
;. Development plan review. After informal review and completion
of the SEPA process, a proposal shall next be reviewed by city
staff through the development plan review process. Comments
received by the project developer under the development review
process shall be used to formalize the proposed development prior
to the development being presented at a public hearing before the
hearing examiner.
4. Community information meeting.
a. A community information meeting shall be required for
any proposed PUD located in a residential zone or within
two hundred (200) feet of a residential zone. At this
I, meeting the applicant shall present the development
proposed to interested residents. Issues raised at the
meeting may be used to refine the PUD plan. Notice shall
be given in at least one (1) publication in the local
newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public
1�
hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all
property owners within a radius of not less than two
hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property subject to the application. Any alleged failure of
any property owner to actually receive the notice of
12
hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings.
b. Nonresidential PUD's not located within two hundred
(200) feet of a residential zone shall not require a
community information meeting.
5. Public notice and hearing examiner public hearing. The hearing
i
examiner shall hold at least one(1)public hearing on the proposed
PUD and shall give notice thereof in at least one (1) publication in
the local newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing. Written notice shall be mailed first class to all property
owners within a radius of not less than two hundred (200) feet of
the exterior boundaries of the property subject to the application.
Any alleged failure of any property owner to actually receive the
i
notice of hearing shall not invalidate the proceedings.
6. Consolidation of land use permit processes. The PUD approval
process may be used to consolidate other land use permit
processes which are required by other sections of this title. The
public hearing required for the PUD may serve as the public
hearing for the conditional use permit, subdivision. shoreline
substantial development and rezoning if such land use permits are
a part of the overall PUD application. When another land use
permit is involved which requires city council approval. the PUD
shall not be deemed to be approved until the city council has
i
approved the related land use permit. If a public hearing is
required for any of the categories of actions listed in this
subsection, the hearing examiner shall employ the public hearing
notice requirements for all actions considered which ensure the
maximum notice to the public.
7. Hearing Examiner decision. The Hearing Examiner shall issue a
written decision within ten (10) working days from the date of the
13
hearing. Parties of record will be notified in writing of the
decisio
n. The decision is final unless notice of appeal is filed with
I�
!
the city clerk within fourteen(14) days of receipt by the developer
of the decision. For PUDs whice which is not
h propose a us
lypically permitted in the underlying zonine distnct_as provided in
I�
SectionB 15.04.080 4 the Hearin Examiner shall forward a
recommendation to the City ('ouncil which shall have the final
II,
authority to approve or deny the proposed PUD. For a proposed
residential PUD th t includes condominiums as outlined in Sec.
15 04 080(Bl(41 a condition of approval by the City Council shall
�!I
be that for each development phase the applicant shall submit a
recorded coy of the covenants conditions and restrictions
recorded aeainst the property Within thirty (301 days of receipt
of the Hearina Examiner's recommendation the City Council
I!I shall at a re¢ular meeting. consider the a pp lication.
I
8. Effective date. In approving a PUD, the hearing examiner shall
specify that the approved PUD shall not take effect unless or until
the developer files a completed development permit application
within the time periods required by this title as set forth in
subsection G. of this section. No official map or zoning text
designations shall be amended to reflect the approved PUD
designation until such time as the PUD becomes effective.
i F-G. Review criteria for planned unit developments. Upon receipt of a complete
application for a residential PUD. the planning department shall review
the application anc make its recommendation to the hearing examiner.The
hearing examiner shall determine whether to grant, deny or condition an
application based upon the following review criteria:
II'I
14
1. Residential planned unit development criteria.
a. The proposed PUD project shall have a beneficial effect
upon the community and users of the development which
�;II
would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-tot
development and shall not be detrimental to existing or
potential surrounding land uses as defined by the
comprehensive plan.
II
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be
preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to
benefit the development and the community .
C. The proposed PUD project shall provide areas of openness
by using techniques such as clustering, separation of
building groups, and use of well-designed open space and
landscaping.
d. The proposed PUD project shall promote variety and
innovation in site and building design. Buildings in groups
shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but
contrast shall be provided throughout the site b,, the use of
varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and
orientation.
I
e. Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept, particularly when construction will be in phases.
i
2. Nonresidential planned unit development criteria.
a. The proposed project shall have a beneficial effect which
would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot
development and not be detrimental to present or potential
surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive
plan.
15
b. Unusual environmental features of the site shall be
preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to
benefit the development and the communit% .
C. The proposed project shall provide areas of openness b%
the clustering of buildings.and by the use of well-designed
landscaping and open spaces. Landscaping shall promote
a coordinated appearance and break up continuous
expanses of building and pavement.
d. The proposed project shall promote variety and innovation
in site and building design. It shall encourage the
li I'
incorporation of special design features such as visitor
entrances, plazas, outdoor employee lunch and recreation
areas, architectural focal points and accent lighting.
I
e. Building design shall be based on a unified design
concept, particularly when construction will be in phases.
III
FrH. Time limits.
1. Application for development permit. The applicant shall apply for
a development permit no later than one (1) year following final
approval of the PUD. The application for development permit
shall contain all conditions of the PUD approval.
2. Extensions. An extension of time for development permit
application may be requested in writing by the applicant. Such an
granted by the planning director for a period not
e an
extension may b gr p g
to exceed one (1) year. If a development permit is not issued
within two(2)years,the PUD approval shall become null and void
and the PUD shall not take effect.
1F-I. Modifications of plan. Requests for modifications of final approved plans
shall be made in writing and shall be submitted to the plannin!,department
in the manner and form prescribed by the planning director. The criteria
16
for approval of a request for a major modification shall be those criteria
covering original approval of the permit which is the subject of the
proposed modification.
1. Minor modifications. Modifications are deemed minor if all the
following criteria are satisfied:
a. No new land use is proposed;
b. No increase in density, number of dwelling units or lots is
proposed;
C. No change in the general location or number of access
points is proposed,
d. No reduction in the amount of open space is proposed;
I�
e. No reduction in the amount of parking is proposed;
f. No increase in the total square footage of structures to be
developed is proposed; and
g. No increase in general height of structures is proposed.
Examples of minor modifications include but are not limited to lot
line adjustments, minor relocations of buildings or landscaped
areas, minor changes in phasing and timing, and minor changes in
I,1I elevations of buildings.
2. Major modifications. Major adjustments are those which, as
determined by the planning director, substantially change the basic
design, density, open space or other similar requirements or
provisions. Major adjustments to the development plans shall be
reviewed by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may
III review such adjustments at a regular public hearing. If a public
hearing is held, the process outlined in subsection 15.04.080 F.
shall apply. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision to
approve, deny or modify the request. Such a decision shall be
final. The decision may be appealed to the city council by the
17
i
filing of written notice of appeal with the city clerk within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the developer's receipt of the
hearing examiner's decision.
SECTION 3. If any one or more sections, subsections or sentences of this
II� invalid, such decisi
on shall not affect the
i Chapter are held to be unconstitutional or
validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30)
days from and after its passage, approval andpu
blication as provided by law.
�IJIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
it
I
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I
18
PASSED day of 11997.
APPROVED day of 11997.
PUBLISHED day of 11997.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. ,
tY
ail
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor
of the City of Kent as hereon indicated.
(SEAL)
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
i�
r u.Aw\oaDINANCTUDAMD ORD
III
it
III
III
I
IIII
19
..3 G G
(���, \��--y r
`l
::.
2, ��-y�z;�r-��-_
4�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9, 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1998 PROPERTY TAX LEVY - ORDINANCES
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: At their December 2, 1997 meeting, the
Operations Committee recommended adoption of two ordinances for
property tax for 1998 : (1) an ordinance to establish the tax
levy for the General Fund of $15 , 190,951.00 and the Debt
Service Funds of $1,834, 090. 00 for 1998 , and (2) an ordinance
per Referendum 47 , stating the public hearing date and the
amount of increase over the allowed 1997 taxes levied which is
$275, 291 at 1.9 percent.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director and ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember . ,.'� 1 moves, Councilmember _ j,—i,[L<-) seconds
to approve Ordinance No. ' establishing the property tax
levy amount of $15, 190, 951. 00 for the General Fund and
$1,834, 090. 00 for the Debt Service Funds for 1998; and to
approve Property Tax Ordinance No. ,-`� increasing the
property tax amount by $275, 291 . 00 which is 1. 9 percent over
the taxes levied the previous year.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
I
Council Agenda
Item No. 4A
Date: November 25, 1997
To: Mayor and Council ��C�\✓��
From: May Miller, Finance Director
Subject: 1998 Tax Levy Ordinance
Attached are two ordinances that are required to be passed to levy property taxes for 1998.
The first ordinance is the regular ordinance which must state the dollar amount of the
assessments for 1998 for both the General Fund and the Debt Service Funds. The amounts are
$15,190,951.00 in the General Fund and $1,834,090.00 in the Debt Service Funds. The amount
increased by $22,715 as a result of the Assessed Valuation furnished by King County. Also, the
levy rate that is assessed to each taxpayer changed. Since the Assessed Valuation.increased
slightly, the rate to each tax payer decreased from 3.374 in 1997 to 3.356 for 1998.
The second ordinance is required as part of the passage of Referendum 47 and is required to state
the tax levy public hearing date as well as the dollar amount and percent of increase over the base
allowed or increase over last year's levy. The budget includes an increase of$275,291.00 over
last year's levy which is a 1.9% increase.
Regular levy Increase
1997 Regular Levy was : 14,489,025
1998 Proposed Increase in dollars 275,291
Increase as a percentage 1.9%
Plus effects of new construction, improvements and increases in
the value of state assessed property
As of 12/5/97 360,601
----------------
Subtotal Regular levy & New Construction Impacts 635,892
Administrative adjustment : Refund Fund 66.034
----------------
Total regular tax levy 15,190,951
Levy for Voted Debt Obligations: 1,834,090
----------------
Total Levy request 17,025,041
Lew Rates : 1997 1998 Decrease Percent
General Fund Lew Rate 2.992 2.994 0.002 0.07%
Voted Issues Levy Rate 0.382 0.362 (0.020) -5.24%
Total Levy Rate 3.374 3.356 (0.018) -0.54%
Del Mar & Meridian Vallev Annexations move to the tax rolls for 1999 budget
V:\WKS198BU D1PR PTXC98.WB 1 05-Dec-97
PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON
LEVY RATES AND DOLLARS REQUESTED ARE BASED ON ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION
CHANGES
1995 1996 1997 1998 FROM PERCENT
ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PRELIMINARY 1997 CHANGE
ASSESSED VALUATION
BASE 3,858,188,500 3,923,361,319 4,096,124,073 4,953,062,879 856,938,806 20.92%
ANNEXATIONS 48,658,615 120,018,471 587,815,613 0 (587,815,613) -100.00%
NEW CONSTRUCTION 52,852,670 85,023,640 158,420,396 120,460,341 (37,960,055) -23.96%
ASSESSED VALUATION
TOTAL 3,959,699,785 4,128,403,430 4,842,360,082 5,073,523,220 231,163,138 4.77%
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES:
GENERALFUND 10,385,879 11,618,041 14,489,025 15,190,951 701,926 4.84%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
PUBLIC SAFETY 605,910 557,120 0 0.00%
SENIOR HOUSING 350,650 319,500 349,900 352,350 2,450 0.70%
93 GO REFUNDING 873,133 780,695 1,500,807 1,481,740 (19,067) -1.27%
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 1,829,693 1,657,315 1,850,707 1,834,090 (16,617) -0.90%
TOTAL TAX LEVY 12,215,572 13,275,356 16,339,732 17,025,041 685,309 4A9%
LEVY RATES:
GENERAL FUND 2,623 2.814 2.992 2.994 0.002 0.07%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
PUBLIC SAFETY 0.153 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00%
SENIOR HOUSING 0,089 0.077 0.072 0.069 (0.003) -3.89%
GO REFUNDING 0.221 0.189 0.310 0.292 (0.018) -5.77%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
TOTAL 0.462 0.401 0.382 0.362 (0.021) -5.41%
TOTAL 3.085 3.216 3.374 3.356 (0.019) -0.55%
The 1998 general fund tax levy rate is at a $2.994/$1,000 AV rate. This effects the same result as basing the
general expense levy on 1.9% increase over last years levy, before considering the effects of state public service property
and new construction at the previous years rate. The formula excludes omitted assessments(they are taxed at
the rate in effect for the year that they should have been included).
V1NM5198BU0\PRPTXC98.WB1 05-13 a97
REGULAR PROPERTY LEVY CALCULATION
106%LIMITATION CALCULATION(RCW 84.55.010)
MAXIMUM AVAILABLE WITH CERTIFIED ASSESSED VALUATION
CALCULATION ASSUMING LID OF:
REF 47 LIMITS COUNCIL OVERRIDE
1.9% 6.0% Implicit Price deflator
4,953,001,569 4,953,001.569 Assessed Valuation Base
120,521,651 120,521.651 Estimated New Construction added
0 0 Increase In State Public Utility Added To New Construction
Last year's increase was$35,057,725
0 0 Annexations: 1997 Annexations to tax roll for 1999 Budget
5,073,523,220 5,0 3.5 Estimatedof Assesse aluarton er mg County
14,489,025 14,489.025 Highest levy of most recent three years(vs highest lawful due to
Council intent regarding annexation into Library district)
this amount matches the preliminary estimate-may be higher
101.90% 106.00%x LID%(Implicit price deflator or 6%maximum)
14,764,316 15,35 vy
120.521,651 120.521,651 Local new construction
0 0 +State Public Service New Construction
120,521,651 120,521.651 =Total New Construction
2.99 2.99 x Prior year levy rate
360,601 360,601 =New Construction Levy
14,764.316 15,358367 Lid Levy
360,601 360.601 +New Construction Levv
(13,360) (13.360)-Omitted Assessment Levy
15,111,557 15.705,607 =Levu Ceiling( Less annexations and omitted assessments)
5,073,523,220 5,073,523,220 Regular levy assessed value less annexations
2.97851 3.09560 =New Year Levy rate
0 0 Annexation assessed value
2.979 3.096 x New Year levy rate
0 0 =Annexation Levy
13360 13,360 +Omitted assessment levy
15,111,557 15,705,607 +Levy Ceiling( Less annexations and omitteds)
15,124,917 15,718,967 =Maximum New Year Levy based on 106%limit
66.034 66.034 +Refund Fund
15,190,951 15,785.001 =Maximum New Year Levy based on lid limit+refund fund.
STATUTORY LEVY CALCULATION
5,073,523,220 5,073.523 220 Assessed value(excluding omits)
3.100 1.100 X maximum statutory rate($3.60 less.50 Library levy rate)
15,727,922 15.727.922 =Maximum 1997 levy( Excluding Omitted Assessment Levy)
13.360 13.360 -Omitted Assessment Levy
15,741,282 15,741,282 =Maximum 1997 Levy based on Statutory Levy
15,190,951 15,741,282 Maximum Regular 1997 levy-the lesser of the two limits
15,168,236 15,168,236 Preliminary Budget
22,715 573,046 Increase
V\WKSt9BBUDWEWCONK.W8105-De 97
FRO►1:KING,C"TY ASSESSOR TO:CITY OF KENT FINANCE DEC 4. 1997 S:20PM 92B2 P.02
CLIrF SS(;- z_', 4 c }
TAXING DISTRICT: KENT
The following determination of your regular levy 11mu for 1998 property taxes is provided by the Xbtg County
Assessor pursuant la RCN'84.55,100.
Highest lawful regular levy since 1986 including lid lifts(RCW 94.55.092)(1997•levy)(1) 15,023,929
Less refund fund levy ( 0)
15 02329
Equals le basis for calculation of regular lc limit(Chapter 84.55 RCW)
9
LIMITATION CALCULATION(RCW 8455.010)
=106% 1.019%IPD 100°/a lus N/C
23,929 15,023.929 Levy basis for calculation
309,384 15,023.929 Levy
521,651 120,521,651 Local now construction and improvements to property
0 0 Increase in state-assessed public utility value(2)
120,521,651 12 ,521,651 120,521,651 Total acw construction value
x 2.99373 2.99373 2.99373 1997 regular lcvyrate
360,809 360,809 360,809 New construction levy
15,925,365 15,309,394 15,023,929 Levy
+ 360,909 360,809 360,909 New construction levy
13,360 13,360 13,360 Omitted assessments levy(3)
16,272,814 15,656,833 15,371,378 Levy ceiling
+ 5,073,523,220 5.073,523,220 5,073,523,220 Regular lcvy assessed value less annexations
3.20740 3.08599 3.02972 1998 levy rate
I
0 0 0 Annomion assessed value
x 3.20740 3.08599 3.02972 1999 levy rate
0 0 0 Annexation levy I
+ 13.360 13,360 13,360 Omitted assessments 1evY
+ 16,272,914 15,656,833 15,371,378 Levy ceiling
16,296,174 15,670,193 15,384,739 Maximum 1998 levy based on limit under RCW 84.55
+ 66,034 66,034 66,034 Refund fund levy(4)
16,352,208 15,736,227 15,450,772 Maximum 1999 le based on limit plus refulld fund
15 741 282 15 736.227 15.450,772 Masdmum 1993 le 5
STATUTORY LEVY CALCULATION(RCW 94.52.043)
5,073,323,220 Regular levy assessed value i
x 3.10000 Maximum statutory rate
15,727,922 Maximum 1998 statutory levy
+ 13,360 Omitted assessment levy
15,741,282 Maximum 1998 levy based on statutory rate limit !
ALL YEARS INDICATED ABOVE ARE THE YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX IS PAYABLE.
(1) This figure shows the tnaximom allowable levy,Which may dirra from any actual prior levy if a district has levied less than its
maximum in trite years.
(2) Any increae in vale°in slate-eaaeaa°d property is cauideted to be nesv wnsuuction valw for turps of calalaliag the teyxctive
limits.
(3)An omitted assrasmat is properly value that should have boon included on a price years roll but will be included oa the currcnl
(1997)tax roll. Omits we assessed and taxod at the rote in effect rm the year omitted(RCW g4.40.08"851. Omitted usessntaaa taxis
deducted from the levy maximum before akulating the lory rate for cuamt aseermma and eddcd back in as°current yams receivable.
(4)Administrative refimds undo RCW 84.69.020 were removed from the levy lid by the 1991 legislature.
levics
by pipplicadon of the
tlunder
limit. Levin tmaytba beet tobtitled to the l of the fivtkta prtualiort maximum a88R8a1E I1°°�x A VU° uf0�aconaRtutimt and is RCW 94.57.Dry43etc
are acceded.
NOTES: Llbtary rate .50000
I
12/4/97 4:38 PM
wtnhtan.dw
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, establishing the property tax levy for
1998.
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and after providing all appropriate
notice,the City Council held a public hearing on November 4, 1997, to consider the City
of Kent's current expense budget for the 1998 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, after this hearing and after duly considering all relevant
evidence and testimony presented, the City Council determined that the City of Kent
requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year's revenues, in addition
to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to
property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, in order to discharge the
expected expenses and obligations of the City and in order to protect the best interests o
the citizenry; and
WHEREAS, to best preserve the public health, safety and welfare and in
order to best serve the citizens of Kent through a continued commitment to capital
improvements projects throughout the City, an increase in the regular property tax levy, in
addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements
to property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, should be authorize
to one hundred percent(100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as measured by the
implicit price deflator for personal consumption, which for 1998 taxes will be a 1.9 percent
increase from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be $275.291.
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 did not certify assessed values as required by RCW
84.48.130 until December 5, 1997,thereby relieving the City from its statutory obligation
to provide its property tax certification; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 84.52.010 and WAC 458-12-365,taxes shall
be levied in specific dollar amounts; NOW.. THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON,DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SR['TION 1. Recitals Incorporated. The foregoing recitals are incorporated
as if fully set forth herein.
4RC'TION 2. Lea. There is hereby levied against the property in the City
of Kent, Washington, an assessed value for the City's 1998 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) Amou
General Fund 2.994 $15,190,951.00
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
Fund (estimated) .Amount
Senior Housing .069 $352,350.00
General Obligation Refunding .292 $1,481,740.00
SEC'TION3. T imitation pn Lew. 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 and State Referendum 47, as passed by the voters in the November
1997 General Election.
SECTION 4. AdjUgmQnL5. Administration shall administer the Annual
Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A.33.120.
SECTION 5. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, o
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be i
force five (5)days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11997.
APPROVED: day of 11997.
PUBLISHED: day of 11997.
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
P-ULA W\ORDINANQTAXLE V98.ORD
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, authorizing a 1.9 percent increase in
the property tax levy for 1998 according to the implicit
price deflator established pursuant to State Referendum 47.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and after providing all
appropriate notice, the City Council held a public hearing on November 4, 1997, to
consider the City of Kent's current expense budget for the 1998 calendar year; and
WHEREAS, after this hearing and after duly considering all relevant
evidence and testimony presented, the City Council determined that the City of Kent
requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year's revenues, in addition
to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to
property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, in order to discharge the
expected expenses and obligations of the City and in order to protect the best interests of
the citizenry; and
WHEREAS. to best preserve the public health, safety and welfare and in
order to best serve the citizens of Kent through a continued commitment to capital
improvements projects throughout the City, an increase in the regular property tax levy,
in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and
improvements to property and any increase in the value of state-assessed property, should
be authorized to one hundred percent (100%) plus the percentage change in inflation as
measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumption, which for 1998 taxes
will be a 1.9 percent increase from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be
$275.291. NOW, THEREFORE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. To best preserve the public health. safety and welfare and in
order to best serve the citizens of Kent through a continued commitment to capital
improvements projects throughout the City, an increase in the regular property tax levy,
in addition to the increase resulting from the addition of new construction and
improvements to property and any increase in the value of state-assessed propem,. should
be authorized to one hundred percent (100%)plus the percentage change in inflation as
measured by the implicit price deflator for personal consumptiom which for 1998 taxes
will be a 1.9 percent increase from the previous year's property tax levy, calculated to be
$275,291.
Section 2. Severahility. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional h, a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence. clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in
force five (5) days from and after the date of publication of this ordinance.
JIM WHITE. MAYOR
2
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 11997.
APPROVED: day of . 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 1997.
I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by
the Citv 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
P`LAN�ORDINANQTAXINC98 ORD
3
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: 1998 BUDGET - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Operations Committee has recommended
adoption of the 1998 Budget. The budget is the Preliminary
Budget document plus the technical corrections approved at the
November 18, 1997 Operations Committee meeting. The Budget is
in balance and includes an 8 . 6 percent General Fund reserve of
$4, 342 , 346.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and Exhibit A and B. The 1998 Preliminary
Budget document is available at the City Clerk' s office
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES _
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember 1` t� moves, Councilmember I L`t seconds
to adopt Ordinance No. adopting the final 1998 Budget.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4B
Memorandum
To: OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
From: MAY MILLER, Finance Director\ nVa 1r- �\Jll Jam_
Date: December 5, 1997
Subject: 1998 BUDGET ORDINANCE
Committee Adoption of the 1998 Budget Ordinance, including
Action : technical adjustments.
Attached is a copy of the exhibits for the 1998 budget ordinance. This includes Exhibit A, which is the
summary Budget Ordinance and Exhibit B showing the preliminary budget, the detail lines for each
technical adjustment and the resulting budget as amended. The technical adjustments are summarized
as follows:
1. The Youth/Teen utility tax has been adjusted to reflect the Operations Committee request to allocate
.005% to capital facilities and limit programs to .0025%. The effects are shown by reducing the transfer
in to the General Fund and Youth/Teen programs, and adding a transfer to the Parks Capital Projects
Fund. At this time, the transfer increases ending fund balance in the Parks Capital Project Fund, until
a project has been identified for expenditure.
2. The Attorney's office is deleting the previously requested Office Tech position request, and replacing
it with a request to add paralegal or legal secretary intems, WASIC access, a grant match for a Domestic
Violence position and other supplies. These adjustments result in no net increase in the budget. The
grant Domestic Violence position is described below.
3. Reduce revenues in the General Fund to reflect the failure of the county EMS lees. This is offset by
reducing the "rainy day" fund in the General Fund as a short term solution while King County continues
to seek alternate funding of EMS services.
4. Additional funding has been added for Public Communication per Operations Committee
recommendation.
5. Addition of the COPS grant received by the Police Department. This will fund 4 officers in a special
grant project, with the appropriate transfer of matching funds from the General Fund. This provides for
2 more officers than proposed in the Preliminary budget.
6. The increase of $22,715 in property tax revenue as a result of the final King county Assessed
Valuation amounts received 12/4/97.
7. The Police Department has successfully requested a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This
grant would provide 90% funding for an additional Domestic Violence Advocate and related police
overtime for the term of the grant.
8. Estimates for Special Assessments have been revised, based on a more detailed review of LID activities
expected in 1998. This fund is self balancing and does not impact the General Fund budget.
9. Public Works has requested that the temporary part time proposed in the Preliminary Budget be
upgraded to a full time position. This position would provide necessary initial automation support of
their Hanson system. This automation contributes toward increased efficiency and effectiveness of the
Public Works Operations division.
These adjustments provide for a budget that is balanced in keeping with Referendum 47's 1.9% limit in
property taxes, and still provides for a $4,342,346, or 8.6% General Fund reserve.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City
of Kent, Washington, relating to budgets and finance and
adopting the final 1998 fiscal year budget.
WHEREAS,the tax estimates and budget for the City of Kent. Washington,
for the 1998 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 1998 budget;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON.DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Budget Adoption. Pursuant to RCW 35A.33.075, the budget
for the 1998. fiscal year, as summarized on Exhibit A and as set forth in the 1998
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 in that budget as the final budget for City's 1998
fiscal year.
SECTION?. Transmittal. The Finance Director shall transmit a 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.
SECTION 3. adiustments. City Administration shall administer the
Annual Budget and in doing so may authorize adjustments pursuant to RCW 35A.33.120.
SECTION 4. - Severability. If any one or more sections, subsections, or
sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid. such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as provided by law.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVI--H. CITY ATTORNEY
PASSED: day of 1997.
� APPROVED: day of
1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 11997.
I herebv 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
P ALA W�ORDINANCWDGET5 ORD
2
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
1998 BUDGET ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
Inc (Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERALFUND 47,559,258 50,765,191 (3,205,933) 7,548,279 4.342.346
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street 4,538,268 4,974,947 (436,679) 1,911,378 1,474,699
Youth/Teen Programs 496,849 751,000 (254,151) 384,947 130,796
Capital Improvement 5,322,080 5.509,938 (187,858) 1,722,957 1,535,099
Criminal Justice 2,073,815 2,254,200 (180.385) 523,217 342,832
Environmental Mitigation 366,134 454,929 (88,795) 217,503 128,708
Community Block Grant 523,966 523,966
Other Operating Projects 219,555 219,555
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted 1,834,090 1,834,090 55,462 55,462
Councilmanic 2,679,389 2,679,389
Special Assessment 2,302,225 2,333,188 (30,963) 1.366,092 1,335,129
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Street Projects 3,678,609 3,678,609
Parks Projects 2,303,139 2.268,062 35,077 46,882 81,959
Other Projects 343,000 343,000
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water 7,226,310 9,009,074 (1,782,764) 4357,735 2,574,971
Sewerage 18,898,958 19,401,942 (502,984) 2.911,228 2.408,244
Golf Complex 3,196,300 3,134,850 61,450 4,085 65.535
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental 2,770,380 2,314,874 455,506 2.498,876 2,954.382
Central Services 4,474,681 4,466,086 8,595 141.954 150.549
Fire Equipment 451,348 66,853 384,495 544,284 928,779
Facilities Fund 4,621,712 4,617,627 4,085 117,808 121,893
Insurance 5,740,796 5,972,939 (232,143) 4,240.474 4,008,331
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
1998 BUDGET ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT A
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 189,310 209,330 (20,020) 2,400,980 2,380,960
Economic Development Corp 13,935 10,433 3,502 17,786 21,288
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 121,824,107 127,794,072 (5,969,965) 31,011,927 25,041,962
LESS:
Internal Service Funds 14,215.734 14,215,734
Other Transfers 12,686,969 12.686,969
TOTAL BUDGET 94,921,404 100.891,369 (5,969,965) 31,011,927 25,041,962
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
1998 BUDGET ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT B
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
GENERAL FUND 48,313,980 50,818,015 (2,504,035) 7,548.279 5,044,244
Reduce Teen Tax allocation(use for capital) (81.959) (81,959)
Delete Attorney Office Tech (39,386) 39,386 39,386
Add attorney paralegal/legal sec.interns 35,916 (35,916) (35,916)
Grant match for Domestic Violence position 3,470 (3,470) (3,470)
EMS Levy reduction (695,478) (695,478) (695,478)
Public Communications enhancement 42,000 (42,000) (42,000)
Move 2 prorated officers to COPS grant (57.964) 57,964 57,964
Add COPS grant match transfer 45.099 (45.099) (45,099)
Adjust Property Tax to final numbers 22.715 22,715 22.715
Total General Fund 47,559,258 —50,765.191 (3.205,933) 7,548,279 4,342,346
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Street 4,538.268 4,974,947 (436,679) 1,911,378 1,474,699
Youthlfeen Programs 496.849 751.000 (254,151) 384,947 130,796
Reduce transfer to General fund (81,959) 81,959 81,959
Add transfer to Parks Capital Projects 81,959 (81,959) (81,959)
Total Youth/Teen Tax 496,849 — 751.000 (254,151) 384,947 130,796
Capital Improvement 5,322,080 5,509.938 (187,858) 1.722,957 1,535,099
Criminal Justice 1.746.584 1.926.969 (180.385) 523,217 342,832
Grant Domestic Violence position and 27,201 27.201
Police overtime for Domestic Violence 7,500 7.500
Police officers-COPS grant 247,431 292.530 (45.099) (45.099)
Add COPS grant match transfer 45.099 45,099 45,099
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Criminal Justice Fund 2.073,815 2.254 200 (180,385) 523.217 342,832
Environmental Mitigation 366.134 454,929 (88.795) 217,503 128,708
Community Block Grant 523.966 523,966
Other Operating Projects 219.555 219.555
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Voted 1.834,090 1.834,090 55,462 55A62
Councilmanic 2,679.389 2,679.389
Special Assessment 1,994,916 1097,317 (102,401) 1,327,206 1.224,805
Revised estimates 307309 235.871 71.438 38.886 110.324
----'-----'-------:-----------------------------
Total Special Assessments _.302.2_5 _331188 (30,963) 1,366.092 1,335,129
CITY OF KENT,WASHINGTON
1"8 BUDGET ORDINANCE
EXHIBIT B
Inc(Dec) Beginning Ending
in Fund Fund Fund
Revenues Expenditures Balance Balance Balance
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Street Projects 3.678,609 3.678,609
Parks Projects 2,221,180 2.268,062 (46.882) 46.882
Add Youth/Teen Tax transfer 81,959 81.959 81.959
__ _ _--------------------------
Total Parks Capital Projects 2,303,139 2.268,062 35,077 46,882 81,959
Other Projects 343.000 343,000
PROPRIETARY FUNDS
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water 7,226,310 8,985,130 (1,758.820) 3.357.735 2.598.915
000
Delete automation support part time (43,944) 43,000 43,944
Add position-automation support 43,944 (43.944) ( 3.944)
Total Water Fund —7,226,310 —9,009,074 (1,782,764) 4.357,735 2.574.971
Sewerage 18,898.958 19,401.942 (502.984) 2,911,228 2,408.244
Golf Complex 3,196,300 3,134,850 61,450 4.085 65.535
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Equipment Rental 2,770.380 2,314,874 455.5062.498.876 2,954,382
Central Services 4,474,681 4,466.086 8.595 141.954 150,549
Fire Equipment 451,348 66.853 384.495 544.284 928.779
Facilities Fund 4,621,712 4,617,627 4.085 117.808 121.891,
Insurance 5.740.796 5,972.939 (232,143) 4.240.474 4.008.331
FIDUCIARY FUNDS
TRUST AND AGENCY FUNDS
Firemen's Pension 189310 209.330 (20.020) 2.400.980 2,380.960
Economic Development Corp 13,935 10.433 3.502 17,796 21_288
TOTAL GROSS BUDGET 121.824.107 127.794.072 (5.969.965) 31.011.927 25.041,962
LESS:
Internal Service Funds 14.215.734 14,21-5.734
Other Transfers 12,686.969 12.686,969
TOTAL BUDGET 94,921,404 100.891.369 (5,969,965) 31.011,927 25.041.962
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December -9 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY - RESOLUTION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: State law requires authorization
by th one
City of Kent before the King Count EMS levy placed
the ballot. The proposed resolution authorizes King County to
place this question on the February 31 1998 election and
further encourage King County to seek alternative funding for
EMS in the future, and calls for the creation of the EMS
Financial Planning Task Force which shall be charged with
developing recommendation for future funding. The proposed
levy is not to exceed $0.29/$1, 000 assessed value for a period
of three years.
3 . EXHIBITS: Resolution and King County Voter Survey Results
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: O erations Committee and 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 r � '' seconds
to approve Resolution No. /`}C-� authorizing the county-wide
ballot proposition for funding of emergency medical services.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4C
KING COUNTY VOTERS (N=600)
November 30 - December 1, 1997
RESPID
GENDER (RECORD BY OBSERVATION)
1. male 49%
2. female 51%
Hello, my name is . May I speak to (NAME ON LIST).
Hello, my name is and I'm taking a survey for the
Evans/McDonough Research Company. We're trying to find out how the people
in your community feel about some of the issues facing them. I'd like to ask you
a few questions on a strictly confidential basis. We are NOT selling anything.
1. First, are you registered to vote at this address?
1. yes CONTINUE 100%
2. no TERMINATE —
2. Did you vote in this year's general election which was held November 4?
1. yes 89%
2. no 11%
3. What would you say are the chances that you will vote in the upcoming
February 3rd special election for various issues, including school
maintenance and operation levies and bonds -- are you almost certain to
vote, will you probably vote, are the chances 50/50, or do you think that
you will not vote?
1. almost certain 72%
2. probably 20%
3. 50/50 chance 6%
4. no 1%
5. (DON'T READ) don't know 1%
1
4. IF YES ON Q2 ASK: Was there any particular issue, referendum
or candidate election which motivated you to vote in the last
November 4th election more than in other general elections in the
past?
1. yes GO TO 5 25%
2. no GO TO 6 72%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know GO TO 6 2%
5. IF YES: What was that particular issue, referendum or
candidate election? (DON'T READ)
1. Gun issue/1-676 36%
2. Mayoral election 12%
3. Medic One — EMS issue 5%
4. Marijuana issue 5%
5. All were important 4%
6. Gay rights initiative 4%
7. Monorail issue 3%
8. School levy 2%
9. City Council candidate 2%
10. Several of the initiatives 2%
11. Candidates 2%
12. Transportation issues 1%
13. Charlie Chong 1%
14. Health care/1-673 1%
15. The wording on the ballot issues 1%
16. Municipal bond measures 1%
17. Richard Conlin 1%
18. Road and bridge repair 1%
19. Charlie Trung 1%
20. Fire bonds 1%
21. Sue Cook 1%
22. Property tax measure 47 1%
23. Incorporations of areas 1%
24. Don't know 14%
2
6. Do you feel things in King County are generally going in the right direction,
or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
1. right direction 51%
2. wrong track 27%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 22%
7. Have you heard of King County Emergency Medical services?
1. yes 88%
2. no 8%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 4%
8. Have you heard of Medic One, advanced life support system?
1. yes 93%
2. no 6/°
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 1%
9. Does your county government, city government, or local fire department
provide your Medic One, Emergency Medical Services?
1. county government 26%
2. city government 12%
3. local fire department 39%
4. (DON'T READ) don't know 24%
Using a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor, please rate each of the
following. ROTATE 10-12
10. The job King County government does in providing services generally
1. excellent 9%
2. good 56%
3. only fair 25%
4. poor 4%
5. (DON'T READ) don't know 7%
3
11. The job your local fire department does in providing services generally
1. excellent 55%
2. good 36%
3. only fair 3%
1%
4. poor 6%
5. ..(DON'T READ) don't know
12. The job Medic One does in providing emergency medical services
generally
1. excellent 60%
2. good 25%
3. only fair 1%
4. poor 1
5. (DON'T READ) don't know 12%
13. From what you know, was there any item on the ballot last November 4th
about King County Emergency Medical Services?
1. yes GO TO 14 74%
2. no GO TO 15 11%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know GO TO 15 15%
14. IF YES: Did you know it was on the ballot on November 4th?
1. yes 89%
2. no 9%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 2%
15. Was the Emergency Medical Services levy on the last November 4th
ballot to continue an existing tax or to add a new tax?
1. current tax 45%
2. add tax 21%
3. (DON'T READ) both 4%
4. (DON'T READ) don't know 30%
4
16. IF YES ON Q2, ASK: The King County Emergency Services levy
- was on the ballot last November 4th. It read, "Shall King County be
authorized to impose regular property tax levies of$0.29 or less
per thousand dollars of assessed valuation for each of six
consecutive years beginning in 1997, to be collected beginning in
1998, for the provision of emergency medical services, all as
provided for in King County Ordinance No. 12850." If you recall,
-did you vote yes or no on the King County Emergency Medical
Services levy?
1. voted yes GO TO 17 67%
2. voted no GO TO 18 18%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know/don't remember 16%
GO TO 19
17. IF YES: Why? (DON'T READ)
1. Necessary/Needed 56%
2. Believe in it 6%
3. EMS provides good service 6%
4. To continue services now available 6%
5. Good emergency aid beneficial 3%
6. 1 support EMS 3%
7. Not too expensive 3%
8. Our family needs the services 2%
9. A good use of tax revenue 1%
10. They've saved my life 1%
11. Has helped people I've known 1%
12. To better the community 1%
13. Want good medical care 1%
14. Large demand exists for the service 1%
15. It was an existing tax, not a new tax 1 oho
16. To maintain 911 services
17. My husband voted yes
18. 1 vote for all medical advancements
19. Was my civic duty
20. For improved services
21. 1 work on a Medic One unit
22. Fire department does a good job
23. Those who use service should pay `
24. 1 don't own property
5
25. It was the only funding option offered
26. 1 usually support tax levies
27. They ease people's suffering
28. They respond quickly to calls
29. EMS needs more money 7%
30. Don't know
*less than one-half of one percent
18. IF NO: Why? (DON'T READ)
1. Against new taxes 20%
2. Funding exists now/Should come from
current budget 16%
3. Should not use property taxes 10%
4. Did not understand wording 10%
5. Should come from general fund 8%
6. My property taxes just went up 4%
7. There is surplus revenue elsewhere 2%
8. Should use King County reserve funds 1%
9. Problem unclear to me 1%
10. Would become permanent 1%
11. Didn't know negative vote would kill the budget 1%
12. Don't like open-ended levies 1%
13. EMS wastes resources 1%
14. Should be federally funded 1%
15. People should learn to control costs 1%
16. Program poorly managed 1%
17. King County cares more about sports than health 1%
18. Felt it was right to vote no 1%
19. Too much pork 1%
20. Six years is too long 1%
21. Should be funded as part of the fire department 1%
22. Money would be diverted elsewhere 1%
23. Service costs too much 1%
24. Didn't know it was for Medic One 1%
25. EMS a monopoly 1%
26. Didn't know how important it was 1%
27. Lack of information 1%
28. Don't know 9%
6
19. Do you think King County Emergency Medical Services and Medic One
are different programs or the same program?
1. different programs 26%
2. same program 44%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 30%
20. IF YES ON Q2, ASK: No matter how you voted last November 4th,
if you knew that the Emergency Medical Services levy had to pass
for Medic One to continue would you change your vote to yes?
1 . yes 78%
2. no 11%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 11%
King County Emergency Medical Services has been funded through a property
tax levy since it was begun in 1980. Paramedics and firefighters of the Medic
One system provide rapid, highly effective care for life-threatening injuries or
illness; respond to an average of 365 calls for emergency help every day;
provide advanced training, medicines and equipment for 21 paramedic units, and
train 3,400 firefighters in the use of heart defibrillators and emergency life
support. With the delivery of paramedic services, you're three times more likely
to survive a cardiac arrest. Without some funding, many areas within King
County will not be able to provide quick access to emergency medical services.
21. Knowing this, if you had another chance to vote on the measure to
continue funding for Medic One which was on the last November 4th
ballot, how would you vote, yes or no?
1. yes 83%
2. no 8%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 9%
7
Now I'm going to read you some descriptions of the Emergency Medical Services
ballot issue. For each description please tell me if that description would make
you more or less likely to vote for that issue. IF MORE LIKELY: Would you be
much more likely or somewhat more likely to vote yes? IF LESS LIKELY:
Would you be much less likely or somewhat less likely to vote yes?
ROTATE 22-25 -
---MORE--- ---LESS---- Don't No
Much Smwhj, Smwht• Much_ Know Opinion
22. The levy was 29 cents per
$1,000 of assessed
value of property —four
cents per $1,000 more
than you are paying today,
for a total cost of $50 per
year for the average (64%) (19%}
$175,000 home 34% 30% 10% 8% 9% 9%
23. The levy was continued for (64%) (18%)
six years 39% 26% 9% 9% 10% 7%
24. The levy was continued for
three years instead of six (53%) (25%)
years 26% 26% 14% 10% 12% 10%
25. The levy was phased out over
three years and funded
through another new revenue (47%) (23%)
source 23% 25% 12% 11% 19% 11%
8
26. Which statement is closer to your opinion, even if neither is exactly right?
1. Voting no on the Emergency Medical Services
levy will not cause Medic One to be eliminated
because it is such an essential service that
government will find a way to fund it anyway, 35%
OR
2. Funding Emergency Medical Services out of the
county budget would mean cuts in the county's
other basic services, like police protection, parks
and human services. We have to continue the
property tax levy to pay for it because there is no
other money available. 54%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 12%
For each of the following statements please tell me if you strongly agree,
somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.
ROTATE 27-32
--AGREE----- —DISAGREE-- Don't
tr. Smwht. Smwht. Str. Know
27. Medic One is a basic service,
King County should just
fund it out of its current (64%) (28%)
expense budget 39% 26% 15% 13% 8%
28. A property tax levy is a fair
way to pay for Medic One,
Emergency Medical Services
because then everyone pays
the same rate across the
county, whether you live in a (68%) (25%)
city or a rural area 38% 30% 12% 13% 7%
29. Property taxes are too high --
I vote no on every property (25%) (69%)
tax measure 13% 13% 24% 46% 5%
9
--AGREE--- —DISAGREE-- Don't
,$r Smwhj. Smwht. SL Know
30. 1 would support the
Emergency Medical Services
levy as a short-term funding
solution, but only if I know
King County is looking at (29%)
other:ways to fund Medic (63%)
One in the future 32% 31% 14% 16% 8%
31. 1 support Medic One and
Emergency Medical Services
no matter how they are
funded — it's important to
me that everyone in the
county — no matter where
you live — gets quality
emergency medical care (84%) (11%)
18% 4% 7% 4%
quickly 66%
32. If I had known that heart
attack victims here have
the best rate of survival in
the U.S. because we have
Medic One throughout the
county, I would have voted
12%0
for the Medic One, (76 /o) ( )
Emergency Services levy 63% 13% 4% 8% 12%
33. Given what you now know, if the King County Emergency Medical
Services levy were to be on the ballot today, would you vote "yes," in favor
of authorizing the EMS levy, or "no." against authorizing the EMS levy?
1. yes 81%
2. no 13%
3. (DON'T READ) no opinion/don't know 7%
10
Now I would like to ask you some questions for statistical purposes only.
34. Imagine an ideological scale that runs from one to seven, where one
means very Conservative and seven means very Liberal. Where would
you place yourself on that scale? (RECORD 1-7, DK=8)
1. very Conservative 7%
2. 2 9%
3 3 20%
4. 4 20%
5. 5 25%
6. 6 11%
7. very Liberal 5%
8. (DON'T READ) don't know 4%
35. Do you rent or own your home?
1. on 84%
2. rent 14%
3. (DON'T READ) don't know 2%
36. Please stop me when I read the category that includes your annual
household income before taxes: less than $15,000, at least $15,000 but
less than $25,000, at least $25,000 but less than $35,000, at least
$35,000 but less than $50,000, at least $50,000 but less than $75,000, at
least $75,000 but less than $100,000, or more than $100,000?
1. < $15,000 3%
2. $15,000-$24,999 5%
3. $25,000-$34,999 9%
4. $35,000-$49,999 15%
5. $50,000-$74,999 24%
6. $75,000-$99,999 9%
7. $100,000+ 10%
8. (DON'T READ) Refused/NA 25%
11
37. What is your age? (READ CODES IF NECESSARY)
3%
1. 18-24 4%
2. 25-29 7%
3. 30-34 10%
4. 35-39 12%
5. 40-44 12%
6. _45-49 15%
7. 50-54 11%
8. 55-59 6%
9. 60-64 20%
10. 65+ 1%
11. Refused/NA
THANK YOU
38. Zip Code RECORD FROM LIST
39. Reg date RECORD YEAR ONLY -- LAST TWO DIGITS
40. Absentee voter RECORD FROM LIST
29%
1. yes 71%
2. no
41. Voted September 1997 RECORD FROM LIST
47%
1. yes
53%
2. no
42. Voted NOV '96 RECORD FROM LIST
1. yes 91%
2. no 9%
43. Voted SEPT '96 RECORD FROM LIST
1. yes 63%
2. no 37%
44. Legislative district RECORD TWO DIGITS
12
45. City FROM LIST
46. Council District FROM LIST
13
l 1
n
0 0 �
o �
C
■
0
0
o
n
3 0
ao �
c�
7 77 ■ ■ ■cc
C �
O J am
D CD
p� CD CD ? CD
c CD
0 Z
CD
� � o
� a 0
cro � o
N `�C
m x
Q
n � CD
0 m )
m N c O
00 CD CD
0
a c.
�
C14
00 ° CD
w O
■ a Cn
CD
O � u
cro
to C
O P a'
r•
CID
Ln
O
O cD
o �
c O o
c
00
n
o C�
as '�
w �
■
p O
CD O
a.
CCD
rr ..
(7G CD
O
CD
cn
CD
�D
CD
CD
� •
S
O
Oro o v•
O
m Q
C n
Fla O O
010
O
O
13 pop
(D
O
x
O N
O O
C
TI
� O
O
O
O O
� O
o
m N
3 N
a •
o
0 0 �
� � o
Z
c�
a)
o c O
X
M..r •
O �I
m
X.
m ■ CD
x a �
I
O
QO �
7
0
°- CD s O
0 CD
G
cD O
C4
CD
r
CL
O
c� CLrD
•
� 00
o O O O� OP
C
■
p O
(7Q �
O
C
o �
o
° �
� w �
o �
A
o
rn
•J �
a
rt
u.
o
N r+ ® CD
COD
UQ
� ❑ O
o
o
O
C
7
■
� z
< o
CD o
CD `� o
o
El
� z
o �
O �•
co �
0 0
CD
XCD
S
d
� m
o � o
y
� � O
V' �G
C Ca
co
C. m N %%%
CL G p �
Z
CD P.O.
♦2 p N V
O
-01
O o
Mt
cD
(D O
o ~
r w
cD
N 'p
N � rO
r ° CDcD
0 0
o
0 CD
S
7 co
u
p o
OR a
0
CD
o
o �
-� = -- con
ry
CD
Ln
O 7 CD r
cr, �.
CD w
r" Con
C <
cn O�
O O O O O O O
o
CLcn
z
o
n o Ln
a
rz
w
c
0
° A G
j
03 N
:E 0
� � o
� N
CD _
c
.a
m.4, O
a: C rt
O CD O
x < CD
CD
❑ o
UG
� N
CD O
0
0
O�
v o
� o
c3
(D >
Uq
o CD
v CD
o
� o
IIHMP
Utz
ONO-
r"-
O
a
o cD
■
r:
CD
•j r
� C
� O
O
cr
O O
OD
x
O �•
O �
� n
O `C
o �
p
m O O.
C F- °
3 \ O
d O �
El
aco •J �
w �
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing, with conditions.
the execution of an agreement between the City of
Kent and King County regarding a county-wide A'
ballot proposition for funding emergency medical .
services pursuant to RCW 84.52.069, as amended;
concurring with the recommendation to establish an '
EMS advisory committee; and encouraging t
maintenance of funding of the EMS program.
WHEREAS, the City of Kent ("City") has a population of over 70,000 people and
cities in King County of greater than 50,000 in population must approve the Emergency Medical
Services ("EMS") levy being placed on a county-wide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the City supports EMS as a regional system that requires a continuing
leadership for the County; and
WHEREAS, the King County Council on September 8, 1997, as a companion to
the Ordinance authorizing the November 4, 1997, election on EMS, passed Ordinance No. 12849.
the Preamble of which states "[T]he current, near total reliance on a six-year voter-approved levy
puts the [emergency medical services] program's funding in regular jeopardy and connotes that
the county considers it an optional program. . . . [T]he county council is committed to
researching more secure, permanent funding sources for this important program and
WHEREAS, the City supports the foregoing statement in County Ordinance No.
12849, and agrees that a voter-approved property tax is not the preferable funding mechanism and
is committed to Finding a new, permanent funding source for the EMS system in partnership with
the County; and
1
WHEREAS, it has been to the benefit of the citizens of the City to support and
participate in the county-wide partnership of delivering Advanced Life Support and Basic Life
Support services; and
WHEREAS, the delivery of emergency medical services is an essential function
of the fire and life safety responsibilities of the City's Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, the King County adopted EMS Strategic Plan has emphasized the need
for proactive methods aimed at controlling the future growth in the demand for services. thereby
making the initially proposed levy rate of twenty-nine cents ($.29) per thousand dollars ($1,000)
of assessed valuation viable; and
WHEREAS, the failure of the EMS levy on November 4, 1997 resulted in the
potential loss of strongly integrated Advanced Life Support/Basic Life Support services delivered
in conjunction with King County Fire Protection District #37 to the City's citizens; and NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
,SECTION 1: The Kent City Council authorizes King County to place the King County
EMS levy renewal before the voters at the February, 1998 special election, with a county-wide
property tax levy rate of up to twenty-tune cents ($.29) per thousand dollars ($1,000) of assessed
valuation for a period of three (3) years.
SECTION 2: The City of Kent supports the levy with the understanding that the County
agrees to create the EMS Financial Planning Task Force called for by Ordinance 12849 no later
than February 15, 1998; provided, however that:
a. City representatives on the task force shall be appointed directly by each
jurisdiction so represented (in the case of Seattle. Bellevue, Federal Way. Kent and
Shoreline) and the Suburban Cities Association (in the case of the two (2) smaller
city representatives).
b. In preparing its "analysis of long-term funding alternatives that would allow the
county to reduce its reliance on property tax levies to support emergency medical
services" as required by Ordinance No. 12849, the Task Force shall (1) explore
all reasonable operational models for financing and delivering EMS service; (2)
identify and recommend possible efficiencies and operational models that could
reduce or otherwise contain long-term as well as interim costs of the EMS system;
and (3) focus its long-term recommendations on alternatives to financing EMS
through means other than periodically voter-approved property tax levies.
C. The membership of the EMS Financial Planning Task Force called for by
Ordinance No. 12849 shall be amended to consist of the King County Executive,
two (2) representatives from the County Council, one (1) representative from each
city with the county with a population over 50,000. two (2) representatives from
small cities appointed by the Suburban Cities Association, two (2) fire district
Commissioners and two (2) citizens-at-large from the unincorporated area. The
Task Force shall be supported by an interjurisdictional staff team.
SECTION 3. The City supports the levy with the further understanding that the
Countv will direct the EMS Advisory Committee recommended by the 1998-2003 Emergency
Medical Services Strategic Action Plan, dated June, 1997. to work in cooperation with the EMS
Financial Planning Task Force, and that the EMS Advisory Committee place its highest priority
on implementing cost containment strategies identified in that Strategic Plan that can reduce the
cost of the EMS system as soon as possible.
3
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington this _
day of 1997.
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this — day of
1997.
JIM WHITE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. passed by
the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the _ day of 1997.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:`.LAW\RESOLUTPEMSRESN4.KFD
4
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: KENT SATURDAY MARKET LETTER OF AGREEMENT, AND
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - APPROVAL AND
AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Kent Saturday Market has presented
a proposal that would allow the City to assist the Market to
develop the old Dunn Lumber "Barn" site into a new year-round
downtown Market. This proposal asks the City to create a
statutory Public Development Authority that would receive title
to the Barn property. The PDA would receive the property
through a note and deed of trust, together with a partial
donation from the City. The PDA would then obtain separate
financing and grants to redevelop the site. Once completed,
the Kent Downtown Partnership would lease the property from
the PDA, and the leasehold proceeds would be used to payoff
existing debts.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memorandum of Understanding
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (2-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES X
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS-
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember�. _l moves, Councilmember `ti � L -' seconds
r
to authorize the Mayor to enter into the "Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Kent and the Kent Downtown
Partnership, " and to direct the City Attorney to draft the
necessary ordinance to establish a Public Development Authority
organized to support the development of a new location for the
operation of a full time downtown market in downtown Kent.
DISCUSSION: j
ACTION•
Council Agenda
Item No. 4D
i
��� wgq,I�I�Inumu ��I I
-
�'UiiipY��li�ui�
f4wwAw
t___ lllll
Mee a.
i' �rt
Pitl
��... �R I, I ITT
per
s.
Positive impacts will be felt by the City in the following ways:
1. A permanent business incubator will be created.
2. The Market location will clean up a blight area in the city.
;: A permanent tourist attraction will be created for the city.
4. The market will be visible to the commuter rail station.
5. The market will expand the central business district.
6. The building will increase the visibility of the Market.
The building will provide additional meeting space in downtown.
8 The market will provide an avenue for educational programs.
9. The market will provide entertainment in a family atmosphere.
10. The market will help create a focus for downtown.
11. The market will over time become a permanent funding source for downtown
projects.
12 The expansion of the market will provide an increased tax base for the city.
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The City of Kent and the Kent Downtown Partnership
The City of Kent, a Washington municipal corporation (the City) and the Kent Downtown
Partnership, a Washington nonprofit corporation and a 501(c)(3) organization (the KDP),
mutually desire to reach an agreement with the components outlined below. It is the intent of both
parties that all steps necessary to carry out this agreement be completed by March 1, 1998,
Section 1. The Market Project
An open-air public farmers market ("'Market) with fresh produce and local crafts has
operated in Kent downtown for 23 years. It was originally established by a joint task force
appointed by then Mayor Isabell Hogan and the President of the Kent Chamber of Commerce. In
the early years, a committee of the Chamber of Commerce managed the market. In 1978 the City
of Kent undertook ownership and management of the Market through its Parks Department. In
1993, the City, resolved to return the Market operation to the private sector. It then worked out
an arrangement with KDP in which the KDP agreed to manage and operate the market. Since it
undertook these responsibilities, KDP has demonstrated impressive success in substantially
reducing operating costs and increasing the number of Vendors and revenues. Since its
beginning, the Market has been open only on weekends and its performance is often weather
dependent. The City recognizes that the Market has been an important contributor to the vitality
of the downtown core, and that establishment of an indoor-outdoor Market would add an
additional focal point for the marketing the City of Kent as a shopping destination.. This would
have the effect of encouraging and supporting existing and potential businesses throughout the
City by drawing people to Kent during shopping hours. The parties established a goal of
developing a permanent market in the downtown area
As the first step in pursuing this goal the parties worked together to acquire the old Dunn Lumber
property on Railroad Avenue (the Barn) to serve as the new location of an expanded Market.
The project which is the subject of this memorandum involves (a)the formation of a Public
Development Authority established for the purpose of developing and
development d ancig the Market,of the Barn and
conveyance of the Barn to the Public Development Authority, secure a certificate of of occupancy
Market by the PDA through a renovation which is necessary
from the City It will achieve, among other things, seismic adequacy, commercial and functional
attractiveness and compliance with all applicable codes. The renovation shall be carried out
consistent with the Architectural Drawings and Specifications already completed by Architect
Kevin Broderick, (d) establishment of long term management and maintenance agreements of the
Market necessary to comply with this agreement and to meet the mutual goals of the parties, and
(e) seasonal use of that portion of the railroad property that is located directly across from the
market for overflow vendor space.
Section 2. Financing Plan
In order to reach these goals, the parties agree as follows:
(a) The City will create a public development authority (the PDA) pursuant to RCW 35.21 g[
(b ) The City will transfer title to the Barn to the PDA together with the sum of$192,000:00
in cash which funds were secured by the City for the purpose of establishing and developping the
Market. The documents involved in the transfer of title shall include language assuring that in the
event of default, the City can take the steps necessary to secure transfer of the title to the Barn
and Marklet property back to them City.
( c ) The City and the PDA will enter into a Development and Use agreement (the "Use
Agreement") which will set forth the covenants of the PDA to develop the Barn through a loan
arranged by the PDA with a lender (Bank) and guaranteed by the City. The Use Agreement will
provide that prior to seeking the funds necessary to Develop the Barn, the PDA will:
(1) Negotiate with a Bank for a tax-exempt loan to the PDA(the "Bank Loan") for
renovation and development of the Barn. The PDA will pledge the repayment of the loan
through a lease with KDP. It will work out with the Bank an acceptable sum to be set
aside out of the $192000.00 which sum shall be held by the PDA as a reserve to assure the
PDA will always have the ability to pay the sums necessary to service the Bank loan.
(2) Enter into an Operation and Lease Agreement ( Lease Agreement) with the KDP for
the operation of the Market. The terms of the Lease Agreements shall be consistent with
prudent business practices and shall require that KDP establish a satisfactory reserve out
of funds raised by KDP through grants and donations . This reserve shall be held by KDP
to assure that the payments required by the Lease Agreements will always be timely paid
to the PDA by the KDP. The Lease Agreement will provide for an active oversight role
for the City in the event that the KDP is unable to meet its financial obligations. The
Lease Agreement will consider and provide for KDP's need to maintain the Barn and the
Market in a first rate manner by structuring the rent in the early period of the lease
relationship to assure its ability to do so.
Section 3. The PDA
The City will approve the articles of the PDA which shall provide for a five person board.
The Mayor will appoint and the City Council will approve all Board Members with the KDP
nominating two of the board members. The Board will select its own chair and adopts its own
bylaws.
The City will transfer ownership of the Barn to the PDA. The City and the PDA will
approve the Use Agreement which will specify the permissible use of the Barn, permit the lease of
the Barn to the KDP and provide for City oversight of PDA operations. The Use Agreement will
authorize the PDA to negotiate to secure a loan to be guaranteed by the City in accordance with
2
RCW 3521.745.
The agreement transferring title to the Barn to the PDA and all pertinent agreements
negotiated by the PDA will be written to assure that the City shall have the right to take steps to
secure the transfer of the Barn and all improvements back to the City in the event of an incurable
default situation under the Operating and Lease Agreement between the PDA and KDP or any
successor to KDP.
Section 4. Renovation
The PDA will negotiate the lease of the Barn to the KDP, secure bank and private
financing for the renovation of the Barn and enter into a construction contract for the renovation
of the Barn and Market, consistent with the Drawings and Specifications as prepared by Architect
Kevin Broderick, following a negotiated RFP process, conducted by the PDA, to select a
general contractor. The City and the KDP shall have the right to approve the design,
specifications and budget of the renovation project.
Section 5. KDP Funding
KDP has commenced a capital fund drive with a goal of raising through grants, gifts and in
kind services a sum equal to S100,000.00 by December 31, 1998 to be used for reserves to
assure its ability to make lease payments. KDP has in process a grant application to King
County through it Facilities Development Grant Fund which must be filed by December 15, 1997.
Once the PDA is formed, it will substitute as the Grant Applicant in place of KDP. Should such
a Gram be awarded (there will be many applicants competing for these funds), the application of
those funds toward this project will be determined by the PDA.
Dated this _day of 1997
City of Kent Kent Downtown Partnership
By By
3
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Financing Proposal
The financing of the Public Development Authority (PDA) is proposed in
two components :
1) The City of Kent (City) will transfer the land, building and
approximately $ 190 , 000 in cash that remains in the fund
from the original acquisition of the property to the PDA.
2) The renovation_ and management of the Market .
PROJECT COST
Estimated renovation costs $ 700 , 000
Cost overrun contingency 100 , 000
Total $ 800 , 000
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Cash available from City (See 1 above) $ 190, 000
Grant to be applied for from King County 150 , 000 *
City guaranteed loan from a commercial bank 460 , 000 *
Total $ 800 , 000
* If the grant from King County is not received, the loan from
a commercial bank will need to be approximately $ 610, 000 .
The annual debt service wi'_1 be approximately $ 32, 300 for a $ 460, 000
loan or $ 42, 800 for a $ 610 , 000 loan.
In addition, Kent Downtown Partnership (KDP) will commence a fund
drive with a goal of raising $ 100 , 000 through grants, gifts and in
kind services for an operating reserve .
Kent Market
Five Year Income Projection
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
INCOME OPEN 7/1/98
Booth rental M1 ,7501
192,768 258,008 287,003 354,187I
Storage rental
7001 800 9001 1,2001
Vendor registration 8,7501 14,000 I 14,000 17,500Commissary fees
Event rental 2,000 ' .30001 4,0001 5,000 ',
Miscellaneous income 1 I I
Total income 95,882 204,218 275 8081 305 9031 377,887 J
EXPENSES I
i 1 I
Fire insurance 2,000 i 4,0001 4,0001 4,000 4,000
Electricity/heating 3,600I 7,920 8,7121 9,584 10,542
Phone 9001 1 ,980 ' 2,178 2,396 2,635 '
Garbage 6E11 .000
1,320 1,452 1,5971 1 ,757
Liability insurance 5 1,100 1,2101 1,330
Wages 20,05,0001 70,00 ) 77,000 94,000Taxes 2,05,5001 7.000 7,700 914
Advertising 7, 0,000 i 11,0001 12,1001 13,310
Printing 2,500 i 5,500 6,0501 6,6551 7,320
Dues 75 165i 1821 200 2201
Licenses I 401 831 921 1021 113
Equipment rental 500 ; 1 ,100 ! . 1 ,210 ', 1. 1,330 ! 1 ,4631
Postage 1 1 ,500 , 3.300 3.630 I 3,9901 4,389
Entertainment 7501 1 ,650 1,8151 1 ,9951 2,195
ASCAP 350 , 350 350 ', 3501 350 !
Banner placement/removal 1 ,000 1 ,100 , 1,2101 1,3301 1,4631
Office supplies 500 1 ,100 1 ,2101 1,3301 14631
Equipment purchase 2,000 4,400 , 4.8401 5,3241 5,856
Banner Purchase 2 100 2,310 2,5401 2,7941 3,0741
Maintenance 20001 4,400 4,8401 5,324 5,856
Maintenance reserve 3,000 3,000 3,0001 30001
I I
i
Total expenses 50
,415 415 115,178 ! 136,411 I 149,3111 173,736
Available for debt service 45,4671 89 040 139 3971 156 592 204,151
Booth rental by day of the week and location
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Saturday
Inside space lstfloor 9,3601 18,000 20,5921 22,4641 24,336
Inside space 2nd floor 2,288 6,600 10,0671 10,9821 11,898
Outside space on premises 1 7,4261 14,2801 16,9731 19,094 21,216
Outside space in park 1 3,6401 7,000 ' 8,320 1 9,360 I 10,400
Sunday
Inside space 1 st floor 7,4881 14,400 16,8481 18,7201 20,592 I
Inside space 2nd floor 1,8301 5,280 8,2371 9,1521 10,067
Outside space on premises 5,304 , 10,2001 12,7301 14,8511 16,973
Outside space in park 2,600 5,000 6,240 7,2801 8,320
Monday
Inside space 1 st floor 7,4881 14,4001 16,8481 18,7201 20,592
Inside space 2nd floor 1 ,8301 5,2801 8,2371 9,152 i 10,067
Outside space on premises
Outside space in park
Tuesday
Inside space lstfloor 7,4881 14,4001 16,8481 18,7201 20,592
Inside space 2nd floor 1 ,8301 5,2801 8,2371 9,152 10,067
Outside space on premises
Outside space in park
Wednesday
Inside space 1 st floor 7,4881 14,4001 16,8481 18,7201 20,592
Inside space 2nd floor i 1,8301 5,2801 8,2371 9,1521 10,067
Outside space on premises 21,216
Outside space in park
Thursday
Inside space lstfloor 7,4881 14,4001 16,8481 18,720 20,5921
Inside space 2nd floor 1 ,830 5,250 8 237 9,152 10,067
Outside space on premises 16,9731
Outside space in park
Friday
Inside space lstfloor 7,488 14,400 16,848 1 18,7201 20,5921
Inside space 2nd floor 1 ,830 5.280 8,237 9,152 I 10,067
Outside space on premises 12,730 14,851 1 16,973
Outside space in park �- 6,2401 7,280 ! 8,320
Permanent vendors 6.804 13,608 ' 13,608i 13,608 13,6081
Total booth rental 93.332 192,768 258,008 ' 287,0031 354,187
ASSUMPTIONS
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Spaces available 301 30
Inside 1 st floor 30 301 30
Inside 2nd floor 221 22 ' 22 22; 22
51 51 51 511 51
Outside on premises 100
Outside park 100 100 I 100 ' 100
Rate Saturday 221 241 26
Inside 1 st floor 20 20 1
Inside 2nd floor 20 20 I 221 24 26
Outside on premises 141 14 , 161 181 20
Outside park 141 141 161 18 i 20
Rate Other Days
Inside 1 st floor I, 16 16 i 20 i 22
18 �
Inside 2nd floor 16 16 181 201 22
Outside on premises _ 10 10 121 14' 161
Outside park 10 ' 10 I 121 141 .16
Permanent per month 162
Percent occupancy 0.6
Inside 1 st floor 0.6 0.6 I 0.6 I 0.6 I
Inside 2nd floor I, 0.21 0.3 0.41 0.41 0.4
Outside on premises 0.41 0.4 0.41 0.41 0.4
Outside park 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 I 0.1 0.1 1
Saturdays open 261 50 i 521 521 52
Sundays open 26 ' 50 ' 521 521 52
Mondays open 261 50 , 521 521 521
Tuesdays open 261 50i 521 52 � 521
Wednesdays open 26 50 ' 52I 521 521
Thursdays open 26 ' 50 ' 52I 52' 521
Fridays open 26 50 52 52! 52 !
Kent Market
1995/1996/1997
Comparison
4/12197 S4181 S4181 4/13/96 $5998 S5998
4/19/97 S 579 S4760 4/20/96 S864 S6863
4/26197 S1290 S6050 4/27/96 $914 S7776 4/29/95 58417 58417
5/3/97 S 725 S6775 5/4/96 SL300 $9076 3/6/95 S2086 SLO503
5/10/97 S1460 S8235 5/11/96 S1656 $10732 5/11/95 S1724 S12227
5/l7/97 $1073 $9308 5/18/96 S821 S11553 5/20/95 S1569 S13796
5/24/97 S1717 $11025 5/25/96 $1583 S13136 5/27/95 S1631 S15427
5/3l/97 S955 S11980 6/1/96 S1925 31506! 6/3/95 S1833 S17260
6/7/97 $2728 $14708 6/8/96 S3910 S18971 6/10/95 S2625 519885
6/14/97 S1596 S16304 6/15/96 $2843 S21841 6/17/96 S3357 S23242
6/21/97 $1744 $18048 6/22/96 S1833 $23674 6/24/96 S2939 S26181
6/28/97 S1418 S19466 6/29/96 $2009 $25683 7/l/95 S2071 S28252
7/5/97 S999 S20465 7/6196 S2936 S28619 7/8/95 S2440 S30692
7/12197 $3766 S24231 Corn S991 S29610 7/15/95 S1183 S31875
7/19/97 $1538 S25769 7/20/96 S907 S30517 Corn
7/26/97 $1204 S26973 7/27/96 $1220 S31737 7/29/95 S1293 S33168
8/2/97 S1379 S28352 8/3/96 S685 S32420 8/5/95 S644 S33812
8/9/97 S1088 S29440 8/10/96 S1003 $33423 8/12195 S733 S34545
8/16/97 S1083 S30523 8117/96 S1008 S34431 8/19/95 S984 S35529
8/23/97 S993 S31516 8/24/96 S1055 S35486 8/26/9 51139 S36668
8/30/97 S947 $32463 8/31/96 S732 S36218 9/2/96 S926 S37594
9/6/97 $829 S33292 9/7/96 $662 S36880 9/9/95 S1045 S38639
9/13/97 $827 S34119 9/14/96 $287 S37167 9/16/95 $1003 S39642
9/20/97 S981 $35100 9/21/96 S528 S37695 9/23/95 Sill-, W755
9/27/97. S994 $36094 9/28/96 S750 S38445 9/30/95 S521 S41276
10/4/97 S274 S36368 10/5/96 S315 S39760 10/7/95 S771 S42047
10/11/97$522 S36723 10/12/96$436 S39196 10/14/9531014 S43061
10/18/97S795 S37518 10/19/96$183 S39379
10/25/97S689 S38207 10/26/96S353 S39732
11/25/975392 $38599
Billed S831 S39430
Bakery S15,802 S55232
•Rain days have been underlined
P.0!
11/25/1997 09�50 FROM Diablo Indust. Tech
TO 91 S2B6?
-�
---------------
-------------
-------------
OTRI P.01
/1 4
/V
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: HIGHLAND CROSSING FSU-96-18 (FORMERLY STONEGATE
KNOLLS) FINAL PLAT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the
Highland Crossing Final Plat application by Centex Homes. The
80-lot single family residential final plat is located between
116th Avenue S.E. and 120th Avenue S.E. , and south of S.E.
240th Street, and is 10. 25 acres in size. The preliminary plat
was approved by the King County Hearing Examiner and upon
annexation to the City, the preliminary plat came under Kent' s
jurisdiction and was approved by the Kent City Council on
June 41 1996 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo; maps; King County Hearing Examiner
report (File No. L95P0002) ; and June 4 , 1996 Council minutes
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: city Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember ? ,v moves, Councilmember j
seconds
for final plat approval of the Highland Crossing Final Plat
(formerly called Stonegate Knolls) according to the King County
File No. L95P0002 , as recommended by Staff.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
x} Council Agenda
Item No. 4E
CITY OF ;(rULL,
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-33901FAX (206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
December 9, 1997
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HIGHLAND CROSSING FINAL PLAT NO. FSU-96-18 (FORMERLY CALLED
STONEGATE KNOLLS)
On December 5, 1995, the King County Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the Highland
Crossing Preliminary Plat (File No. L95SP0002), a 80-lot single family residential plat. Upon
annexation to the City of Kent, the preliminary plat came under the Kent's jurisdiction. The Kent
City Council approved the Highland Crossing Preliminary Plat(formerly Stonegate Knolls)on June
4, 1996. The property is located between 116th Avenue SE and 120th Avenue SE and north of SE
240th Street.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Highland Crossing Final Plat No. FSU-96-18
according to the conditions referenced in the King County Hearing Examiner's report File No.
L95P0002.
JPH/mp:u:fsu9618.fp
cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
2204Ih AVENUE SOUTH i KENT.WASHINGTON 9803'_-5895 r TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
r 07 1
r
, r
m
y� �• W
m
s HIGHLAND CROSSING FINAL PLAT NO. FSU-96-18
(Formerly Stonegate Knolls)
�= Page 1 of 3
CI _ imoo
. p •�i 1:
C N
IS
rJ
m
�+ N00'Si 45'E N00'Ss'45"E N0054'45'E I4OSV3 - 03'E
z Ef) - 62.10 60.00 60.00 _
NOO'56'46•E I1 - ,
1 O»OD
A OIO1 �•
m O1 N to 28' 28'
m V107 J13
u (p c7� pqp
= OD OI? p U W m U N m U O� m N 0.: ' `! •�
Ln
T y;yi�i M 11Z�F AAA►/ �,,.' m { ^J•rti� Sa'45,
9, :n
U U iO 3T 34 6000 116
S y,p
NOO.54'45"E
m
154.98
m 0 119M USE �•��►.t
1 0 Z \ 37.80 r 64 SO i
0-i 0 .1O fl U 3 .�,'ntI01bSJ6�E
CZ J A U 8 ^' �.'. p i
i • ! u NOI'03'16'E
O 99 22 OU06 'Fi•r` ,
I 03 J fy/� { o . .P ♦.. '.. 9 �'
mp •"1 u 501'03'41"w ' 4• vN lv.
.1d sC
In .. v po 62.99
Mx
Z � ' �' ' , uy ' N01'03'16'E y.
6211
L�59 5743`+. IW 41'W 3 SZ StiS
32.27 LS U
Q N
zo
tit . ..
., . • caI 2 00Q ,-
501'O3'I W
28' 28' 1 70.67 /-�•~i '4`S l'
ZRMSQ0W
146'W i
Y "1
Z .
8 8 ` :- o L
,.. Z t�13
n_
NEST LINE SECTION 21 clnth�nn�r�nn��n�ntl,l rnlnnnnnnf)nn0�
QI Q1mm VJV JJJV VJPPPP I{4N p'OPU+U+4m
+UN CI V PU+4NrOi0 OlPU -
1161H AYE SE
s S00'54'45-W
N N 4 60,00
O up OOO JNNUm UN OtoOUtn:/'U00�op'OOpp�pp pOO ppUU
O OC, p p O Op p O p O O O p O O Op Op O C O p p O�O O O O O O
8oSS88g888p88o8808 CO O O
r
4 V IpNPN „r V, UU V P P4(f4�V 4�PNp V 044� - .
rO Vlf O•d4,p_0!�PJONPUU. 4N. '.
W �m10V4tp j'U10 V'4mJ4+4 m'�O�r l"lP P'.+N<"1040m \'..I
� x m
N HIGHLAND CROSSING FINAL PLAT NO. FSU-96-18 a Um
N (Formerly Stonegate Knolls) 8 0.
w Page 2 of 3 TM . ">44
Op Cp PU�Om4oO O_O+ONU�U
�: ip�Wlm OrLUOiWO.01.N'i Om ♦JN1lf.lU dGd y'.' m
U(}U11J w11U•�U1d�V1N�+U1 i011.i 1A ��jj [j :"' '
OV1DV++P+JmbO♦��O(bmPP+P(�17:+(3+V♦V♦)• 1 O
O�UVr+i00 p�'OOTTb PUb UON�OPNm�Abp ,'�. ',h LA fSYY
SOO'54'45'W 4 0 - m
01 6000 0
of
m
i O D o
ip '1 F ��]] •O N o d --7 0OD.:' y 6 .14
+ x O r1 .a d On a _ a Q) o O g + o
U U U ! N
z� .. -w
O �. 3 �� ' •I . .
O
L57 60 00 60.00 16
N a 117rH AVE SE !'' N
69.89 u N0054'WE v
N 660.69
N0034.45"E !
12s•Ot., N ^y 64 38 60.00 LSB
iL
A n Y
I JoJa n Q nm r O o
r it.St`1.L�Jr eo 99 4 � a, � � ha' _ g u gb1
m r4 _ mN �a m 00 p �' !D 8 �' {1p11' o d-it;b
m h Nio m },�� o o io y g ei I l00"� 1
4-3 ,g a Wmr7' a U u - ;+ r•r r{ Iw et^y otl.t� �n
Q u r^ 'f•. '�'� 'L 1nf. �`' o
H Yr� 7000 60.W 61. IA9
4.L0N 4 +
'T1 9429 BG 29 N00'S4 45 E 70.00
NOO54'4 "E NOOSi 45"E 6009 M yL 6ti YEN N`•
4"N, r^
6101 rW60 3.OVA-Z05
m
P T 1 U
4'1 3794 .00 60 00 =7
" ct NO054'45-E
283.50 i 5'
o �N 97 27 - 130.01 i
_ 33.89 60A0 60.00 ue �� r SdSS 4 W 2
P M-
o >m
U N cp
SD
1 r4 P
n, P
N
NOOS4'45"E NOOS4'45"E I N0054'45"E N05'05'23"E NOI.03'03-E
62.10 50.00 60.00 6015 gp pp
m
a �ggg
U ue� u � �. i^ �N _ �! �(TI J s0 TCD n - I. O+♦w
I
�37.34.j. ra:C4) .. @_qo `1 4..• IY�I. ,I.'. aw,pN
q Na354'a• 11vM cr SE
-
n J
v
�J11L1l�I HIGHLAND CROSSING FINAL PLAT NO. FSU-96-18
(Formerly Stonegate Knolls)
IF N.W. 1/4 .SEC. ,
CITY.OF . Page 3 of 3 1 ON
�281•+Y�n515 w N99
-- _ TRACT E
�I
23.131 e:}
43
If' 66m6,f I,,xe 7�16Ds:'f. ' _ I 6,I4L 9.= '%Z o.f. �rlu fEk,
C60 .,.44... t�':� -. C59,' � �•" _ i C51!
85.06 C53'• .25 - - 161.21 -�+ L35
148.32 'rT•' - 119.99 - - 230.00
4..`
SE 2"TH ST
sl. a
139 97
75.04 7009 6991 FC66 ,
81.01 -'
C63 C64 ; C65 39 22 23 i 8,604 a f. 20' 20' 8,7I9 e.f. ow
N8903P14W N89.0314"W N89'03'14'W Z3.14'
99.99 ULM
4 J,' 94.99 W 9501 20' 20 m t
s _ : '.38 S 0 24 w 0 21 r v.,
�d Q998 w f. $ 5.709 e.f. o 5.699 e.f.
1 N 9V3't 4'w i
Tt1"Yr�Ft 1 C11 2.2
N89934"W NB W
_99.99
« 9389
,
314•E
25 31 o.i u " 128.43
20
• , -i .+16.899 w f. u e 5.859 e.f. „; 5,795•f. " -N o c ^ 44,
3. S
N89'03'14•w N8903'14'W - .+,u.•;7.57146}. vi
'•.v aj fS'�T"7. W 100.00 ; 97 27 r 58903'14'E
-T M. 38 28 _12z36 .
i It-
S r, e S :g 19 c1 7. a ..
S, 7`1�54999 w f. 0 0+ 0 6.000 a f. �'On 0 51%5 0.f. _4
r a
�yR� 0 o r
1w+1<N090 '14'w 0 .7270
N8903'14'W N89'03.14'W -
10000 t00.00 g.S• •:
n 58903'14'E
39 01
S 18 8 27 S
6,000 c f. a 6p00 s.}. 8
74• �� N8903'14'W pp 0
1.30.00 99 el
.99 N89'03 14 W N89'03 14'w �) „+, ,.,��
100.00 10000 :tlCi S"90S14•E
_ 34 2a 0 28 0 1T S o i . 121.01
e 8A15 s.}. o o o
$ 6.000 s.f. 6A00 e.f. w N v $' 8
N8903'h4'W S
N89'0314'W N89'03'14"W
g33 o t0z�00 10000 SB921.01.E
0 0 18 S
w0 6.000 e.f.. $ 6.000 e.}. S - T
N890314'W $ 72M e.f.
�
99,99 589'0314-E N89'0314'W+ m 10000 100 00
m rZ S8903'u'E
0 ,; 121.01
■,•� e n 30 `.+•� 19 n
V 4
TRACT
S$ 8.018~f' N 6.781 e.f. N o Bb05 e.f. Ej
41, f. = N8903't4'W Cl
055e. 0
DEDICATED TO 102.60 0 �, 46 C4 G4 40.
CITY OF KENT fAo ',C47 d5 09 64 91 S8903'14'E
7 5' UTILITY - C81 p 107.28
S 31 EASEMENTT- 0 GCS_' N88'51 40 w J 41
11000„ -f/ 9
g�g��•}, .O9 1,1 �y 588'5440'E =842 SEE DETAIL 'A'
.0 0' �' 1 C=9 r? 6,JS,w f. O
N890514'W S 6 �0 75'r UOUTY 1 4625 6000 C 9r yg• 15' UlJTILITY
p91"5 r J�'r. EASEMENT
83,43 y�0 O EASEMENT C2 42 fi d S 8 .27 96,27 E
�Z 3 ,4 Ue 27 - -
NTS 5� f TRACT 2 Jt10 6.00S s.f. o m 5,903 e.f.o S 13 o0 12 r o 11 ; 10 •n
D6 12746 a T. N 76 0 33 W 25 v, 0 6.000 e.f. 5,8t7 s f. a° 5,7g4 s t m 0,t54 w f.
DEDICATED TO ` u.
CITY OF KENT 119 P'^ 30'
•4 4391
60 DO 70,00 9' 90.20
3 N88'54Y6 w
N
December 5, 1995
CITY OF KENT
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DEC 06 1995
700 Central Building
810 Third Avenue ENGINEERING DEPT
Seattle, Washington 98104
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services
File No. L95P0002
Proposed Ordinance No. 95-712
Proposed Plat of STONEGATE KNOLLS
Lying approximately between 116th Avenue S.E. and 120th
Avenue S.E. , and between 242nd Street and S.E. 245th
Street (if these two roads were developed)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's Preliminary: Approve, subject to conditions
Division's Final: Approve, subject to conditions
(modified)
Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions
(modified)
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
The Land Use Services Division's Preliminary Report on Item
No. L95P0002 was received by the Examiner on November 14,
1995.
PUBLIC HEARING•
After reviewing the Land Use Services Division's Report and
examining available information on file with the
application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the
subject as follows:
The hearing on Item No. L95P0002 was opened by the Examiner at
9:15 a.m. , November 28, 1995, in Hearing Room No. 2, Department
of Development and Environmental Services, 3600 - 136th Place
S.E. , Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 12:45 p.m.
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 King County
Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the
record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the
following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Developer: Centex Real Estate Corp.
2320 130th Avenue N.E. , Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
(206) 882-3611
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 2
Engineer: Landmark, Inc.
1130 140th Avenue N.E. , Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98005
(206) 340-1100
Surveyor: Hansen I Swift
4800 Capitol Blvd. , Suite D
Tumwater, WA 98501
(360) 754-2999
STR: NW 21-22-5
Location: Lying approximately between 116th
Avenue S.E. and 12Oth Avenue S.E. ,
and between 242nd Street and S.E.
245th Street (if these two roads
were developed)
Zoning: RS-7200-P pursuant to KCC Title 21;
R-6 (six dwelling units per acre)
pursuant to KCC Title 21A
Acreage: 18.58
Number of Lots: 79
Typical Lot Size: Ranges from approximately 5,500
square feet to 10,000 square feet,
with one larger lot at 26,091
square feet. These typical lot
sizes may be slightly modified in
order to accommodate cul-de-sac
turnaround bulb design and
construction. See Finding No. 45,
below.
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residences
Sewage Disposal: City of Kent
Water Supply: City of Kent
Fire District: King County Fire District #37
School District: Kent School District #415
Date of Application: January 19, 1995
2. Centex Real Estate Corporation (the "Applicant") proposes to
subdivide an 18.58-acre parcel into 79 single-family
residential building lots. Using the lot averaging
provisions contained in KCC 21.08.080, the Applicant
proposes lot sizes ranging from 5,481 to 9,959 square feet,
with one remainder lot measuring 26,091 square feet.
3. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. On
October 3, 1995, the King County Environmental Division
issued a threshold determination of non-significance (DNS)
for the proposed development. That is, the Environmental
Division published its determination that, based upon the
environmental review it had conducted pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , RCW 43.21C, the proposal
would not cause probable significant adverse impacts upon
the environment and, therefore, would not require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement prior to
taking final action. on the proposed development.
4. The Department of Development and Environmental Services
(the "Department") recommends granting approval to the
proposed subdivision, subject to 32 conditions of final plat
approval. Those conditions are set forth on pages 11
through 16 of the Department's Preliminary Report to the
Hearing Examiner dated November 28, 1995 (Exhibit No. 2) ,
except for the following amendments incorporated in the
Department's final recommendation at the conclusion of the
hearing:
A. Storm retention/
detention (R/D) pond release rates may need to be
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 3
decreased due to downstream cross culvert sizing,
driveway culvert sizing, and ditch erosion. Not
mentioned in the Department's preliminary
recommendation, its final recommendation requires a
downstream capacity analysis prior to establishing any
release rate standard, consistent with the King County
Surface Water Management Design Manual. Recommended
Condition Nos. 8a and 8b; Exhibit No. 17.
B. Configuration for 117th Avenue S.E. Proposed 117th
Avenue S.E. , as shown in the applicant's preliminary
plat drawing (Exhibit No. 7) stubs to the west boundary
of the subject property, coincident with an abutting
private street owned by First Christian Church. This
configuration has raised several concerns regarding
placement of a temporary turnaround bulb, access
restriction to the First Christian Church private road,
and barricade standard. The Applicant suggests solving.
these issues by developing 117th Avenue S.E. as a cul-
de-sac, consistent with "urban minor access street"
design standards contained in the King County Road
Standards (KCRS) . Recommended Condition No. 9c;
Exhibit No. 23.
— C. Safe walking conditions for students. Citing the "safe
walking conditions" standard contained in RCW
58.17.110, the Department adds to its preliminary
recommendation an additional recommendation to provide
either eight-foot-wide gravel shoulders along 120th
Avenue S.E. and S.E. 248th Street, or to provide "an
alternative walkway" consistent with KCRS. The
Applicant agrees to this additional condition, but asks
that the range of possible solutions be broadened to
include "an alternative route for walkway
facilities"--a request to which the Department accedes.
Recommended Condition No. 9g; Exhibit No. 24.
D. School enrollment impact fees. Effective January 1,
1996, the subject property will be annexed to the City
of Kent. This pending action has instigated some
disagreement between the Department and the Applicant
regarding the appropriate final plat approval language
for requiring the collection of school enrollment
impact fees. This disagreement is solved by
eliminating specific reference to King County ordinance
Nos. 10162 and 11569, but retaining that language which
requires enrollment impact fees, including 50% of the
fee payment at the time of final plat approval.
Recommended Condition No. 12; Exhibit No. 24.
E. Southeast 244th Street stub improvement. A half-street
segment of proposed S.E. 224th Street right-of-way
abuts proposed Tract C. In its preliminary
recommendation, the Department recommended that this
right-of-way segment be improved to KCRS half-street
standard in order to maximize access to Tract C (a
stormwater detention tract) . The Applicant asks, as an
alternative to actual development prior to final plat
approval, that the Applicant be allowed to post bond or
other appropriate security consistent with
KCC 19.36.060. The Department agrees, and in addition,
suggests that it would be appropriate to exempt the
Applicant from this improvement requirement if it
proves to be an undue hardship, particularly with
respect to "an insurmountable design problem". That
design problem could relate to cut and fill, vertical
alignment, slope easements, need for additional
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 4
property to accommodate cut slope or fill, or loss of
Tract C area. Recommended Condition No. 9b.
In addition, the Department amends its Preliminary Report to
the Hearing Examiner at page 7, Section I, paragraph 4,
subparagraph b, to note that the "advertisement for bids"
for improvements to 120th Avenue S.E./S.E. 240th Street
intersection has been postponed from January 1996 to
January 1997. Further, contrary to the Preliminary Report,
project completion is expected in the spring of 1997, not
the "spring or summerof 1996". Finally, . the. Department
Staff amends its Preliminary Report to note that, with the
implementation of the new KCC 21A zoning code, the subject
property will be reclassified from RS-7200-P to "R-6" (six
dwelling units per acre) .
5. The Applicant accepts the Department's final recommendation
as described in Finding No. 4, above. However, the
Applicant expresses concern regarding the duplication of
transportation impact mitigation fees (MPS) required by
KCC 14.75 and transportation mitigation fees required by the
City of Kent pursuant to annexation. The Department answers
that it is the intention of the Department and the
Department of Public Works that the final MPS billing shall
not duplicate any City of Kent transportation mitigation
billing. Further, the Department responds, an
administrative appeal procedure is available should any
disagreement arise regarding an MPS billing. In its final
response, the Applicant did not further raise this issue.
6. owners of neighboring properties raise the following issues
and concerns:
A. Drainage. Neighbors (Noland and Martin) located west
of the proposed subdivision refuse to grant a drainage
easement to accommodate the proposed development.
However, these neighbors would have no objection to an
appropriately-sized drain pipe if it were located
beneath a westward extension of (proposed) S.E. 244th
Street, developed to urban standard at the Applicant's
expense. The Department indicates that there are other
drainage routes available, although a variance from
Surface Water Management standards may be required.
According to Baird testimony, an artificial dam on the
Noland property backs water flowing through an unnamed
water course onto the Baird property (which is located
between the Noland property and the (approximately]
south half of the subdivision) . The Department
recommends a thorough downstream analysis. This
Examiner's Report adopts and recommends that same
requirement. The Department intends to require the
downstream analysis to show that any existing problem,
such as flooding, is not aggravated by the proposed
development. In addition, Baird has been advised that
he may seek further guidance toward resolving this
flooding problem by contacting the responsible
"sensitive areas" staff within the Land Use Services
Division of the Department and/or by contacting the
Surface Water Management Division of the Department of
Public Works.
B. Pedestrian circulation. King County Road Standards
(KCRS) require a walkway to extend from a cul-de-sac
terminus to the next available public street when that
walkway would accommodate pedestrian access to a
pedestrian generator. Also, RCW 58.17.110, in part,
requires safe walking conditions for students who walk
to school. Considering these standards, the Department
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 5
recommends that a walkway be extended from the west
terminus of proposed 117th Avenue S.E. to 116th Avenue
S.E. , a minor arterial. First Christian Church, owner
of a private road along the most logical walkway
alignment, expresses concern regarding possible
liability problems which may arise from locating a
walkway easement within their private road right-of-
way. However, both the Church and the Applicant are
willing to enter negotiations which address the
Church's concerns.
An alternative location for such a walkway would be to
extend proposed S.E. 244th Street westward to 116th
Avenue S.E. This option, however, would require the
agreement of Williams/Martin and Noland, Tax Lot Nos.
9050 and 9042. Martin indicates that the S.E. 244th
Street alignment would not be acceptable unless the
street were fully improved to appropriate urban
standard. The Department, however, regards either
walkway as optional, at the Applicant's discretion. If
the Applicant is unable to reach agreement with First
Christian Church, Williams/Martin, or Noland, then the
Applicant may provide walkways along another route
which has been identified by the Department Staff. See
also Finding No. 4C.
C. Internal circulation. One neighboring property owner
criticizes the widths of proposed internal Stonegate
Knolls streets, observing that they are "too narrow" by
City of Kent standards. Stated another way, City of
Kent minor residential access street standards may be
considered excessively wide when compared to County
standards. The street widths must comply, at a
minimum, with KCRS design requirements. The City of
Kent, which will be annexing the subject property
effective January 1, 1996, and the Applicant have
entered into an annexation agreement which addresses
the City's requirements. Whether wider streets are
required or not, therefore, is a matter which may be
resolved between the Applicant and the City of Kent.
D. Sewer access. First Christian Church expresses concern
regarding how sewer access for the proposed development
may affect the church. If, in fact, any easement
across First Christian Church property is required,
such concerns may be addressed by direct negotiations
1 between the church and the Applicant.
6. Except as indicated above, particularly in Finding No. 3,
the Department's Preliminary Report to the King County
Hearing Examiner dated. November 28, 1995, is accurate. It
is adopted and incorporated here by this reference. Copies
of the Department's Preliminary Report will be attached to
those copies of this Examiner's Report which are provided to
members of the Metropolitan King County Council for their
consideration of Proposed Ordinance No. 95-712.
CONCLUSIONS•
1. Based upon the whole record, and according substantial
weight to the determination of environmental significance
made by the Environmental Division, it is concluded that
approval of this subdivision as recommended below would not
constitute a major action significantly affecting the
quality of the environment. All evidence of environmental
impact relating to the proposed action and reasonable
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 6
alternatives to the proposed action have been included in
the review and consideration of this action.
2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the
proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning
Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of
King County.
3. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below,
this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision
for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
drainage ways, streets, other public ways, water supply, and
sanitary wastes; and it will serve the public use and
interest.
4. The conditions recommended in the Land Use Services
Division's Preliminary Report as amended below are in the
public interest and are reasonable requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
GRANT preliminary approval to the proposed plat of STONEGATE
KNOLLS, as described in the preliminary plat drawing dated
October 13, 1995, contained in this hearing record as Exhibit
No. 7, iN►j"t .to„th&.gpnditions of-final plat approval stated on
Ra�I�$- '��,�a=Ltpa, pgpq��n*►of Development..and,
!n liming Rat 1� County
"h]ising..Yxaminer...dahed Novenher_2Le-19 EXCEPT
for the following modifications:
A. AMEND Recommended Condition Nos. Ba and 8b to read as
follows:
Ba. The release rates for the retention/detention (R/D)
facilities in Tracts B and C (per the preliminary plat
received October 13, 1995) shall meet the requirements
of the City of Kent Construction Standards or the King
County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) , whichever
is more restrictive.
�:"daw�istre�ll�capaa�ti` stied
a� enginee��ng plan s �
Culvert at��i(th AYenU�'�,�,c.E� and,,,�S�E y�24�4>��Z na r
culvert cl�a�ing may ��p������3 -:.c�m3t�£,gg�„e
�zicapaaft�!;�xobiems" e�"iC,ara Rec�tiramen�� �.R(.'SWAlii'
8b. The release rate for the R/D facility in Tract A shall
meet the requirements of the KCSWDM. LUSD may require
the release rate to be more restrictive than the
Standard manual rate, due to thW:)s fatZ
driveway culvertsF ditch erosions and, cross culvert
capacities.
The downstream driveway culverts along the west margin
of 120th Avenue S.E. and the 12-inch cross culvert
under 120th Avenue S.E. at S.E. 240th Street shall be
analyzed for capacity up to the 100-year, 24-hour
storm. More restrictive R/D release rates, culvert
cleaning, or culvert upsizing may be required by LUSD
to mitigate any capacity problems, per Core
Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM (Page 1.2.2-5) . A capacity
analysis shall be submitted at engineering plan
submittal.
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 7
B. AMEND Recommended Condition No. 9b to read as follows:
9b. Southeast 244th Street shall be improved to full-width,
urban neighborhood collector standards, with the
exception of the area south of Tract C. The area south
of Tract C may be improved to the half-street standard,
in lieu of full width. Development of the full-width
portion of S.E. 244th Street requires the dedication of
off-site right-of-way from Tax Parcel 2122059175.
Deeds for this dedication shall be rovided rior to
enginserinq plan ap roval
applicant %Wbond th . a, rsCt improvei en i rie v ded
by KCC 1W 36.060• It 'plann3aiq for < he sheet at ib
extension encounters ant insurmountable design probt
involving: s 1.uch fa etc rs�a8, bvt not limited to, cut and
fill, vert.ibi: alignmerrYl xtslti eit"sements a Head br
additionsil. property fd�stdt�lb oval slope cut or Lill: or
loss of Tract C arsa, tkien.develapment of• the street
stub will;i not;be re quf sd. "However, the. right-of way
dedication will, noneth�less_be required.;
C. DELETE Recommended Condition No. 9e and SUBSTITUTE the
following:
9e. One Hundred-Seventeenth (117th) Avenue S.E. shall be
improved to urban minor access street standards. The
applicant will construct a permanent turnaround bulb at
the terminus of 117th Avenue S.E. The design shall be
approved by the King County Planning Department.
D. ADD a new Recommended Condition No. 9g, to read as follows:
9g. The west side of 120th Avenue S.E. between the subject
plat and S.E. 248th Street, and either the north or
south side of S.E. 248th Street between 120th Avenue
S.E. and 116th Avenue S.E. shall be improved with an
eight-foot-wide gravel shoulder. An alternative
walkway facility may be provided in lieu of an eight-
foot-wide gravel shoulder, if approved by the King
County Road Engineer. An alternative route for walking
facilities may also be provided, if approved by LUSD.
E. AMEND Recommended Condition No. 12 to read as follows:
12. Lets within this subdivislan are subjeet te King Geunt-t
impaek fees te tend seheal system improvements needed
to serye new develepeent As a condition of final
approval, 50% of the school impact fees due for the
plat shall be assessed and collected immediately prior
to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when
the plat receives final approval. The balance of the
assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling
units in the plat and shall be collected prior to
building permit issuance. A note to this effect shall
be placed on the final plat. tbig`=`Condition"eh83 1-196
epply_lin the•event that building permits are xssued )7y
the Cit of'tent „
RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1995.
R. S. Titus a uty
King Coun earing Examiner
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 8
TRANSMITTED this 5th day of December, 1995, to the following
parties and interested persons:
Julia Baird Mr. & Mrs. Richard Baird
Ronald & Janice Banister Linda Bushaw
Marvin Eckfeldt Ron Grina
Hanson & Swift Ed Heineman
King Conservation District Lloyd Lozensky
Brad Martin Paul Morford
Jesus Moulinet New Construction Services
Lawrence Noland John L. Scott Land Dept.
Kevin Simmons Larry Smith
Frank Spanjer Lorraine Thomas
Don Wickstrom
Lanny Henoch, DDES/Land Use Services Division
Trudy Hintz, DDES/Land Use Services Division
Tom Koney, Metropolitan King County Council
Peppe Olyano, Seattle-King County Dept. Public Health
Lisa Pringle, DDES/Land Use Services Division
Charlie Sundberg, Office of Historic Preservation
Steve Townsend, DDES/Land Use Services Division
Bruce Whittaker, DDES/Land Use Services Division
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AN ADDITIONAL ACTION REQUIRED
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 December 19 1995. 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 December 26, 1995. Appeal statements
may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new
facts may not be presented on appeal.
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.
If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within
fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this report, or if a
written appeal statement and argument are not filed within
twenty-one (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. At that meeting, the council may
adopt the Examiner's recommendation, may defer action, may refer
the matter to a Council committee, or may remand to the Examiner
for further hearing or further consideration.
Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving
or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and
conclusive unless a proceeding for review pursuant to the Land
Use Petition Act is commenced by filing a land use petition in
the Superior Court for King County and serving all necessary
parties within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which the
Council passes an ordinance acting on this matter.
Stonegate Knolls - L95P0002 Page 9
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L95P0002 -
STONEGATE KNOLLS:
R.S. Titus was the Hearing Examiner in this matter.
Participating in the hearing were Lanny Henoch, Bruce Whittaker,
Larry Smith, Jesus Moulinet, Linda Bushaw, Marvin Eckfeldt,
Richard Baird, Brad Martin, and Lawrence Noland.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1 DDES File No. L95P0002, Stonegate Knolls
Exhibit No. 2 DDES Preliminary Report to the King County
Hearing Examiner for the November 28, 1995
public hearing
Exhibit No. 3 Preliminary plat application, received
January 19, 1995
Exhibit No. 4 Environmental Checklist, received January 19,
1995
Exhibit No. 5 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance, dated
October 3, 1995
Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of Posting - date of posting
October 25, 1995, affidavit received
October 30, 1995
Exhibit No. 7 Revised preliminary plat map, received
October 13, 1995
Exhibit No. 8 Land use map - Kroll maps 648E, 648W, 642W,
619E, and 623E
Exhibit No. 9 Assessor map - NW 21-22-05
Exhibit No. 10 Traffic Analysis, Gibson Traffic Consultants,
dated May 8, 1995
Exhibit No. 11 Level 1 Drainage Analysis, Landmark Inc. ,
received January 19, 1995
Exhibit No. 12 Level 3 Drainage Analysis, Landmark Inc. ,
received June 1, 1995
Exhibit No. 13 Letter from M/M Richard Baird, with
attachment, dated October 23, 1995
Exhibit No. 14 Letter from M/M Brad Martin and M/M Ron
Banister, dated November 3, 1995, received by
fax
Exhibit No. 15 Annotated copy of Thomas Bros. map #716,
showing three possible pedestrian routes from
the subject plat to Kent Meridian Senior High
School
Exhibit No. 16 LUSD Staff's new Recommended Condition No. 9g
re: safe walking conditions for students
Exhibit No. 17 LUSD Staff's revised Recommended Condition
Nos. 8a and 8b
Exhibit No. 18 Agreement between applicant and City of Kent
Exhibit No. 19 Applicant's color alternative preliminary
plat drawing, with housing style examples
Exhibit No. 20 Letter to Examiner dated November 27, 1995,
from First Christian Church
Exhibit No. 21 Not entered
Exhibit No. 22 Applicant's proposed language for Condition
No. 12
Exhibit No. 23 Applicant's proposed language for Condition
No. 9e.
Exhibit No. 24 LUSD Staff's proposed revised language for
Condition 9g
RST:gb
\plats\195p\l95p0002.rpt
June 41 1996
ANNEXATION policy intent in Resolution 1150 and recommended
acceptance of the 10$ petition and authorization
circulation of the 60% petition subject to City
indebtedness.
ORR MOVED that the proposed Meridian Valley
Annexation Area boundaries be established
n for
presented by staff, that the 60% petition
annexation as set forth in RCW 35.A. 14 . 120 be
authorized for circulation in the Meridian Valley
Annexation area, that the area, upon annexation,
be subject to its proportionate share of the
existing indebtedness of the City of Kent, and
that the area be subject to the interim zoning
requirements for newly annexed areas set forth in
the Kent City Code. Woods seconded and the
motion carried.
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 3P)
Cherrwood Preliminary Plat SII-95-9 . AUTHORI-
vzATION to set June 18 , 1996, as the date for a
public meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation of conditional approval fforwaE.
preliminary plat application (SU 9) by located
Ruth and Jerry Prouty. Theproperty
at 26235 114th Avenue S.E.
(OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 4B)
Stone ate Rnolls Prelimina Plat SII-9.6-18. The
Stonegate Knolls Preliminary Plat is located
south of S. 240th Street between 116th Avenue
S.E. and 120th Avenue S.E. The plat is 18 . 58
acres in size. The preliminary plat was approved
with conditions by the Office of the Hearing
Examiner of King County (File No. L95P0002) and,
upon annexation to the City, the preliminary plat
came under Kent' s jurisdiction.
Planning Manager Satterstrom pointed out the
location on a map and noted that there are 79
lots proposed. He explained that the applicant
for the plat is Centex Homes in Bellevue, who
applied for the preliminary plat in January,
1995 , while it was under the jurisdiction of King
County. He noted that King County DDES conducted
an environmental review in October of 1995, the
King County Hearing Examiner held a hearing in
November of 1995 and rendered a decision early in
December of 1995. He explained that adjacent
property owners appealed that recommendation. He
noted that there was no interlocal agreement with
4
��� �44 115ca
June 4 , 1996
PLATS the County until March 20, 1996. He said that
there were discussions between the city, the
appellants and the applicants primarily regarding
emergency access and drainage. He noted that on
March 22 , 1996, the Hearing Examiner for King
County administratively reopened the hearing,
entered some additional information, held a
public hearing and then reissued a decision on
April 23rd and forwarded his recommendation to
the Kent City Council. He explained that accord-
ing to the interlocal agreement, any application
that was in process would continue to be pro-
cessed by a Hearing Examiner, but any decision
would be made by the Kent legislative authority.
Satterstrom noted that there is one road leading
into the plat off of 120th, which meets the
County standards for access. He said that the
city raised the issue of emergency access after
the Hearing Examiner had rendered his first
decision in December 1995. As a result of those
concerns, the developer assured that there would
be a connection between 117th Street and 116th
Street, and because of those assurances the city
withdrew its request to reopen the public
hearing.
Satterstrom noted that Planning staff brings
Council the recommendation of the Kent Hearing
Examiner and the recommendation of the King
County Hearing Examiner, and suggested that in
this case, the Council consider a condition which
would obligate the developer to provide what he
has promised in a letter to the City.
The City Attorney pointed out that this is not a
hearing and it is not an appeal of the Hearing
Examiner' s recommendation, but is a decision on
the recommendation. He said that it is a quasi-
judicial matter and as such ex-parte communica-
tions with interested parties is inappropriate
and any such communication should be disclosed
identifying both the parties and the substance of
the communications, if any. He added that the
Council may allow public testimony and may
restrict it. He said that Council' s role is to
consider the Hearing Examiner's recommendation
and to either adopt or reject it based on the
record. He added that if Council determines that
it is appropriate to make a change to that
recommendation pursuant to Kent's City Code, a
5
June 41 1996
PLATS public hearing would be required by the Council
with findings and establishment of a basis for
that change, such as new information or an error
in the proceedings or testimony. He said the
Council must make findings, and may either adopt
the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions,
create it' s own, or make modifications depending
on whether there is a subsequent hearing. Upon
the Mayor' s question, Lubovich explained that
people could make comments to the Council tonight, but it would not technically be part of
the public record. He stated that the King
County Hearing Examiner has conducted all the
hearings and the record currently is closed. He
reiterated that in order to have an impact, there
would have to be a basis for a change, such as
new information.
Lubovich noted that the proposed modification
mentioned by Mr. Satterstrom regarding the
January 22nd letter would not require a public
hearing, because it is a commitment made by
letter by the applicant.
Satterstrom noted that two letters have been
received by the Planning Department and, upon the
City Attorney' s advice, provided the communica-
tion from Mr. Marvin Eckfeldt and the letter from
the Banisters and the Martins to the City Clerk.
Lubovich noted that most of the materials are
already included in the record.
Woods stated for the record that she had had no
contact with any side of the issue until last
Friday, May 31st, when she returned Marvin
Eckfeldt' s phone call. She said that she
informed him at that time that, given previous
experience with Hearing Examiner reports and so
forth, it would be appropriate for him to call
the City Attorney .to determine what course of
action was appropriate or inappropriate for his
group to take. Orr stated for the record that in
December she met with a group of approximately a
dozen persons who were interested in this issue,
not to discuss the merits of the plat or the
issue, but to find out how the process would work
when and if the annexation took place. She note
that there was some concern about whose juris-
diction this would fall under and she informed
the group as best she could about the process of
adopting the interlocal agreement with King
6
June 4 , 1996
PLATS County and how they might get more information as
to how that process works and copies of that
agreement and meetings when and if that might be
adopted. She said she has since had two or three
phone calls from interested parties, all of which
were process-oriented to find out meeting times
and so forth, nothing other than informing
members of the public how to access the system,
work through the process and where they should
or should not appear to present their case.
She mentioned that the cover letter and stack
of materials from Marvin Eckfeldt which was
submitted to the City Clerk tonight by
Mr. Satterstrom was given to all Councilmembers.
Marvin Eckfeldt, Minister, First Christian
Church, 11717 S.E. 240th Street, said their con-
cern is that originally the large L area known as
Tract X, which is owned by First Christian
Church, was shown as a private road. He noted
that it was short platted in 1979 and when Lot 1
which is the church, Lot 2 which is in the
center, and Lot 3 which is now a part of
Stonegate Knolls, was subdivided, the road was
purchased so that the church could have access
and ingress from 116th Street as a second access
to their parking lot. He added that that is
particularly important now that 240th is being
widened to five lanes and the traffic is so
intense. He noted that Lot 2 is two acres and
Lot 3 is five acres, and when the short plat was
filed, the owners of Lots 2 and 3 were granted
easements for use of the private road, and it was
understood that legal access was for their lots
only. He said their legal counsel advises that
access for Lot 3 would be for five acres only,
which is 18 home sites on approximately 4 . 5
acres. He said that access to the road would not
be extended to the additional fourteen acres that
make up the rest of the Stonegate Knolls develop-
ment. He noted that at the original public
hearing, the plat called for 117th S.E. to dead-
end, and that they raised objections to the use
of their road as a secondary access, so the
Hearing Examiner asked that a permanent dead-end
turn-around bulb be placed there and that it be
redesigned. He said that in the final agreement
there is the suggestion that there would be a
break-away gate there so that emergency vehicles
could have ingress and egress from Stonegate
Knolls. He said they have opposed that plan
7
June 41 1996
PLATS because the road was not constructed to handle
heavy fire and emergency vehicles, and the road
was designed for use by the church parking lot
and by the two other pieces of property, not for
a development of 79 homes. He noted that they
have made it clear that for safety reasons they
were opposed to any use of the road by the resi-
dents of the development. He also noted that
they have stated several times that they do not
object to Stonegate Knolls being a neighbor and
their concerns are about safety and others,
possible use of their private road.
Brad Martin, 23628 116th Avenue S.E. , stated that
he and his wife are co-owners with Ron and Jan
Banister of the property located at 24228 116th
Avenue S.E. He noted that the property is
directly adjacent to the western boundary of the
proposed development, and said they are not
opposed to the Stonegate Knolls development. He
voiced concern about public safety, development
drainage, streets and roads, and the potential of
diminished value of their property. He said this
is due to the lack of specific direction or de-
tail to be required of the developer with regard
to those issues. He said that they endorse the
suggestion to add a condition to the preliminary
plat to ensure that the developer follows through
with the promise to construct a connection from
117th Avenue to 116th Avenu , but asked that more
e
specific detail be required as to exactly by what
means emergency access and drainage release from
Tract C detention pond will be accommodated
before any approval or permit is granted. He
said they feel that the extension of 244th from
the westerly boundary of the development into
116th Avenue would be the most reasonable and
cost effective solution to the problems identi-
fied, noting that it would provide the most
direct access for emergency vehicles, would allow
students a direct walking route to Kent Meridian
High School, and would give the developer a way
to move service and detention water over his own
property across 116th Avenue and into the natural
downstream flow without adversely impacting the
adjacent property owners. Due to the natural
topography of the development parcel and the
location of the Tract C detention pond and to the
relationship and lower elevation of their own
parcel, he asked for specific detail as to the
location, means, and rate of detention pond
8
June 4, 1996
PLATS release before any permit was granted. He said
the existing culvert as it crosses 116th Avenue
to the west is marginal at best and may be
severely overtaxed if additional concentration
were added by the development.
Martin said they have offered to sell the neces-
sary right-of-way to Centex at approximately the
same cost per square foot as they have apparently
agreed to purchase the balance of the parcels
for. He said they take exception to the slander-
ous statements made by Centex attorney Larry
Smith found in the conclusion portion of the
Hearing Examiner' s report recommendation to
Council, that "the neighbors who own the property
abutting the right of way are simply looking for
a way to get this street put in at anothers'
expense" . He said the endorsement of this
statement by the King County Hearing Examiner
that "This is difficult to rebut. It cannot be
ignored that such a street extension would
provide immense windfall benefit to the future
development interests of the appellants" is
reprehensible. Martin stated that they have been
renting the property and have no development
plans, and that they do not need the extension to
access their property from 244th. He stated that
the plat plan as designed by Centex simply dic-
tates the inevitable completion of 244th. He
said the solution they have proposed resolves all
the issues and concerns expressed by City
Engineer Gill, Fire Chief Angelo and Hearing
Examiner Titus. He said they are unified in
their concerns not to allow this development to
diminish the value of their property or to create
a safety, drainage or street and road problem for
the City or it' s citizens.
Lawrence Noland, 24436 116th Avenue S.E. , re-
quested as a condition of Stonegate Knolls plat
approval, that the Council require Centex
Corporation to complete S.E. 244th Street west-
ward from the proposed plat to 116th Avenue S.E.
Tarry Smith, representing Centex Homes, pointed
out 244th on the map, and noted that it is a
local collector for the plat, and that some day
the City may determine that they want it to go
i
all the way through. He said that at the origi-
nal hearing the Hearing Examiner concluded that a
turn-around bulb should be put in. He said that
9
June 4 , 1996
PLATS they and the church were agreeable, but that the
Fire Department preferred a second access. He
said that after. discussiaones' the notinFire
Department
agreed on a breakaway gate,
t they
don't need the second access except in an emer-
gency. He noted that the church would rather not
have anything there at all. Smith pointed out
that when this tract of land was created, a
covenant was created containing the following
language: Tract X, designated upon the plat as
a private road and thoroughfare, is described in
the King County Comp Plan as a local access
street or road and in accordance with the stand-
ards therein may be required for future county
street, road or thoroughfare. " He said the
reason it was reserved was in case there needed
to be a connection. He noted that Centex has
said they will provide the second access one way
or another, and if necessary, will go through the
processes to determine whether they have that
right or not. He explained that the difficulty
with 244th is that they don't own the land or
have the power of condemnation, but that the city
does. He said that if they do not put it in and
some day it is put in as a result of development,
the two adjacent property owners will probably
have to put the improvements in. He said that if
they are given the alternative to provide a
second access, they will get it done.
L nda j aw, representing Lawrence Noland who
lives at 24436 116th Avenue S.E. , said that
Centex Corporation has been calling those who
would be the owners if 244th were put through,
and has left messages many times saying they want
to talk. She said there isn't an issue there
that the property owners do not want to cooperate
with Centex Corporation. She noted that she has
attended all the meetings and said that there
were notes going back and forth between Centex
and the Planning Commission at the King y
Hearing Examiners meeting, and many things going
on that the Council is not aware of.
ORR MOVED to accept the Findings and Conclusions
of the "Report and Recommendation" of the King
County Hearing Examiner regarding the Proposed
Plat of Stonegate Knolls, King County Department
of Development and Environmental Services File
No. L95P00021 dated April 23 , 1996; to modify
Recommendation "C" of the Examiner' s "Report and
10
June 4 , 1996
PLATS Recommendation" to require the developer, Centex
Real Estate Corporation, to construct a connec-
tion to 116th Avenue S.E. , either through the
First Christian Church property adjoining the
western terminus of proposed 117th Avenue S.E. or
by the extension of South 244th Street, in
accordance with the representations made to the
City by Mr. Kevin C. Simmons of Centex Homes in
his letter dated January 22, 1996, which letter
is part of the record in this matter; to accept
the Recommendation of the Examiner' s "Report and
Recommendation" as modified by this motion; and
to approve the Stonegate Knolls Preliminary Plat
#SU-96-18, a seventy-nine single family residen-
tial preliminary subdivision, subject to the
conditions of final plat approval stated on
pages 8 through 12 of the King County Department
of Development and Environmental Services
Preliminary Report to the King County Hearing
Examiner, dated November 28, 1995 (Exhibit No. 2
of the Council records) and as further modified
by the "Report and Recommendation" of the King
County Hearing Examiner and by this motion
tonight. Woods seconded.
Orr said that citizens have raised serious
concerns regarding drainage and safety issues
relating to emergency vehicle access and children
getting to and from school. She said an access
to 116th is essential. She noted that there is a
further drainage study required which should
solve the drainage problems, and that that issue
will be determined at the time of the final plat.
She said that the City does not have the authori-
ty to require the extension of 244th, which she
feels is the most logical way to go. She said
the Hearing Examiner has required an access as
stated in the report: 11117th Avenue S.E. shall be
improved to urban minor access street standards.
The applicant will construct a permanent turn-
around bulb. In addition the applicant will
install a crash gate. " She said that is con-
tingent upon accessing through property that she
has been unable to determine, and she is unsure
whether anyone knows if that is a legal access
through Tract X. She voiced concern about
whether or not Centex has the authority, now that
this is in the city, to use that road, and said
that will have to be determined outside the
Council' s scope. She explained that is why her
motion contains wording saying that if that
11
June 4 , 1996
PLATS access is not available, then an access still
will be provided to 116th Avenue.
Woods noted that the Attorney had informed
Councilmembers late in the day that they have
rather severe limitations as to what actions are
available to them, and that, based on their
recommendations, this seems to be the extent to
which they are able 'to go.
Orr noted that the City of Kent would probably
not allow that many homes without better access,
but King County has different standards. She
explained that this project was processed through
the County and was far enough along in the pro-
cess that they have vested their right to that
lack of requirement of a second access. She said
she would feel more comfortable with a second
access and that the motion she made addresses
that issue, and based on the letter, hopefully
that can be resolved in the best possible way for
the safety of the residents.
Woods noted that the City will receive more
requests which were partially processed in King
County, and asked citizens to understand that it
is a somewhat different process when dealing with
two jurisdictions that have different kinds of
requirements. She explained that they will be `
caught in the bind of trying to do what they can
to meet what they consider to be a higher level
of service for the residential areas, but do con-
front some limitations .
Johnson asked whether a detailed drainage plan
must be submitted and approved by staff before
final plat approval is granted; Wickstrom said
yes. Upon Johnson' s request, Satterstrom ex-
plained that if the Council grants preliminary
approval at this time, the applicant has up to
five years to either bond or build all of the
improvements and satisfy the conditions that are
specified in the preliminary plat approval. He
said that the applicant would then make an
application for final plat approval, and once
that had been taken care of, it would come back
to the City Council for final approval.
There was no further discussion and Orr's motion
then carried.
12
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SIIBJECT: WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ZCA-97-8 - ZONING CODE
AMENDMENT
2 . SIIMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board has
recommended amending Kent zoning Code Section 15. 02 . 1781
modifying the definition of "hazardous substance land use
facility" and the types of uses identified as general condi-
tional uses in Section 15. 08 . 030 (B) (1) . The Land Use and
Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on
November 24 , 1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report dated 11/12/97 and Land Use & Planning
Board minutes of 11/24/97
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: CitV Council
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember :A,t1 �, moves, Councilmember jlra - _seconds
to approve the Kent Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-97-8 as recom-
mended by the Land Use and Planning Board, and to direct the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4F
CITY Of l IF2921 1T
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253)359-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
November 12, 1997
TO: STEVE DOWELL, CHAIR AND LAND USE& PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - 4ZCA-97-8 WATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES
Backaround:
In 1992, the Safe Drinking Water Act mandated that all water systems test for lead and copper. The
City of Kent water system failed the copper testing. Therefore, the City of Kent performed a
"desktop analysis" of its system which was completed in June 1995. Based on this analysis and a
follow-up report completed by EES, Inc. in January 1997, the City is proposing to construct two
treatment facilities to improve overall water quality in its system. The method of treatment is liquid
feed utilizing caustic soda (sodium hydroxide). The two locations for the proposed treatment
facilities are the East Hill Well site (24525 104th Ave SE) and Pump Station IM5 (23825 98th Ave
S). The East Hill Well site is zoned 0 (Office) and the Pump Station site is zoned SR-6 (Single
Family Residential).
Kent's zoning regulations do not permit the treatment facilities to be located at the proposed sites,
however. While pumping stations and well sites are conditional uses in both the Office and SR
zones, substances such as caustic soda are classified as "hazardous substances" under City zoning
and Washington Administrative Code definitions. Hazardous substances are not permitted in either
the 0 or SR zones in large quantities. Therefore, treatment facilities which utilize such substances
are not permitted even as part of a conditional use permit.
Alternatives to liquid-feed caustic soda have been explored and evaluated by the consultants. These
alternatives have been narrowed to the method proposed due to cost, practical, or potential
contamination problems. (SEE, "Kent Water System: Corrosion Control Project - Consolidated
Treatment and Siting Report/January 1997" on file in the Planning Department.)
Thus,without some modification to the zoning code, the City find itself in a catch-22 situation. This
situation was presented to the City Council Planning Committee on October 21. 1997. The
Committee referred the matter to the Land Use& Planning Board for review and recommendation.
'_0 1h \VFNt'F iot 7H ; KE\T. �% t1HI\GT0N 11Su,'-<V)l fELFi,w Ni[ � sin-:you
4ZCA-97-8 Water Treatment Facilities
November 12, 1997
Page 2
While the Planning Committee felt some urgency to accommodate the request in order to address
the City's water quality problems, they also emphasized that there were public health and safety
concerns that should be considered in any recommended zoning change.
'Alternative_ A{� rlj�aCheS:
Staff has reviewed this matter with representatives from the City's Water Department and have
identified several alternative approaches to amending the zoning code. These alternatives include:
I. Exemption.
This alternative would exempt public water treatment facilities from zoning code regulations.
The amendment would identify water treatment facilities as principally permitted uses in all
zoning districts regardless of the quantities of hazardous substances involved. No special
land use permit would be required in order to locate such a facility in any zoning district in
the City, including the 0 and SR zones.
While this alternative would allow the City to immediately and directly improve the quality
of its water supply, it does not allow for public input in the decision-making process and
does little to assure the public that the safest possible operational methods will be employed
to protect surrounding neighborhoods.
?. New Special Zoning District.
This alternative would create a special "Public Facilities" zoning district which would allow
specified public facilities such as water towers, reservoirs and water treatment facilities, as
well as other public and governmental facilities.
While this alternative may work fairly well for water towers and water treatment facilities,
the range of public facilities is quite broad and the impacts to neighborhoods from these
potential uses could be very different. If the zoning district use regulations are drawn rather
broad, it could make for some relatively incompatible land use scenarios. Conversely, if the
icability is too limited. Also, it should be noted that
district is drawn too tightly, then its appl
the City already maintains over 30 zoning districts in its code.
;. Conditional Use Permit.
This alternative would make water treatment facilities a conditional use in all zones in the
City, as they are now, but language would be included in the definition of "hazardous
substance land use facility" (KCC 15.02.178) which would exempt water treatment facilities
4ZCA-97-8 Water Treatment Facilities
November 12, 1997
Page 3
from such definition. In this manner, water treatment facilities such as those contemplated
in this instance, as well as future facilities aimed at improving the quality of public water,
would require a public hearing before the Kent Hearing Examiner.
Since these facilities would also require SEPA compliance,health and safety concerns would
be addressed in addition to notification of the surrounding neighborhood since the public
hearing for the conditional use permit would require posting and mailing of public notice.
Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends that the Land Use & Planning Board endorse Alternative #3, above. and
recommend the City Council amend the zoning code to achieve the following:
I, Amend the definition of"hazardous substance land use facility" (Section 1 5.02.178)
as follows:
"Hazardous substance land use facility means the projected line enclosing the area
of all structures and lands on which hazardous substance land use activities occur,
have occurred in the past or will occur in the future. This does not include the
application of products for agricultural purposes nor the use, storage or handling
of ha-zardous substances in public water treatment facilities. "
�_. Amend the types of uses identified as `eneral conditional uses in Section
15.08.030(13)(1) as follows:
1. Utility, transportation and communication facilities. Includes electrical
substations. pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water (including
public water treatment facilities). gas, steam, petroleum, etc., bus stops, transit
stations, etc.
cc: James P. Harris. Planning Director
p:admin/zca97-8.fns
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 1997
Page 2
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planner Director, Jim Harris announced that the City Council Planning Committee will meet at 330
p.m. on December 9, 1997 to discuss the Downtown Plan. He stated that a Land Use and Planning
Board meeting will not be held in December.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Motion carried.
#ZCA 97 8 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES - (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent needs to improve its water
quality by adding caustic soda to the public water supply. He stated that zoning requirements do not
allow for the additon of caustic soda to the water supply nor storage of large volumes of a hazardous
substance.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that current zoning at the sites is single family and office. The volume of
storage proposed by the Public Works department is only permitted in industrial zones and then by
conditional use permit. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Planning staffs recommendation is to allow
water treatment facilities to be located by conditional use permit throughout the City.
Mr. Satterstrom explained the Planning staff s three alternatives as:
1) exception from the Zoning Code,
2) to create a special zoning district for public facilities, or
3) a conditional use permit.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that Planning staff recommends alternative 43 and that these types of water
facilities be considered as conditional use. A conditional use permit would require a public hearing
and notification of surrounding property owners.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that Planning staff recommends the following amendments:
1) Amending the definition of"Hazardous substance land use facility" (Section 15.02.178) of Kent
Zoning Code by adding the following words at the end "nor the use storage or handling of
hazardous substances in public water treatment facilities".
2)Amending the types of uses identified as general conditional uses in Section 15.08.030(B)(1)with
the following words:
Includes electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water
(including public water treatment facilities), gas, steam, petroleum, etc., bus stops, transit stations,
#ZCA-97-8 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
4ZCA-97-9 CHURCHES IN THE M-2 ZONE
1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-97-3(A-H)ICPZ-97-(1-7)
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 1997
Page 3
etc. The words enclosed in parenthesis are added. Mr. Satterstrom explained by implementing this
change, these types of facilities would become conditional uses and deleted from the definition of
hazardous substance land uses.
City of Kent, Water Superintendent, Brad Lake explained that the City of Kent Water department
and water purveyors throughout the nation have been mandated to reduce the lead and copper uptake
of water systems into drinking water from household plumbing by adding sodium hydroxide to the
water. This would raise the pH level of the water and reduce corrosiveness. The 98th Avenue and
104th Avenue locations have been recommended as the best sites for locating the water treatment
facilities.
Brad Bell MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion
carried.
There was no public testimony on#ZCA-97-8 Water Treatment Facilities.
Brad Bell MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to adopt Alternative 43 to amend
the definition of"hazardous substance land use facility" (Section 15.02.178.)and to amend the types
of uses identified as general conditional uses (Section 15.08.030 (B)(1)), and fiirther recommend to
City Council to amend the Zoning Code to achieve staff s recommendation.
MOTION carried unanimously.
#ZCA 97-9 CHURCHES IN THE M-2 ZONE - (F. Satterstrom)
Mr. Satterstrom explained that this proposed regulatory review application was filed with the
Planning department in October by Johnny Williams of the Word of Praise Ministries. The specific
proposal is to allow churches in the M-2, manufacturing or limited industrial zone. At the present
time the zoning policies of the City of Kent allow churches in all commercial and residential zones
as a special permit use. Churches are allowed in CM- 2 zones, Commercial Manufacturing.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the code amendment was changed to allow churches in the CM-2 zone
two years ago. At the current time throughout most of the industrially zoned land in the City of Kent
churches are not permitted. This church is located on North Central where the zoning is split. The
building on the property along Central Avenue is commercially zoned GC. The portion of the lot
in the rear where two other buildings are located is zoned M2, Limited Industrial. The church
occupies a tenancy in part of the building that is M-2 zoned.
9ZCA-97-8 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
NZCA-97-9 CHURCHES IN THE M-1 ZONE
1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-97-3(A-HUCPZ-97-(1-7)
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: CHURCHES IN M-2 ZONING DISTRICT ZCA-97-9 - ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: The Land Use and Planning Board has
recommended amending the Kent. Zoning Code Section 15. 08 . 020,
allowing churches in the M-2 zoning district. The Land Use
and Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter on
November 24 , 1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff report dated 11/13/97 and Land Use & Planning
Board minutes of 11/24/97
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use and Plannin- Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember - l1- moves, Councilmember L seconds
to approve the Kent Zoning Code Amendment ZCA-97-9 as recom-
mended by the Land Use and Planning Board, and to direct the
City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
f i f
ACTION•
`) Council Agenda
a5` Item No. 4G
CITY or j7LtSV
Jim White, 1Vlayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris. Planning Director
November 13, 1997
TO: STEVE DOWELL,CHAIR AND LAND USE&PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED REGULATORY REVIEW - =ZCA-97-9 CHURCHES IN THE M2
ZONING DISTRICT
Background:
On October 9, 1997, a regulatory review was filed with the Planning Department by Johnnv
Williams of the Word of Praise Ministries. The proposed regulatory change seeks to permit
churches in the M2 zoning district.
This proposal was presented to the City Council Planning Committee at its October 21. 1997
meeting where it was referred to the Land Use & Planning Board for review and recommendation.
The Word of Praise Ministries was located at 835 N. Central Avenue at the time it filed for
regulatory review in October. This location in the Kent Business Campus has split zoning - i.e.. that
part of the site along N. Central Avenue is zoned GC (General Commercial) and the rear part of the
lot extending to the BN railroad tracks is zoned M"' (Limited Industrial). The church was located
on the part of the lot zoned M2. Churches are not permitted uses in the M2 zone. according to
existing zoning regulations. During annual fire inspections, the Kent Fire Department discovered
code problems with the churches occupancy of a building constructed for industrial purposes. While
the Fire Department was working with the church on alleviating these code issues, the conflict with
zoning was discovered.
Analvsis:
Under existing zoning regulations, churches are permitted in residential and commercial zones as
"special permit uses." That is, churches must meet the special requirements of Section 15.08.020
in order to locate in residential and commercial zones, but thev are considered principally permitted
uses in a practical sense. Churches are also allowed in the CM-2 (Commercial Manufacturing) zone
as a result of a regulatory review request filed in 1994.
^U 411, \\'P.V I'[ SO(TII 1 KLNI'.0..\llll\tlTl)N "SO; E PHI)\li
ZCA-97-9 Churches in the M2 Zoning District
November-13, 1997
Page 2
The M2 zone is generally a light manufacturing/industrial/warehousing zoning district which permits
up to 25%of office/service type uses without a conditional use permit. The M2 zone is the second
largest zone in the City (the M1 zone is the largest) with nearly three square miles zoned. All of the
M2 zone is found in the valley, with most of it lying north of S. 228th Street. However, parts of the
M2 zone are located near the downtown along North Central (as in this case), at James Street near
the SR167 overpass, and south of Willis Street just north of the Green River. Although staff has no
factual data, it is somewhat apparent that where M2 zoning is located close to downtown, there is
ustrial uses are part of the use mix in a typical
an increased likelihood that service and non-ind
development, particularly where the development is newer.
More and more, the City is seeing "storefront" type churches which choose to locate in commercial
zones where zoning permits them and where they can occupy a tenant space on a lease basis. With
peak use periods being different for churches than commercial businesses, the storefront location for
churches can also be a very compatible arrangement.
Staff Recommendation:
Use & Planning Board endorse the proposed regulatory review
Staff recommends that the Land
request and recommend that churches be allowed in the M2 zoning district as a special permit use.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
p:adminhca97-9.chu
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 1997
Page 3
etc. The words enclosed in parenthesis are added. Mr. Satterstrom explained by implementing this
change, these types of facilities would become conditional uses and deleted from the definition of
hazardous substance land uses.
City of Kent, Water Superintendent, Brad Lake explained that the City of Kent Water department
and water purveyors throughout the nation have been mandated to reduce the lead and copper uptake
of water systems into drinking water from household plumbing by adding sodium hydroxide to the
water. This would raise the pH level of the water and reduce corrosiveness. The 98th Avenue and
104th Avenue locations have been recommended as the best sites for locating the water treatment
facilities.
Brad Bell MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing. Motion
carved.
There was no public testimony on 4ZCA-97-8 Water Treatment Facilities.
Brad Bell MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion
carried.
Tom Brotherton MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to adopt Alternative 43 to amend
the definition of"hazardous substance land use facility" (Section 15.02.178.)and to amend the types
of uses identified as general conditional uses (Section 15.08.030 (13)(1)), and further recommend to
City Council to amend the Zoning Code to achieve staffs recommendation.
MOTION carried unanimously.
#ZCA 97 9 CHURCHES [N THE M-2 ZONE - (F. Satterstrom)
Mr. Satterstrom explained that this proposed regulatory review application was filed with the
Planning department in October by Johnny Williams of the Word of Praise Ministries. The specific
proposal is to allow churches in the M-2, manufacturing or limited industrial zone. At the present
time the zoning policies of the City of Kent allow churches in all commercial and residential zones
as a special permit use. Churches are allowed in CM- 2 zones, Commercial Manufacturing.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that the code amendment was changed to allow churches in the CM-2 zone
two years ago. At the current time throughout most of the industrially zoned land in the City of Kent
churches are not permitted. This church is located on North Central where the zoning is split. The
building on the property along Central Avenue is commercially zoned GC. The portion of the lot
in the rear where two other buildings are located is zoned M2, Limited Industrial. The church
occupies a tenancy in part of the building that is M-2 zoned.
#ZCA-97-8 WATER TREATMENT FACILMES
#ZG-97-9 CHURCHES IN THEM-2 ZONE
1997 CO,NPREHEVSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-97-3(A-H)ICPZ-9%-(1-%)
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 24, 1997
Page 4
Mr. Satterstrom reiterated that when the City contemplates changing zoning provisions to the M-2
zoning district, it relates to all M-2 zoning within the City of Dent.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that within the M-2 zoning district up to 25 %of a development may be used
for business service or industrial service type of uses which are not strictly industrial in nature. Mr.
Satterstrom stated that churches, by definition, are not one of these type of businesses under current
zoning policy. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff recommends to the board that churches be added as
a special permit use in the M-2 zoning district. As a special permit use, it would be subject to some
restrictions in Section 15.08 of the Zoning Code, specifically in dealing with ingress. egress, site size
and parking.
Brad Bell MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to open the Public Hearing.
Motion carried.
There was no public testimony on 4ZCA-97-9 Churches in the M-2 Zone.
Brad Bell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Motion carried.
Brad Bell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to accept the staffs recommendation
to allow churches in the M2 zone as a special permit use. Motion carried.
1997 COMPREHENSIVE Pi AN AMENDMENTS - (M. Jackson)
Planner Matthews Jackson explained that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 pursuant to
the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan includes eleven elements
including land use, capital facilities. transportation and community design. Mr. Jackson stated that
one of the requirements is for the plan to remain internally consistent as well as keeping the land use
map and the land use plan consistent with the zoning maps. By ordinance. the City is allowed to
update its Comprehensive Plan September 1st of each year excluding the declaration of an
emergency. He explained that discussion would follow on several amendment requests.
CPA 97 3(H) CITY OF KENT - FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Finance Director, Mayene Miller explained that the amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of
the Comprehensive Plan consists primarily of wording and technical corrections. and spoke at
length about the requested changes. Ms. Miller stated prior to implementing Growth Management,
Capital Plan needs were adopted without considering financial requirements. Growth Management
assures that a plan is in place with a reasonable way to pay for capital facilities.
HZCA-97-3 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
HZCA-97-9 CHURCHES LV THE M-2 ZONE
1997 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS CPA-97-3(A-HYCPZ-97-!1-
)
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9, 1997
category other Business
1. SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE AUTOMATION CONTRACT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Beginning in September of 1997, repre-
sentatives from S.S.M.D. , along with City Staff from Parks,
Finance, and Information Services departments began a process
to select a replacement computer system for the Golf Complex.
A written Request for Information was issued followed by a
formal Request for Proposals. Software demonstrations were
conducted both on site and at the business offices of the top
two vendors.
The selection team unanimously chose National Business Systems,
as the preferred vendor for the Golf Complex Cashiering
Automation System.
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: Not to exceed $38 219 . 33
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Automation Fund/Golf Course System Proiect
previously authorized by Council
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with National
Business Systems to provide an automated cashiering system and
related equipment, training and support at the City Golf
Complex, in an amount not to exceed $38, 219 . 33 , after contract
negotiations have been completeaand approved by the City
Attorney.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4H
CITY OF KENT MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: May Miller, Finance Division Director
DATE: December 4. 1997
SUBJECT: Golf Complex Automation Contract Award
Beginning in September 1997, representatives from SSMD Enterprises , Inc. along
with City Staff from Parks , Finance, and Information Services Departments
began a process to select a replacement computer system for the Golf Complex.
A written Request for Information was issued followed by a formal Request for
Proposals. Software demonstrations were conducted both on site and at the
business offices of the top two vendors .
The selection Team unaminously chose National Business Systems as the
preferred vendor for the Golf Complex automation . Since prices were very
competitive, the main reasons the selection Team chose National Business
Systems are:
The vendor's system met the City's required equipment configurations.
The system had more security levels built in to its program.
The vendor's facility had a suitable training area .
The system has good National support and the selection Team thinks the local
support would be stronger.
We are requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign a contract with National
Business . Inc. to provides the City software, equipment , training, and support
for a Golf Complex cashiering system for an amount not to exceed $38,219.33.
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9. 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: RIVERBEND GOLF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT - AUTHORIZATION
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: City Council authorized City staff to
negotiate a contract with S.S.M.D. Enterprises for the
management of the Riverbend Golf Complex beginning January 1,
1998. Staff from the City and S.S.M.D. are finalizing the
details of a contract for management of the golf complex.
3 . EXHIBITS•
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff and Parks Committee
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember I moves, Councilmember CI seconds
to authorize the Mayor to finalize and sign a contract with
S.S.M.D. Enterprises for the management of the Riverbend Golf
Complex beginning January 1, 1998 .
DISCUSSION•
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 4I
'U
Kent city Council Meeting
Date December 9 . 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: MATLACK CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This is a closed record appeal hearing
of the decision of the Hearing Examiner, approving a condi-
tional use permit in favor of Matlack, Inc. The appeal is
brought by Richard J. Brooks. The property is located west of
77th Avenue South at approximately South 202nd Street and is
134 . 14 acres in size. The conditional use permit was approved
subject to conditions outlined in the Hearing Examiner' s
decision dated July 31, 1997 .
The Council must decide the appeal after review of the written
record and testimony at the hearing.
3 . EXHIBITS: Verbatim minutes of 7/2/97 Hearing Examiner public
hearing; Notice of Appeal documents; Notice of Reconsideration
documents; Findings, Conclusions, and Decision; and staff
report
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearing Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6. EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember y ., ,L moves, Councilmember _seconds
1) To Sustain the findings and conclusions of the Hearing
Exami e- and affirm the decision.
(OR)
2) To Reverse the decision.
(can be reversed in whole or in part and requires a
modified decision and findings) .
(OR)
3) To Remand back to the Hearing Examiner.
(send back to Hearing Examiner for additional evidence,
facts or information) . {�
DISCUSSION•
ACTION: { ) ��� �C r�.CZ
Council Agenda
Item No. 4J
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Procedure on Closed Record Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision
Pursuant to City Resolution No. 896
FROM: ROGER A. LUBOVICH
L Staff Report.
II. Presentation.
A. Oral argument must be confined to the Hearing Examiner's record.
B. Appellants have up to 30 minutes to present oral argument (may
reserve time for rebuttal).
C. Opponents have up to 30 minutes to present oral argument.
III. Standard of Review.
A. Council must base its decision on the record made before the hearing examiner.
Council can only review the examiner's findings of fact and conclusions to determine
if they are supported by substantial evidence. State v Pierce County, 65 Wn.App.
614, 619 (1992). (Evidence is substantial if it would convince an unprejudiced
thinking mind of the asserted position) Hansen v Chelan County, 81 Wn.App. 133,
138, 913 P.2d 409 (1996).
B. The Council reviews the hearing examiner's decision under the following standards:
I. Decision based on substantial error.
2. Procedural irregularities materially affecting the prior proceedings.
3. Decision unsupported by material and substantial evidence.
4. Decision is in conflict with the City's comprehensive plan (if applicable).
5. Insufficient evidence presented as to the impact on the surrounding area
(if applicable).
IV. Decision.
A. The Council must decide the appeal after review of the written record and testimony
at the hearing by taking one of the following actions:
I. Sustain the findings and conclusions of the hearing examiner and affirm
(agree and concur with) the decision.
2. Reverse the decision in whole or in part (reject all or part of the decision and
issue a modified decision and findings).
3. Remand back to the hearing examiner for a further hearing (send the matter
back to the hearing examiner in order to obtain additional evidence, facts, or
information for its reconsideration).
Vautreso�uli�hearexem rec 12/97
o C� C� C � N1C �
BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP 0 C T - 71997
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING CITY OF KENT
1424 FOURTH AVENUE. SUITE 1015 CITY CLERK
SEATTLE, WA 98101
DAVID A. BRICKLIN (206) 621-8868
MICHAEL W. GENDLER FAX (206) 621-0512
DAVID S. MANN
JENNIFER A. COLD
CLAUDIA M. NEWMAN
October 6, 1997
City Clerk
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Re: Notice of Appeal
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. CE-97-2, Matlack, Inc.
Dear City Clerk:
Pursuant to Kent City Code § 15.09.030F, Resolution No. 896, and Kent City Code §
2.32.150, please take notice that Richard J. Brooks hereby appeals to the City Council
from the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Hearing Examiner dated July 31,
1997 and from the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration dazed September 23,
1997.
The specific errors of fact, procedural errors, omissions from the record, and errors in the
interpretation of the zoning code are as follows:
1. The City failed to provide notice to appellant Richard J. Brooks of the
issuance of a Determination of Non-Significance for this project, even
though appellant Brooks owns land immediately adjacent to the project site.
2. The Examiner erred in finding that the proposed use will not be detrimental
to appellant Brooks' property. The proposed use will be detrimental to
appellant's use of this property as a residence and as open space reserve
because the proposed use will cause excessive noise and glare, and because
drainage measures are inadequate to protect against flooding of appellant's
property and discharge of pollutants including hazardous materials onto
appellant's property.
3. The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the undeveloped nature of
the majority of appellant's property was a factor justifying issuance of a
City Clerk
October 6, 1997
Page 2
conditional use permit. The City of Kent urged appellant to place his land
into open space reserve status in recognition of the importance of the site
as wildlife habitat. The City should not now be telling appellant that he
must develop his open space reserve land for industrial use or otherwise
lose the value of his property because of the impacts of expansion of
industrial activity on adjacent property. The Hearing Examiner improperly
placed the burden of proof on appellant to protect the wildlife habitat on
appellant's property, when preservation of that habitat was requested and
encouraged by the City of Kent in its request that the appellant's property
be placed into the open space reserve program.
4. The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that appellant's property
heady was subject to noise and other impacts from other industrial
neighbors such as Sawdust Supply. The undisputed testimony was that
Sawdust Supply has been a very good neighbor to appellant. Sawdust
Supply is required to discharge all of its leachate into the Metro sewer
system. The applicant is not even required to have emergency connection
to the Metro system.
5. The Hearing Examiner erred m determining that adequate provision for
buffer and landscaping was provided. The uncontroverted testimony was
that the existing industrial use on the Matlack property already causes harm
to appellant because of its noise and glar ,appellant's thproposed expansion
will bring that harm much closer to
6. The Examiner erred in concluding that the conditional use permit was
conditioned sufficiently to protect appellant against flooding and
stormwater pollution. The Examiner failed to recognize that rains such as
a 25 year flood will cause water depth of six feet, that such a depth of
water will cause stormwater from the applicant's site to back up on
appellant's property, and that a wider culvert is needed.
7 The Examiner erred in finding that appellant would not suffer adverse
impacts from spills of hazardous materials and from stormwater runoff,
where the detention proposed for the expansion is inadequate.
g. The applicant has miscalculated the surface water runoff coefficient The
soil on applicant's property is sandy and has a high rare of infiltration. The
with
applicant should have used a coefficient of 55 percent for sandy
sail a high rate of water transmission. As a result, the drainage pond is too
small.
City Clerk
October 6, 1997
Page 3
9. The applicant has not submitted a detailed stormwater management plan or
otherwise demonstrated its ability to prevent stormwater pollution and
pollution from spills of hazardous materials.
10. The Hearing Examiner erred in determining that the applicant's site was not
too small to allow for proper development of the proposed expansion. The
expansion as designed does not have adequate buffering and does not meet
setback requirements.
11. The applicant produced technical documents at the hearing on July 2, 1997
which had not been previously provided to the City or to petitioner for
review. Petitioner was allowed one week which included a federal holiday
to review these documents and comment.
12. The prior spills and discharges of liquids from the applicant's property were
not controlled and caused pollution on petitioner's property.
11 The planting plan provided by the applicant is much too thin to screen the
site adequately.
14. Additional evidence may be necessary to calculate the proper size retention
pond, the proper size culvert, and other conditions and measures needed to
protect appecant's property against unnecessary and unreasonable adverse
impacts caused by this proposal.
15. Appellant hereby adopts all statements of error and arguments in support
thereof set forth in his submissions to the Hearing Examiner, including his
letter of July 10, 1997 and his motion for reconsideration by letter dated
August 13, 1997 as if set forth fully herein.
Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP
Michael W. Gendler
MWG:psc
City Clerk
October 6, 1997
Page 4
cc: Vince Helt
Dana B. Mower - via Facsimile to 253-887-0925
Richard J. Brooks
,
o
'� om�
0
1' c `
Z �
xm-gym c n
O °�'�y7►D a m 7C
' r mm%nZ mT�yDr !
LL �f�z� I DOmO
" + Zb c O
Ln QT<I mMomRD
r � =mom
.r + DT<
ODmO.D m _
i m0 m ti Z
i otimsp t
ru ONO iC rm���
C p
Lnn no c' i
0 r
OZ M
r
S O
Ln
O 1
C
r
a
i
p
s
m
i Dy L
Ox p
�ter• T`
rn
I � J
rp
F m 4A
i m p
O � .
r
r
D
� N
1 N
m �Io C11
CITY OF KENT DOC #: 57666
DATE: TR � -
TREASURY RECEIPT ID YY MM DO sues
�i�ry�C�� LL.P _ CK#
Received of: I AMOUNT
CDENS IR APP I IND I PND I OX EX NI OBJT I SOURCE I CD I ACSS I OOCUM RIIERINCE I OESCAIPTION
175 001 000 I _� 4190 01
ACCIOENTRPT/COPY
Opp 0000 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 1
115 I I I
I 1 I
175 001 000 11633
6981 01 1 I CASH-OVER/SHORT 1
142p 4196 01 1 1 CIVIL SVC EXAM/POLICE
175 1 001 000 I CIVIL SVC EXAM/FIRE I
175 1 1 001 1 000 11420 1 4196 02 I' GAMBLING TAX
175 .I 'I 001 000 12262 1 1850 00 ,
1960 pp j I GAMBLING PENALTY
175 1001 1 000 2252 I GARBAGE PERMITS
175 1 1 001 1 000 '10000 - 2342 00
pppp 1645 pp GARBAGEuTIL.TAX
175 1 001 ppp ( I HAZARDOUS FIRE PER
175 001 I000 ( 2342 2130 00
175 001 1 000 1 1804 1 I 14581 00 HEARING EXAMINER FEE 2
I LICENSES
175 1001 000 0000I
175 1001 1000 10000 1 2170 01
AMUSEMENT DEVICES
175 001 I opo ! 0000 12170 02
ARCADE
175 ! 001 l o00 10000 2190 01
1
BUSINESS
175 , o01 1000 1000p I f
2290 90 I CABARET
155 1 21X 000 0000 I 546 uoS
4150 00 j MAPS A CODES
175 j 1 001 ppp I I MED PREM $LUE CROSS
175 563 1000 11410 j 6653 11 MED PREM COBRA
175 1563 j 000 j 1410 1 1 16653 32
------------
175 001 000 1633 1 4196 UU NSF CHECX FEE
175 I 001 1 000 10000 '; 11647 00
PHONE UTIL.TAX
ii I PROMISSORY NOTE
850 1 RI 001 1 121 1501 141147 UTILITY CLEARING 1
155 691 000 0000 555 I votD I DB BB
175 001 000 1633 :: 6981 011
I I I I
I I 1
SMATTACHEO
Cenral Stores-163fi City Clerk-1330 Der.Svs.-1850 Engr.•5521 I 2 Cd
ORG} Fire-2342 Planning-1810 Police•2221 TOTAL
rAl m 3ASM wHrre coM x 1-7*4100-W COPY-*WSK3L a c' ;,LEccp"
cltY OF yt�V
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859-3390 Theodore P.Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
FTLE NO: MATLACK, INC. 9,V-97-3 AND 44CE-97-2
APPLICANT: DBM Consulting Engineers
502 16th Street NE #312
Auburn, WA 98002
REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance from Section 15.08.050(9)(b)(4) requiring
facilities handling hazardous materials to be set back fifty feet from all
property lines. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit
pursuant to Section 15.04.190(c)(8) in order to construct four additional rail
spurs at an existing bulk plant/truck and rail transfer terminal handling non-
hazardous and hazardous materials, rail to truck and truck to rail.
LOCATION: The property is located at 19929 77th Avenue S.
AP PT rCATTON MZZ: May 6, 1997
OF=MiNA. ON OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISS 1FD: #V-97-3 Exempt
#CE-97-2 MDNS issued on April 10, 1997
MFF-rTN r DATE: July2, 1997 continued for further information to July 17, 1997
DFrrarnN ISSUED: July 31, 1997
Dom: APPROVED witlzconditions
STAFF RFPRFFSENTA= Matthews Jacksoa.Plaaaing Department
Gary Gill,Public works Departtamt
Bill Wolinsid,Public works Department
Kasten Langely, Public Works Department
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
#V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
Pt TRi TC TESTIMQNY Dana Mower, DBM
Vince Helt, Matlack, Inc-
Others
hel Gendler, attorney for Dick Brooks
Dick Brooks
1. Hearing Examiner file containing staff report, public
notice, Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
and application.
2. Letter from Wayne Bressler, Puget Sound Energy,
dated July 2.1997.
;. Small aerial photo of the site.
4. Revised plans consisting of cover sheet (C1);
preliminary Rail Spur Alignment Plan and wetland
area and relocation drainage (C2); grading and storm
drainage in detail(0)and preliminary landscape plan
(L 1).
5. Booklet entitled, "Basin Analysis for Existing Ditch",
dated January 1997.
6. Photo of culvert
7. Fax from Matlack, Inc. to Hearing Examiner
regarding Local Emergency Response Plan, dated
July 7, 1997.
8. Letter from Mr. Gendler, attorney representing
neighboring property owner, to Hearing Examiner,
dated July 10, 1977.
Attachment A: Letter from Heidi. Danilchik to
Mr. Gendler, dated July 9, 1997.
Attachment B: Department of Ecology conversation
record.,dated July 15, 1992, and two ERT System
follow-ups, dated February, 27, 1992, and. July 157
1992-
TNiRODIICTiO1�F
After due consideration of all the evideaocpteW3W&at public big on the date indicated above,
and fallowing as ucaccompanied personal °a of the subjectP=oP�Y and st:aotmdiag arm
by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing,the following 5ndings,conclusions
and decision are enoered by the Hearing F,rm=cr oa this application.
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
4V-97-3 and 9CE-97-2
SUMMARY OF PROCEED1NGS
The applicant requests approval of a plan to construct four additional rail spurs at an existing bulk
plant/truck and rail transfer terminal handling non-hazardous and hazardous materials, rail to truck
and truck to rail. The proposed spurs would be 40 feet from the eastern property line and 43 feet
from the western property line. The request for a conditional use approval was filed on May 6. 1997.
The handling of hazardous substances in an M3, General zoning district requires approval of a
conditional use permit. The zoning code requires facilities handling hazardous substances to be set
back fifty feet from all property lines. A variance to the set-back requirement may be granted if the
conditional use is approved.
A public heating was held on July 2, 1997, to allow all interested persons an opportunity to respond
to the application and recommendation of approval. The Kent Planting Department reviewed the
application and recommended approval with four conditions in a written report presented at the
public hearing.The City of Kent,the applicant, a resident,and the resident's representative appeared
at the hearing. All present were given an opportunity to testify and present evidence. During the
public heating, it became clear to the Hearing Examiner that additional information was necessary
before a decision could be made on the application. The need for additional information concerned
the potential impact of the development on 1) stormwater drainage through two culverts in the area,
and 2) possible odor from,and spillage and containment of the products handled in the facility. The
applicant provided to Mr.Brooks' representative,on July 3rd,one day after the hearing, stormwater
drainage plans and landscaping plans. The applicant provided on July 7th, a product list of
chemicals stored on-site and the facility's Local Emergency Response Plan. At the hearing,
Mr. Brooks and his representative agreed without objection to respond to the additional materials
by July loth. The record was also left open until July 17th to allow additional time for the applicant
to provide rebuttal. None was filed- Thus,the Heating Examiner now eaters the following Findings,
Conclusions and Decision-
CRTTERTA FOR DECTSTON
Conditional Use Application
Jurisdiction.
The Examiner has jurisdiction.to hear anti decide a.conditional.use applicatiom pursuant to Kent
Zoning Code Chapter 15.09 attd.Chapter 3SA_0 of thcRcviseti Code of Washingtom
CritedaforRavicw
Ia otderto approve a.request for a.conditional usepemnt;the Heating Examiner must examine the
cdteQa establishedby the City Council to determine if the request is conksm m with those criteria_
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack. Inc.
#V-97-3 and 4CE-97-2
These are set forth in Section 1 5.09.030 of the Kent Zoning Code. In order to approve a request, the
applicant must present evidence to the Examiner sufficient to prove that:
a. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally
existing or permitted outright in the zoning district.
b. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
C. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation
system in the vicinity.
d. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those of other
uses in the neighborhood or vicinity.
e. Adequate buffering devices such as fencing, landscaping, or topographic characteristics
protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the proposed use, including adverse visual
or auditory effects.
f The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed use to
function effectively.
The proposed use complies with the performance standards, parking requirements and other
applicable provisions of this code.
h. Any other similar considerations that may be applicable to a particular case can be resolved
in favor of the proposed project.
Variance Application
Jurisdiction
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide an application for a.vatiance ptasaant to
authority granted by the Legislature in Chapter 35t.63 of the Revised Code of Washington and
authority granted by the City of Kest is Chapter Z32 ofthe Kent City Code—
Criteria.for Review
In order to approve an application for a.variance from the terms of the zoning code,the Fiearmg
Exaniiner de===that:
a. Tire Variance not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the.lit�ion
in the vicinity and zone is which the property is located;
upon uses of other properties
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
#V-97-3 and 14CE-97-2
b. That the variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights
and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located;
c. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
The Examiner must review the evidence presented and make factual findings and legal conclusions
based on that evidence. The decision of the Examiner must be in conformance with the Council
review criteria and must logically follow from the findings and conclusions.
After considering all the evidence presented at the public hearing on the date specified above, and
following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area, the
following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are entered by the Examiner on this application.
=INGS
1. The subject property is located at 19929 77th Avenue South. It is west of 77th Avenue
South at approximately South 202nd Street in Kent,Washington,in a M3, General Industrial,
zoning district. The Matlack Inc. site covers approximately 9.54 acres. The proposed new
rail spurs are on a 4.14 acre lot located south of the a fisting development. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report,page 2;Application for variance approval, page 1.
immediately east and west of the subject property is zoned M2,Limited Industrial.
properly abutting to the north and south of the subject property 2' Property
is zoned M3. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site and surrounding area is Industrial-Exhibit 1,
Staff Report,page 2, and Zoning Map.
3. Land uses in the area range from light to heavy industrial facilities,some of which handle
hazardous materials. The Seattle: Processing;the Auction,West=Processin the Union Paci&c
Railroad,and a Puget Sound Energy substation arc located inclose proximity to the:site. t
Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page I.
4 The subject property is bordered by 77th Avenue South:on the east Everything:around the
site is undeveloped excegtfor m single-family house to the south. The houseis 300 feet away
front the subject property lint and 370 feet away from the rail lime The house is also meat
to an exisdag sawdust plant EzWnt 1, Staff Report:page 2; Testvnony of Mr Mower and
Mr. Jackron;Exhibit 3, Aerial photo.
5
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc
TV-97-3 and KCE-97-2
5. The existing rail/truck transfer terminal is a principally permitted use in the M3, General
zoning district. The applicant's facility has been in operation since 1981. However, in.1993,
Matlack, Inc. expanded its operations to include the handling of hazardous substances which
requires a conditional use permit. Two conditional Use Permits and a Variance have been
issued for the applicant in previous years (CE-93-5; CE-94-6; V-93-2). The applicant has
complied with all three. The proposed rail spur addition does not require any additional
parking. Setbacks beyond that requested for a variance in this application have been met.
No building structures are proposed and the submitted landscape plan meets the minimum
requirements. All parking, maneuvering, and outside storage areas will be paved to prevent
groundwater contamination.Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 & 9; Testimony of iWr. Jackson.
6. The topography of the site; the location of the Union Pacific Rail main line; and the location
of the stream and wetland limit the placement of the new rail spurs on the southern lot. A
third or more of the site is not be available for development. The Union Pacific Railroad
Company maintains spur radius requirements, and this puts further limitations on the location
of the new spur lines. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6. The applicant has applied for the
conditional use permit and variance to expand the operating capacity of the facility to
respond to an industry-wide increase in reliance on freight trains rather than trucks for
transportation of hazardous chemicals. Testimony of Mr. Heir.The project will maintain a
43 foot setback from the western property line and a 40 foot setback from the eastern
property line.Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 5.
7 The properly has primary access to 77th Avenue South (an Industrial Collector Arterial),
where average daily traffic is 3,500 vehicles per day. The proposed use would mean an
increase in traffic of 100 daily and 10 PM peak hour trips.Through the environmental review
process,the applicant will be required to conduct a traffic study or execute an agreement to
financially participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the
South 196th/200th Street Corridor project.They will also be required to widen and improve
77th Avenue South across the frontage of the site. Exhibit 1, Sta}fReport,pages 2 & 8.
8. There is an existing 10 inch water,mama line available to serve the sittbir I g 72 inch
RePout,
METRO sanitary sewer is available to serve the subject pmtF Staff per
page 2.
9. A fina1:11fftigw%L Detaaananoa of Nonsi (MIDNS�was issued.furthe proposed
subdivision on'April 10,1997 pursuant to the State Eaca°iaenial polinY Act It was not
appealed by the applicant:or any citizen:The 16 conditions of mitigation:address several
=as of eavimtffientalconc=includmg=ffiu unPa=34t=MW80=de=on andtieasmemt
facilities, wedand. mitigation' including relocation. of the stream ch mnei, handling of
hazardous chemicals, and emergency response to spills- Condition, No. 15 requires
6
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
#V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
compliance with 12 procedures for prevention or minimization of water pollution. Exhibit
1, MDNS.
10. There is a wetland on the site as well as a drainage channel or minor stream. The applicant
has proposed a relocation of the stream. Condition 47 of the MDNS is intended to mitigate
the potential adverse environmental impacts of this action. The City has approved the
the
delineated wetland boundaries and the developer has agreed to permanently protect
approved, preserved, enhanced, and created wetlands, streams, and buffers through a
Sensitive Area Tract or Easement.Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 9; Testimony of iWr. Jackson,-
Exhibit 4, Attachments b & d.
11. A granting of a conditional use permit would allow construction of the rail spurs, and
consequently require a relocation of the stream with potential adverse impacts on the wetland
area. A granting of a variance would only affect the distance of the rail lines to the north and
west property lines, and thus would not affect the rail lines' distance from the wetlands.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 9; Exhibit 4, Attachment a; Testimony of Mr. Jackson.
12. Puget Sound Energy has a 30 foot easement on the subject property for emergency access
to the adjacent substation. The proposed rail spurs will cross the easement. Puget Sound
Energy will be granted permission to cross Matlack's property if the easement is blocked,
thus maintaining emergency access. Testimony of�Wr. Jackson & Mr. Mower; Exhibit?.
13. The entire site is sand down to 6 feet below the soil surface. As a result of the difficulty that
this and the existence of the wetland pose to development,the applicant proposes to develop
50% of the subject property and to leave the rest to open space. The drainage/stream
channel was created in the 1930's and is wider and shallower than is desirable to be a
successful habitat for fish. The applicant proposes to increase the carrying capacity of the
channel and help restore it to potential fish habitat Testimony of Mr. Mower. Exhibit 4,
Attachment a.
14. Testimony from an adjacent property owner included concerns regarding the following
issues: 1) the projeces impact on migratory birds that use the wetlands as a.stop-over,
coupledwitltthefaad=theadjaceatpmpe tg owner hadputhis property-mW Keats"op=
spy:*program in 197Z to accommodate a.seasonal wetland;2) the fact that he had not
received notice of the:proposal by mail until.June Zlst�whiclx he felt was too close to:the:
July Znd heating date:to propedy mvest L@=the Proposal befi=the hearing:3) that the:
notice:pasted on the property was not conspicuously placed:and4)that he had not received
not=of the MDNS.Testimony of Mr. Brookr.
15. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with Kent City Code by posting on.
June 16, 1997, publication im the local newspaper, and ntailmg on June 20, 1997 to all
7
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
4V-97-3 and 14CE-97-2
persons owning property within 200 feet of the subject property, i.e., 23 parcels of property.
Notice of Public Hearing; Affidavit of Harris and Holden.
16. Testimony of the adjacent property owner concerned the threat of spillage of hazardous
chemicals and potential odor from chemicals used at the site. Testimony of Mr. Brooks. Any
odor that has existed in the area is likely caused by the sawdust plant located nexct door to the
house. The chemicals transported at the facility do not usually emit odors. Testimony of Mr.
Mower; Exhibit 7, page 1. The applicant will implement a Local Emergency Response Plan
prior to the start of operations on the new site that involves detection methods and spill
response procedures.In conjunction with the construction of the spur lines, the applicant will
improve drainage facilities to include spill prevention plans and equipment. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 6; Exhibit 7. The current facility is operating in compliance with the safety
standards mandated by the City of Kent and industry for freight transfer. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 6. Through the conditions of a previous environmental review conducted on
the property (#ENV-93-28), the applicant has a Spill Prevention Control and Counter
Measure Plan on file with the City. They also have implemented Best Management Practices
including the installation of a shut-off valve in the existing stormwater pipe system in case
of a discharge of hazardous substances. As a condition of this application,the applicants will
be required to update existing emergency management procedures and notify the fin marshal
if any changes are proposed in the types of substances handled on site. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 7. The representative for Mr. Brooks presented testimony from a previous
resident of the house on Mr.Brooks'property that Matlack workers had"dumped their foamy
water into the stream bed" perhaps 3-4 times per year. Testimony included that at one
"dumping;" of foamy water,the resident asked Metro to test Mill Creek for chemicals, but
the tests were inconclusive as to what chemicals might be present_ The matter was not
further pursued. Exhibit 8, Attachment a.
17. Testimony of the adjacent property owner also concerned 24-hour a day noise impacts from
increased train and truck traffic at the site and from the "P.A-" system. No noise
measurements have been taken at the sight- Exhibit 8 and Attachment a: Testimony of
Mr. Helt.
18. Testimony of the adjacent property ownerincluded a concear about ligbt and glare from the 1
site's 24-hour-&-day lighting- Tevvwny of Mr Brookr;ambit 8-Thee applicant respondei
that the- lights currently used are not $ood: lights;.but directional lights Testimony of
Mr. Helt
19. The applicant proposes to minimizes noise and light impacts by permaneady maintaining
laadscapittg along 77th Avenue South for a mi>umnm depth of ten feet;and also along the
souuhers property line fora.minimum depth of five feel The applicant is proposing six foot
tall red maples, spaced approximately 30 feet on center along 77th Avenue South-The
8
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
�IV-97-3 and OCE-97-2
applicant will also erect a fence around the entire site to reduce visual and noise impacts.The
site operates 24 hours a day, and 24-hour lighting of the entire site is necessary for the safety
and security of workers and equipment. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 9; Testimony of Aar.
Jackson and Mr. Helt..
20. Testimony of the adjacent property owner also raised a concern about the adequacy of
stormwater drainage in relation to a possible increase in flooding of the field on his property.
Testimony of Mr. Brooks. The applicant testified that past flooding has been caused by the
culvert grate becoming plugged, and that this rate will be removed. Testimony of
Mr. Mower. Exhibits j & 6.
21. The City testified that the variance was appropriate, in part, because other properties in the
area were benefiting by variances in the form of non-conforming uses. Mr. Brooks'
representative questioned the propriety of granting a variance on these grounds, citing
Jefferson County v Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn• App. 576, 591 (1994). Testimony of
Mr. Jackson and Statements of Mr. Gendler.
22. At the hearing on July 2, 1997, all present were given an opportunity to testify and present
evidence. The Kent Planning Department reviewed the application and recommended
approval with four conditions in a written report presented at the public hearing.The City
of Kent,the applicant, a resident, and the resident's representative appeared at the hearing.
During the public hearing, it became clear to the Hearing Examiner that additional
information was necessary before a decision could be made on the application. The need for
additional information concerned the potential impact of the development on 1) stormwater
drainage through two culverts in the area, and 2) possible odor from, and spillage and
containment of the products handled in the facility. The applicant provided to Mr.Brooks'
representative, on July 3rd, one day after the hearing, stormwater drainage Plans and
landscaping plans. The applicant provided on July 7th, a product list of chemicals stored
on-site and the facility's Local Emergency Response Plan. At the hearing,W.Brooks and
his representative agreed without objection to a July loth deadline to respond to the
additional materials.In this response,Mr. Brooks' representative argued that one week was i
not enough time to Mview the additional materials_The record was le&ope¢until July 17t1t
The Kent City Code additionally provides for a.period of 14-days of re=1*Ie=o-n—
following the issum= of the Examiads decision: Ezhibir 1. Sta�Reporr, Page 1 0:
Statements of Mr GenaTer, Exhibits 4, S, 7&8-
9
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
TV-97-3 and gCE-97-2
coNCL 1S�IONS
Analysis for Conditional Use Application
1 The proposed development of four tail spurs in the proposed location will not be detrimental
to other uses legally existing or permitted outright in the General Industrial District, VI3.
The Zoning district authorizes the greatest scope and intensity of industrial uses allowed
vicinity have operations with
imilar
in the City of Kent. Other heavy industrial uses in the
characteristics as the applicant's, and some businesses handle hazardous materials. Findings
of Facr.Vo. 1, 3, & 4.
te
osed use.
2• With a set-back an t the
about One-half of total si size of the site at 4.14 acres is te due to for
onatural development
The applicantproposes
restrictions. Findings of Fact No. 1, & 13.
3. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation
onditions including road improvements,the increase in traffic
system in the vicinity. with c
of 100 daily trips will not unduly burden the roads in an area with a low rate of traffic.
Through the environmental review process,the applicant will be required to conduct a traffic
study or execute an agreement to anancially participate and pay a fair share of the costs
associated with the construction of the South 196th/200th Street Corridor project•They f the will
also be required to widen and improve 77th Avenue South across the frontage
These improvements will provide mitigation for the expected impacts of the proposed use.
Finding of Fact No. 7.
4. Other performance characteristics of the proposed rail spurs are compatible with those of
other uses in the neighborhood and vicinity. See, Findings of Fact No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6.
The neighboring property owner raised several concerns about the compatibility of the
proposed use with the adjacent property. Each of these concerns is addressed below:
ve raised the cancers of glare from the facility's 24-lour
Llgh13� W.Brooks' representative
lighting. Substantial.buffcaag;from natural.vegetanonr exits in:the:370 feet between theprop ,
rail spu=and Mn Brooks'property Lira- The apPlicami alsoreqmredto Provide
5 fee tlu southam property line:Find ings of FacrNo 4&19.Kent C 1tg
5 feet of bu$eaag along that an indus�facing can emit_ KCC §7
Code puts limits am the amount of glatc thar
15.08.050(D)(4). In:addition to these protections, conditions am necessary to the
lighting does not cause t mvasonable adverse effects to Ivfr~Broold property- before
applicant should prepare a lighting plan to be approved by the planning required
5 feet of
operations of the expanded portion of the facility begin-
to
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack Inc.
4V-97-3 and""CE-97-2
buffering along the south property line should be expanded to 10 feet to help ensure adequate
buffers from adjacent property.
rainaze: Mr. Brooks' representative raised a number of factual allegations regarding the
insufficiency of the applicant's drainage plan, especially in regards to containment of
possible spills of hazardous chemicals and the effects of such spills on the wetlands.The City
and the applicant have provided some measures to ensure proper drainage of stormwater
from the expanded portion of the property. As a condition of this application, the applicants
should be required to update existing emergency management procedures and notify the fire
marshal if any changes are proposed in the types of substances handled on site. Exhibit 1,
IVfDNS conditions No. 5-14;Exhibit 7, A'fatlack Emergency Response Plan; Findings of Fact
No. 9, 10, 13, 16, & 20. The Kent City Code also restricts drainage of hazardous materials
into watercourses or the ground. KCC � 15.08.0500)(9). In addition to these general
protections, the MDNS requires the applicant to incorporate 12 specific "Regulatory and
Source Control best Management Practices wherever practicable in the final site design to
prevent and minimize water pollution. Exhibit 1, ,VDNS, condition No. 15. Additional
conditions are necessary, however, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on
surrounding property. Thus, a drainage plan that specifically addresses concerns raised in
the Exhibit 8 letter should be prepared and approved by the City prior to the start of
operations at the expanded portion of the facility.
jyoise: Mr. Brooks' representative raised the concern of noise from the facility's 24 hour
"P.A." system and truck and train related noises. Buffering around the site will lessen the
impact of noise. Finding of Fact No. 19. State and city regulations also address this concern.
State noise regulations limit noise from the facility's P.A. system to 55 decibels at the
property line. WAC§§ 173.60.020, 040, 050, 090. Kent City Code also restricts noise from
industrial development KCC § 15.08.050(D)(1).
Qdor. Mr. Brooks' representative raised the concern of odor from the facility s chemicals-
There is no evidence that odors have come from the applicant's facility, and testimony
suggests that any odor may come instead from the sawdust plant located to the west of
Mr.Brooks property.Finding of Facr No. 17.Kent City Code also addresses these concern,
prohibiting activities which cause odor to extend beyond a facilitYs lot lines:KCC J
15.08.050(D)(3)(b).
5. nth conditions, adequate bung deviccs—such as >andscap+& a:li$=g pLazz,.and
topographic characteristics-will protect adjacent properties from adverse effects of the
proposed rail spurs,including adverse visual or auditory effects. Conditions are necessary
to ensurethere will be adequate bung of the proposed.use from adjacent property. The
basis for these conditions is also discussed in Findings of Fact No.4, 1$,8t 19.
11
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
4V-97-3 and 4CE-97-2
6. Other uses in the vicinity will not interfere with the proposed use as the rail spurs will attach
to rails already in existence and functioning,and the applicant's facility has been in operation
since 1981. Finding of Fact No. 5, 6& 7.
7. The proposal will comply with all other applicable provisions of the Kent Zoning Code if an
exception to the 60 foot set-back requirement is granted. Finding of Fact No.1, 2, 5, 8, 9, &
12.
Analysis of Variance Application
1. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
The Examiner agrees with Mr. Brooks' representative's contention that a grant of a variance
is not justified by the existence of similar setbacks in the area that are nonconforming uses.
"Granting variances based upon the proximity of similar but nonconforming uses could
prove destructive to the [City's] zoning objectives." St Clair v Skagit Couary.43 WnApp.
122, at 127(1986). Where there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property
which effectively deprive it of a privilege granted to other property owners in that zone, a
variance is appropriate.Unlike other industrially developed properties in the area which exist
in M3 zones, this property is on a site that is difficult to build on, and consequently, the
applicant cannot develop one third or more of the property. The use-handling hazardous
chemicals—is a permitted one in this zone The variance is not a use variance but a bulk
variance,and thus the variance will not allow the applicant any privilege to handle hazardous
chemicals that it did not previously have. Findings of Fact No.3, 5, 6, 13, & 21.
2. That the variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with use rights
and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located. If the variance is not granted, the size of the property presents some design
constraints for operation of the proposed use in a manner consistent with:best management
practices of a bulk plane truck and rail transfer temzimL The property is also unique in that
there is nodevelopmeatstmvuading the property,witickresaltsiaalargebuff=from public j
uses.Findings of Facr No. 4, 6, 10, &11
3. TTre granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to tier public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements is the vicinity,and zone in:which:the property is
located.
The granting of a variance will not allow the rails to be placed closer to the wetland-The
variance will allow an increase in truck/freight transfers of hazardous and aon hazardous
12
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
4V-97-3 and-#CE-97-2
wastes. However, the proposed development will include improvements to the spill
prevention system already in place. Furthermore, the conditions of the MDNS are intended
to mitigate the risk of a hazardous waste spill. Conditions of approval relating to drainage,
lighting,noise, and odor impacts are necessary to ensure the granting of a variance will not
cause material detrimental impacts. Findings of Fact No. 11, 6, 5, 9, 10, 13 & 16.
DECISION
The application for a conditional use permit and a set-back variance to allow the construction of four
additional rail spurs at an existing bulls planvtruck and rail transfer terminal handling non-hazardous
and hazardous materials, rail to truck and truck to rail, is APPROVED subject to the following
conditions:
I. Comply with mitigation conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(#ENV-97-16) issued on April 10, 1997.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the new rail spurs, apply for a lot line
adjustment to create a single lot for the Matlack Inc. development If a Sensitive Area Tract
is required by the Public Works Department, indicate that on any lot line adjustment
application.
3. Submit an updated emergency plan to the Office of Emergency Management upon
completion of the project This will update the existing Spill. Prevention Control and
Counter Measure Plan filed with the City of Kent
4. No materials other than those already certified by the City Fire Marshal shall be received at
the facility without the express written consent of the City Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal
shall be informed of the class of materials being transferred and the precautions used to avoid
incident
5. The buffer along the southern property line is to be ten(10) feet in width.
i
6. The culvert grate shall be removed-
7. A detailed drainage plan shalt be prepared by tha applicant that specifically addresses the
concerns raised in the: Exhibit S letter, and shall be approved by the Public Works
Department before operations begin at the expanded portion of the facility. The Public
Works Department shall only approve the plan if they find that it will prevent:spills of
hazardous chemicals from-draining into either Mill Creek orW.. Brooks' property.
13
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Matlack, Inc.
*V-97-3 and ACE-97-2
S. The applicants operations shall not cause odor other than normal diesel vehicle-associated
odors.
9. All lights on the expanded portion of the facility_should be directed away from the existing
residence to avoid any increase in glare. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan to be
approved by the planning department before operations at the expanded portion of the facility
begin- It shall be approved by the planning department only if they find that the expanded
facility will contribute no additional spillage of light onto Mr. Brooks' property.
Dated this 31st day of July, 1997.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
�Pction 15.09.040 E: Any variance authorized by the hearing examiner shall remain effective only
for one(1) year, unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in
use or construction has not commenced within one(1) year, the variance shall become invalid.
Section 1 5,Q9 0 0 G Kent Zoning Code provides that any conditional use permit granted by the
Examiner shall remain effective only for one (1) year unless the use is begun within that time or
construction has commenced. If not in use or construction has not commenced within one year, the
conditional use permit shall become invalid.
ORDINANCE 3 3'70 (ems: The action of the city council, approving,modifying,or rejecting
a recommendation or decision of the hearing examiner: shall be final and conclusive,unless within
twenty-one(21) calendar days of the city council action, an appeal is filed with the Superior-Court
j
14
D[STRIBUTION OF HEARING EX,�vlINER MATERIAL
THE FINDINGS OF MATLACK, INC. #V-97-3 & OCE-97-2 WERE MAILED TO THE
FOLLOWING ON 7/31/97:
Public Works Director; Jerry McCaughan, Kristen Langley, Carol Storm, Marilyn Parker
Parks Director; Lori Flemm
Building Official
Fire Marshal; Jackie Figgins
City Clerk
Routed in Planning Department
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner File
Planning Department File
South County Journal
Federal Way News
Kent School District
Sent to the following parties of record:
MARK RIGOS
DBM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
502 16TH ST NE 4312
AUBURN WA 98002
DANA MOWER
DBM.CONSULTING ENGINEERS
502 16TH ST NE 4312
AUBURN WA 98002
MICHAEL GENDLER
1424 FOURTH AVENUE #1015
SEATTLE WA 98101
RIBROOKS
3802E MCGILVRA PLACE
SEATTLE WA 98102
BURTON BROOKS
1845 KILLARNEY WAY SE
BE LEVUE WA 98004
VINCE HELT
MATLACK INC
19929 77TH AVE S
KENT WA 98032
CITY of �`�
I
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/F.-.Y(. 3) 550-2344
James P. Harris. Planning Director
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
FOR HEARING EXA14INER HEARING OF
DULY ''. 1997 2:00 PM
FILE NO: Matlack Inc. TV-97-3. YCE-97-=
APPLICANT: Barghausen Consulting Engineers
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent. WA 9803:
R D ' T: The applicant requests a variance from Section
15.08.050(9)(b)(4) requiring facilities handling hazardous
materials to be set back fifty feet from all property lines. The
applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit pursuant to
Section 15.04.190(c)(8) in order to construct four additional rail
spurs at an existing bulk plant/truck and rail transfer terminal
handling non-hazardous and hazardous materials, rail to truck
and truck to rail.
STAFF
REPRES ATiVE: Matthews Jackson. PlanneriGIS Coordinator
STAFF
RECOMMEWATION: Approval with conditions
PROPOSED FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a variance from Section 15.08.050(9)(b)(4) of the Kent Zoning Code
which states "Hazardous substance land use facilities shall be located at least fifty (50) feet
from any property line to serve as an onsite hazardous substance land use facility buffer
zone." The applicant requests a conditional use permit in order to expand an existing bulk
transfer facility to receive and transfer additional hazardous materials.
I
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
#V-97-3 & ,SCE-97-2
2 The Matlack Inc. site covers two parcels for a total of approximately 9.54 acres. The
proposed new rail lines are on a 4.14 acre lot located south of the existing development. The
site is located at 19929 77th Avenue South.
;. The zoning of the subject property is M3. General Industrial.
4. Land uses in the viciniry of the project range from light to heavy industrial facilities, some
of which handle hazardous materials. The Seattle Auto Auction. Western Processing, the
Union Pacific Railroad, and a Puget Sound Energy substation are located in close proximity
to the site. The property is bordered by 77th Avenue South on the east.
The following land use permits have been issued for this business by the City of Kent:
Conditional Use Permit mCE-93 issued on 12-3-93
Variance #V-93-2, issued on 11-1-93
Conditional Use Permit ttCE-94-6, issued on 10-5-94
6. The City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site as Industrial.
7. Variances are categorically exempt from review under the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act However, an environmental checklist is required for all conditional use permit
applications. The applicant has submitted an environmental checklist for review under file
number (40W-9 7-16), issued on April 10. 1997. Environmental reviews have also been
completed for Matlack Inc. under file numbers 4ENV-93-28, issued on July 1, 1993, and
TE, V-94-47, issued on July 28, 1994.
S. The subject property takes its primary access from 77th Avenue South. Sevenry-Seventh
Avenue South is classified as an Industrial Collector Arterial upon the City's Master Plan of
Roadways. The width of paving is 36 feet, and the public right of way is 50 feet The
average daily traffic count on the street is approximately 3,500 vehicle trips per day. It is
estimated that the Matlack Rail Spur development will add an additional 100 daily and 10
pm peak hour trips to the area.
9 -There is an existing 10 inch water main line available to serve the site. An existing 72 inch
METRO sanitary sewer is available to serve the subject property.
CONSULTED TED DEPARTS AND AGENCIES
The following departments and agencies were advised of this application:
2
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
#V-97-3 & /#CE-97-2
Director of Operations City Attorney
Director of Public Works Chief of Police
Parks & Recreation Director Fire Cliief
Building Official City Clerk
In addition to the above, all persons owning property which lies within 200 feet of the site were
notified of the application and of the public hearing.
Staff comments have been incorporated in the staff report where applicable.
Pi A\NNG DEPARTNJEyT REVIEW
The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan.
present zoning, land use, street system, and comments from other departments. The Planning
Department's comments are listed as follows:
A. Comprehensive Plan
In 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which represented
a complete revision to the City's 1977 comprehensive plan. The 1995 plan was prepared
under the provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive
Plan, through its goals and policies, presents a clear expression of the City's vision of growth
for citizens, the development community, and other public agencies. The plan is used by the
Mayor, City Council, Land Use and Planning Hearings Board, Hearing Examiner, and City
departments to guide decisions on amendments to the City's zoning code and other
development regulations, which must be consistent with the plan, and also guide decisions
regarding the funding and location of capital improvement projects. The Land Use Element
of the plan contains a Land Use Plan Map, which designates the type and intensity of land
uses throughout the city, as well as in the entire potential annexation area.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map designates the subject property Industrial. The
proposed project directly supports Goals LU-17, ED-3, and ED-4 which encourage an
attractive employment center,protection of available industrial lands, and the strengthening
of Kent's role as an economic center in South King County.
B. 7.o�ning_ ode
The existing rail/truck transfer terminal is a principally permitted use in the M3, General
zoning district. However, in 1993, Matlack Inc. expanded its operations to include the
handling of hazardous substances which requires a conditional use permit per Section
Staff Report
Nlatlack Inc.
,#V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
15.04.190(c)(3). They also were granted a variance which would allow them to transfer
hazardous materials within 26 feet of the south property line. .-ill other development
standards and regulations of the underlying zoning district must be me: by the new
development.
CnNCT.T'SIONS
Criteria for TrantinQ � variance
Section 1 5.09.040(C) of the Kent Zoning Code states: "Before any variance may be granted, it shall
be shown and the Hearing Examiner shall find":
1. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with a
the vicinity and zone in which the property,
limitation upon uses of other properties in
on behalf of which the application was filed, is located.
Anolicants' ReS Me:
'a. The zoning of the site is M3 (General Industrial). The operation of a hazardous
substance transfer terminal is permitted as a conditional use within this zone. This
specific variance request is for the expansion of the transfer terminal within the 50
lines ad within one-aarrer
foot setback from the north, east,al of theest'se variances ropera ces will nnotconstitute augrant
mile of the Interurban trail. Approval
of special privileges to Matlack Inc.
The proposed location of the 4-spur lines will not place anv limitations on other
properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of this facility, nor will it be detrimental to
any other uses in this zone.
b. Matlack Inc. has been operating a truck transfer terminal at this location since 1981.
however, the company wishes to expand its operations to meet the current demand
for rail to truck and truck to rail transfers of non-hazardous and hazardous
substances in a safe and efficient manner.
Since a transfer terminal and two existing rail spurs are already operating at the
present location, approval of this variance will not constitute a 'grant of special
privileges,'nor will the approval be a limitation on other uses in the area
By approving this variance, Matlack Inc. will be allowed to expand the operating
conditions of its facility while complying with the existing development pattern of the
4
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
#V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
area. The previously approved rail spurs were granted a variance (V-93-?)from the
standards by the City of Kent Board of Adjustment. .41though an additional variance
will be required for this proposal, the proposed rail spurs will not surpass the
minimum standards established by variance V-93-2. The following are the standards
established for the site:
Existing furs Pro op sed S
20 feet from property line (east) 40 feet from property line (east)
43 feer from property line (west)
The additional rail spurs will not change the existing use, but allow for additionai
on-site transfer of material involving rail transport."
Planning Department Comment:
Several other hazardous substance land uses are located in the general vicinity of the Matlack
Inc. site. Due to changes in the zoning regulations over the years, several of these sites do
not meet the current setback standards as outlined in Section 15.08.050(9)(b)(4) which
require a fifty foot setback from all property lines. Granting this variance would therefore
not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other uses and properties
in the vicinity
2 Such a variance is necessary, because of special circumstances relating to the size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, to provide it with
use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone
in which the subject property is located.
Anglicants' response:
'This variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the location of the
surroundings of the subject parcel. Due to the location of the Union Pacific Rail main line,
and the previously approved development of the existing rail spurs, the granting of this
variance is essential to the expansion of the Matlack facility. The proposed expansion of the
existing Matlack facility will surpass the setback standards established by the previously
approved Variance V-93-2. The project proposes to maintain.a 43 foot setback from the
western property line. The adjacent property to the west occupied by a Puget Sound energy
substation, will not be adversely affected by the proposed expansion of the Matlack facility.
The eastern property line of the subject parcel is adjacent to 77th Avenue South an existing
public right of way. As allowed by the previously approved Variance V-93-2, the two
5
Staff Report
vtatlack Inc.
TV-97-- & /#CE-97-2
existing rail spurs terminate at a point 36 feet from the existing right of way. Since the
existing facility does no pose a threat to the public health. safety and welfare, it seem
apparent that a variance should be granted to allow the proposed four additional rail spurs
to terminate at a distance of 4 feer from the eastern property line. It should be noted that
the northern property line of the subject parcel abutting the existing.Llatlack Inc.facil iry will
be removed or relocated according to City code."
Planning Devartment Comment:
The location of the existing rail spurs and the location of the stream and wetland limit the
I
of new rail spurs on the southern lot. A third or more of this lot will not be
available for development. The Union Pacific Railroad Company maintains spur radius
ons on the location of new spurs lines on the
requirements, and this puts further limitati
property.
;. That the ;ranting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which
the subject property is situated.
Anolicants' res2onse:
"a. The location of the four additional spur lines will not prove to be harmful to the
general public nor will they create conditions that will degrade existing site
improvements. In conjunction with the design and construction of the spur lines,
drainage facilities will be improved and upgraded on the site to include specific spill
prevention plans and equipment that can be put in place in the unlikely event of a
spill. the spur lines are proposed to be located adjacent to the existingfacility and
the construction will not cause arty harm to existing on-site improvements nor will
it have any impact to any off-site improvements in the area The spur lines will ties
into the southern most existing Matlack Inc. spur line, and through the Union
Pacific Railroad design standards, all safety conditions have been addressed
b. The current facility is operating in compliance with the safery standards mandated
by the City of Kent and industry for freight transfer. The granting of this variance
will allow Matlack Inc. to continue to meet the current demand in a safe and efficient
manner for rail to truck/truck to rail transfers f 11 non-hazardous
us andback
ahazardnus
materials in the area The proposed expansion
rds
established by Variance V-93-2."
6
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
�V-97-3 & nCE-97-2
Planning Department Comment:
Tluough the conditions of a previous environmental review conducted on the property
(4ENV-93-23), Matlack Inc. has a,Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measure Plan on
file with the city. They have also implemented Best Management Practices including the
installation of a shut-off valve in the existing stormwater pipe system in case of a discharge
of hazardous substances. As a condition of approval of this application. the applicants will
be required to update existing emergency management procedures and notify the fire marshai
if any changes are proposed in the types of substances handled on site. Implementing the
conditions of the mitigated determination of nonsignificance and conditions of approval of
this application will mitigate for expected impacts to the public.
Criteria for Evaluating a Conditional 11-e Application
Standards and criteria for evaluating conditional use applications are described in Section
15.09.030(D) of the Kent Zoning Code, which states "A conditional use permit shall only be granted
after the Hearing Examiner has reviewed the proposed use to determine if it complies with the
standards and criteria listed below. A conditional use permit shall only be granted if such finding
is made." The following is a discussion of the application with respect to the eight criteria:
1. The proposed use in the proposed location will not be detrimental to other uses legally
existing or permitted outright in the zoning districts.
Planning Department Finding
The M3 zoning districts allows the greatest scope and intensity of industrial uses allowed in
the City of Kent. Other heavy-industrial uses in the vicinity have operations with similar
characteristics as those of Matlack Inc., and some businesses handle hazardous materials.
To this date, there is no evidence that the types of activities conducted on the Matlack Inc.
property have, or will have any detrimental impacts on existing or future uses in the area.
2. The size of the site is adequate for the proposed use.
PI jUnino Department Finding
The proposed expansion of the Matlack Inc. rail spurs will take.place on a 4.14 acre parcel
located south of the existing terminal. Currently there are two rail spurs, a maintenance
building, dispatch building, and truck and trailer parking located on 5.4 acres. Adding four
rail spurs on the adjacent lot will result in a total of sir rail spurs on 9.54 acres. No
additional buildings or parking space is proposed with this application. In reviewing the
7
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
#V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
cumulative affect of the various variance and conditional use permits issued for Matlack Inc..
it appears that the total site will be able to adequately accommodate the additional rail spurs.
The lot greatly exceeds the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size required in the M3 zoning
district.
;. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not unduly burden the traffic circulation
system in the vicinity.
P1lnninv Deoartment Finding
The Public Works Department has commented that the development will cause significant
additional congestion at the following intersections:
77th Avenue South at South 212th Street
76th Avenue South at South 212th Street
84th Avenue South at South 212th Street
It is estimated that the expansion of the Matlack Inc. development will add an additional 100
daily and 10 pm peak hour trips to the area. Through the environmental review process, the
applicant will be required to conduct a traffic study or execute an agreement to financially
participate and pay a fair share of the costs associated with the construction of the South
196th/200th Street Corridor project. They will also be required to widen and improve 77th
Avenue South across the frontage of the site. These improvement shall mitigate for the
expected impacts of the proposed use.
4. The other performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with those
of other uses in the neighborhood or vicinity.
Planning Q=artment Finding
The expansion of the rail/truck transfer activity on the site is compatible with those of other
uses in the area. Additional noise generated from the site must be in compliance with those
typically generated by heavy industrial uses and`Within the parameters of the levels allowed
in the Kent City Code. The Unioa Pacific Railroad tracks adjacent to the site have
continuous rail activity, and the proposed use of the Matlack Inc. site should not exceed
existing impacts on neighboring uses.
8
Staff Report
Matlack Inc. "
#V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
Adequate buffering devices such as fencing,landscaping, or topographic characteristics
protect adjacent properties from adverse visual or auditory effects.
Planning Department Finding
Permanently maintained landscaping will be required along 77th Avenue South for a
minimum depth of ten feet. and along he southern property line for a minimum of five feet.
The applicant is proposing six foot tall red maples, spaced approximately 30 feet on center
along 77th Avenue South.
There is a portion of a wetland on the site as well as a drainage channel or minor stream. The
applicant has proposed he relocation of the stream and the Public Works Department has
mitigated this action through condition T7 of the mitigated determination of nonsignificance
for 4ENV-97-16. The City of Kent has approved the delineated wetland boundaries and the
developer will have to permanently protect the approved. preserved, enhanced, and created
wetlands, streams, and buffers through a Sensitive Area Tract or Easement. The applicant
is also showing a fence around the site. This will provide additional buffering along the
southern and western property lines which will further screen the activities and sound of the
Matlack Inc. development. These natural features will help elevate the aesthetic impacts of
the proposed expansion.
6. The other uses in the vicinity of the proposed site are such as to permit the proposed
use to function effectively.
Planning Department Finding
Neighboring land uses should not impact the ability of Matlack Inc. to use the subject
property as proposed since Matlack Inc. has been in operation since 198 L
7. The proposed use complies with the performance standards,parking requirements and
other applicable provisions of this code (City of Kent Zoning Code).
Planning 17=tment Finding
The proposed use meets the performance standards and other requirements of the Zoning
Code. The proposed rail spur addition does not require any additional parking. Setbacks,
beyond that requested for a variance in this application. have been met. No building
structures are proposed and the submitted landscape plan meets the minimum requirements.
All parking, maneuvering, and outside storage areas will be paved to prevent groundwater
9
Staff Report
Matlack Inc.
#V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
contamination. Other mitigating measures have been applied to this application through the
✓litigated Determination of Nonsignificance.
STAF ' RECOMyiE MATION
Upon review of the merits of this request and the Code criteria for ;ranting i variance and e
conditional use permit. the City staff recommends :APPROVAL of this application with the
following conditions:
1. Compiv with mitigation conditions of the 'Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(-ENV-97-16) issued on April 10. 1997.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the new rail spurs. apply for a lot line
adjustment to create a single lot for the Matlack Inc. development. If a Sensitive Area Tract
is required by the Public Works Department. indicate that on any lot line adjustment
application.
;. Submit an updated emergency plan to the Office of Emergency Management upon
completion of the project. This will update the existing Spill Prevention Control and
Counter Measure Plan filed with the City of Kent.
4. No materials other than those already certified by the City Fire Marshal shall be received at
the facility without the express written consent of the City Fire Marshal. The Fire Marshal
shall be informed of the class of materials being transferred and the precautions used to avoid
incident.
Kent Planning Department
June 17, 1997
10
City of Kent - Planning Department
FLi9z cc
S 194 5T
S 196 ST
L-,0-CS T
y._
S 202 ST 5 Z02 ST
S 204 ST >
s^ �
i m
6 ST------------
S 6 ST
>
� I
S 208 ST m �,
S 209
APPLICATION NAME: Matlack Inc.
NUMBER: #V-97-3, #CE-97-2 DATE: July 2, 1997
RLPOUEST: Variance, Conditional Use LEGEND AL
Appiicaticn site N
Vicinity Map Railroad tracks
City limits
city of Kent - Planning Department
W
I � i III
_ T i
1 r
i ` I
11 I
li I I
1
e
i
- _ _ L
I � -
APPLICATION NAME: Matlack Inc.
NUMBER: #V-97-3, #CE-97-2
DATE: July 2, 1997
REQUEST: Variance, Conditional Use I g ND A
Application site N
Zoning/Topography — Zoning boundary
�� City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
1
1 ,
3
�Y.i
� E
cc
Il�s�.� � • �, -nw- I I �l� •
At
I 1
l
I � I
\ \\;
APPLICATION NAME: Matlack Inc.
NUMBER: #V-97-3, #CE-97-2 DATE: July 2, 1997
RtQUEST: Variance, Conditional Use LEGEND A
Application site N
'Site Plan
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION DEADLINE DATES
HEARING BODY: DATE OF HEARING:
HEARING EXAMINER 7/2/97 2:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROCESS COMPLETED
DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED/EIS COMPLETED
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: NOTIFIED APPLICANT OF PUBLIC NOTICE Date
Deadline Completed &
Date Initials
SET UP FILES/SET HEARING 5/14/97
DATE/DISTRIBUTE APPLICATION/
MAIL NOTICE LETTER
5/15/97 (Plat only) �
LETTERS TO APPLICABLE AGENCIES
5/29/97
DEADLINE FOR OUTSIDE INPUT
MAPS/TRANSPARENCIES COMPLETED/ROUGH 6/4/97
DRAFT OF STAFF REPORT COMPLETE/
200'/300' RADIUS DONE
6/12/97
STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING MANAGER
STAFF REPORT COMPLETE & TO JIM HARRIS 6/16/97
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILED TO NEWSPAPER/AGENDA
STAFF REPORT TO SECRETARIES 6/19/97
MAIL 200'/300' RADIUS 6/20/97
POST NOTICES ON PROPERTY 6/20/97
MAIL & ROUTE AGENDA/STAFF REPORT/ETC. 6/25/97
MJ 1. Matlack Inc. Rail Lines 9V-97-3 & #CE-97-2
MJ 2. Lang Preliminary Plat #SU-96-25 y
c:v973.dat
CITY OF
J
- Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P.Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
Theodore Paul Hunter
Hearing Examiner
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN RE: )
MATLACK, INC. ) NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
9V-97-3 AND #CE-97-2 )
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Request for Reconsideration was filed in this matter by
Michael W. Gendler, Bricklin & Gendler. LLP, Fourth and Pike Building, 1424 Fourth Avenue
41015. Seattle, WA 98101, representing Richard J. Brooks, on August 13, 1997. Pursuant to the
Rules of Procedure of the Hearing Examiner, this request has been granted. Some or all of the
matters identified in the request will be reconsidered by the Examiner and a Decision on
Reconsideration will be issued.
All parties of record are hereby given the opportunity to respond to the attached Request for
Reconsideration. Responses must be delivered in writing to Theodore Paul Hunter. c/o Planning
Department, 220 Fourth Avenue S.. Kent, WA 98032, no later than August 29th. The Examiner
will issue a Decision on Reconsideration based on the request and the responses received.
Dated this 21st day of August, 1997.
woom 74a PIU 41,46,
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
U.ICHRISIV971 MEM
•ve 7477.7nN 71, qVV< .rrl fPt4o F `16'i IQ-41N1!1 \ C VW. 11l
Jim White, Nlayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(253) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunte-
Hearing Examine,
IN RE: - )
)
MATLACK. INC. ) DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION
4V-97-3 AND mCE-97-2 )
SUNIVIARY OF DECISION
The Request for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons
described herein.
SUNhbIARY OF PROCEEDINGS
The applicant submitted a request for a variance and conditional use permit May 6. 1 a4 7. requesting
approval of a plan to construct four additional rail spurs at an existing bulk planvtruck and rail
transfer terminal handling non-hazardous and hazardous materials, rail to truck and truck to rail. The
handling of hazardous substances in an M3, General Industrial. zoning district requires aporovai of
a conditional use permit_ The zoning code requires a 50 foot setback for any hazardous substance
land use facility. The applicant's proposed rail spurs would be 40 feet from the eastern property line
and 43 feet from the western property line. The City Planning Department prepared an analysis of
the application and recommended approval on June 17, 1997. Following proper notice, a public
hearing was held on the application on July 2, 1997. At the hearing, the City presented its
recommendation of approval. The applicant presented information in support of its request.
Mr. Dick Brooks,an adjacent property owner, presented testimony against the applications and his
attorney, Mr. Michael Gendler, presented legal arguments in opposition to approval of the
applications.During the hearing, it became clear to the Hearing Examiner that additional information
was necessary before a decision could be made on the application. The record was left open until
July 17'.
t
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
4V-97-3 and #CE-97-2
The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on July 31, 1997 (Prior Decision), which approved the
request for a conditional use permit and variance. The Examiner concluded that the three criteria
for a variance and the eight criteria for a conditional use permit were met by the applicant.
On behalf of Mr. Brooks, Mr. Gendler filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Examiner's Prior
Decision on August 13, 1997. The request seeks a reversal of the Examiner's decision. The Request
consists of twenty substantive paragraphs and presents 14 separate arguments in support of the
request. This Decision on Reconsideration summarizes and responds to --ach of those arguments.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
Kent City Code, Section 2.31.140, states the circumstances in which a Hearing Examiner is given
authority to reconsider his or her prior decision. A reversal or amendment of a prior decision may
be made upon a finding that the prior decision was based upon erroneous procedures, errors of law
or fact error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available
at the prior hearing.
DISCUSSION
The Request for Reconsideration consists of four pages of unnumbered paragraphs. Each paragraph
provides some support for the request. To facilitate a response to the Request, the Examiner has
numbered the arguments made by Mr. Brooks. The summary of the arguments are for ease of
reference only and are not intended to completely capture each argument. The reference to the
reader to first read the allegation made by Mr. Brooks on
paragraph numbers allows the
reconsideration and then read the response of the Examiner to that allegation.
Argument I (Paragraphs 1 -3): Request for Additional Time to Review Plans.
Mr. Brooks requests that he be allowed to participate in the process of the Public Works
Department's approval of the drainage plan, and further requests that he be given a full month to
comment on the plan. However, public hearings are the appropriate forum for public participation
in and comment on land use applications. The public hearing allows all who are interested in a land
use application an opportunity to present and respond to evidence presented. Mr. Brooks was given
a full opportunity to participate during the public hearing and an additional opportunity to respond
to information not available at the time of the hearing. One day after the hearing Mr. Brooks was
given a copy of the original drainage plan and had an opportunity to comment on it during the
hearing continuation period. His concerns are on record in Exhibit 8. As a condition of approval
of the land use applications,those concerns must be addressed by the applicant and the Public Works
Department prior to implementation of the applicant's proposal. Specifically, the Public Works
Department must find that there will be no spills onto Mr. Brooks' property before a drainag be
can be approved. Similarly, the Planning Department must make a finding
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
#V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
additional light spilled onto Mr. Brooks' property before a lighting plan can be approved. The
concerns raised by Mr. Brooks were specific and were taken into consideration when making a
decision on the applications. This is the essence of public participation: an opportunity to comment
on a proposal in a manner that helps shape the outcome of that proposal. Mr. Brooks had a full
opportunity to participate in the land use decision-making process on these applications.
Mr. Brooks' concerns regarding enforcement of the conditions of approval should be directed to the
Code Enforcement Official of the City of Kent.
Argument 2 (Paragraphz,4): Allegation That Criteria For Approval Are Not Met.
This argument is a general allegation without reference to a specific error of fact, law, or judgment.
As such, it will be disregarded as an alleged basis for reconsideration.
Argument 3 (Paragraph 5): Inaccurate Factual Statement in Conclusion No. 4.
Mr. Brooks correctly points out an error of fact in Conclusion No. 4 of the Conditional Use
Application Analysis. Conclusion No. 4 states that the proposed rail spurs are 370 feet from
Mr. Brooks' property line. It should have stated that the proposed rail spurs are 370 feet from
Mr.Brooks' home(as it is correctly stated in Finding of Fact No. 4) and that the wetland and pasture
areas are 10 feet from the proposed parking lot and 70 feet from the rail line. The Prior Decision
should be amended to reflect this.
Argument 4 (Paragraph 6): Spur Radius Requirements of Union Pacific.
The alleged requirements of the railroad were relied upon by the applicant in making argument in
support of his requests for a variance and conditional use approval during the public hearing. In the
Request for Reconsideration, Mr. Brooks did not present any testimony or documents that suggest
the spur radius requirements did not exist or that they do not limit the area where a new ail line may
be located. Thus, this argument does not constitute a basis on which to amend or reverse the Prior
Decision.
Argument 5 (Paragraph 7): Reference to Water Main.
Mr. Brooks correctly restates Finding of Fact No. 8, but states no error of procedure, law, fact or
judgment as grounds for reversing the Prior Decision.
Argument 6(Paragraph 8): No Notice of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS).
W.Brooks asks for an amendment of Finding of Fact No. 9, to note that Mr. Brooks did not receive
notice of the threshold determination resulting in a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(IvIDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act MDNS. Objections to the MDNS are,to be
raised through an administrative route other than the public hearing on the conditional use permit.
However, a review of the MDNS file would have shown that notice was sent by certified mail to
Mr. Brooks,received by his wife Harriet Brooks, and the receipt signed by her on April 16, 1997.
Additionally, notice of it was posted on or near the proposed site on April 15, 1997.
3
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
9V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
Argument 7 (Paragraph 9): Deeper Channel.
Mr. Brooks correctly restates Finding of Fact No. 13, but states no error of procedure, law, fact or
judgment as grounds foe reversing the Prior Decision.
Argument 8 (Paragraph 10): Flow of Spilled Material.
Citing facts in Finding of Fact No. 16, Mr. Brooks' alleges a lack of spill containment measures in
the Prior Decision. In the Prior Decision, the Examiner made clear that
goal
int of Mill Decisireek. It is
conditions is to prevent a spill from intruding onto Mr. Brooks' property
not in the interests of MF.•Br00k-s-nor of the City of K-mt for the Examiner to assume the role of
engineer and to determine the proper technical methods of spill prevention. This is best left to the
expertise of the Public Works Department. Consequently, the conditions require the Public Works
Department to approve the applicant's drainage plan only if it addresses Mr. Brooks' concerns as
stated in his Exhibit 8 letter. The conditions thereby address Mr. Brooks' spill containment
concerns.
Argument 9 (Paragraph 11): Fence Material Unspecified.
Mr. Brooks requests that the Prior Decision be amended to require a fence of solid materials. His
restatement of Finding of Fact No. 19 is correct. The purpose of the fence and landscaping is to
m;nvn;7e noise and light impacts. The type of materials used in landscaping buffers are specified
in the Kent Zoning Code and must be approved by the Planning Department. Both the City's Staff
Report and the application stated that a fence would be built to minimize noise and light impacts.
At the hearing, Mr. Brooks offered no testimony concerning the type of fence material to be used.
The purpose of a reconsideration is not to provide a chance to contest facts or plans that were left
uncontested at the hearing,but rather to to correct errors or bring in evidence that was not reasonably
discoverable at the time of the hearing. There is no error of Tact law, procedure, or judgment in the
Prior Decision with regard to the applicant's fence clan.
Argument 10 (Paragraphs 12 - 13): Nature of Objection.
Mr. Brooks disputes the accuracy of Finding of Fact No. 22, and contends that at the hearing he did
in fact object to the July loth deadline that the Examiner set for Mr. Brooks to respond to
additional materials. However, an examination of the transcriptthe
of the hearing does not support the
contention that Mr. Brooks or his representative Mr. Gendler made such an objection. Rather, the
dialogue centered on when the materials would be available from the applicant. Those present
agreed that, if the materials were provided within the two days following the heating, the time
allowed would be sufficient to review those materials. Furthermore, the record was left open
through July 16th to allow rebuttal by the applicant. During this time, neither Mr. Brooks nor his
attorney submitted additional comments as could have occurred with an open record- The possibility
of this was specifically discussed during the public hearing. Finally, Mr. Brooks could have
requested additional time for review if he found the documents so complex that expert review would
be required. This possibility was discussed during the public hearing but was not raised as a formal
4
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
#V-97-3 and 9CE-97-2
request by Mr. Brooks until this Request for Reconsideration. Ample time was allowed to review
the type of materials submitted by the applicant.
Argument 11 (Paragraph 14): Conclusion 4 in Error.
Mr. Brooks is correct in pointing out the error in Conclusion No. 4 of the Conditional Use
Application Analysis, regarding a statement that Mr. Brooks' property line is 370 feet from the rail
spur. As discussed above with reference to Argument 5, the statement should read that the rail spur
is 370 feet from the nearest home. The Conclusion relies upon the buffer area between the home
and the proposed activfty to conclude that the performance characteristics of the proposed
development would be compatible with those of other uses in the vicinity. The key word in the
se that
criteria established by the Council is other uses in the vicinity. The home is the primary
could be affected by the proposed development. The Council does not reference impacts on
undeveloped land. Thus, the factual error, corrected in this Decision on Reconsideration, does not
affect the basis for Conclusion No. 4.
Argument 12 (Paragraph 15): Landscaping Not Specific.
Mr. Brooks contends that Conclusion No. 5 of the Conditional Use Application Analysis fails to
consider that a buffer of deciduous trees would not adequately protect adjacent properties in winter.
Both the City's Staff Report and the application identified the type of trees to be used in the buffer.
The testimony of City Staff was that the proposed buffer would be sufficient to protect adjacent
properties from adverse impacts, and this testimony relied, in part, on specific requirements in Kent
ordinances. This information was available at the hearing. At that time, Mr. Brooks offered no
testimony suggesting the limitation of the type of trees proposed or suggestions for what type of trees
should be used. The purpose of a reconsideration is not to provide a chance to contest facts or plans
hearing, but rather to bring in evidence that was not reasonably
that were left uncontested at the 5.
discoverable at the time of the hearing or to correct errors. There is no error in Conclusion
Argument 13 (Paragraph 16- 19): No Special Circumstances.
In disputing Conclusion No.2 of the Variance Application Analysis, Mr. Brooks alleges that the size
constraints placed on the property proposed for development are the result of actions taken by the
applicant and, thus, should not be the basis for a conclusion that the size of the property requires the
granting of a variance. However, in this matter the applicant did not rely upon its prior easement to
Puget Power(for the substation) to justify the need for a variance. Nothing in the record indicates
that the location of the easement resulted in, or had any relation to, the applicant's request for
aariance. In fact,the rail spurs cross the easement The applicant stated that its need for a variance
was based on the following: 1) requirements for rail spurs place constraints on where new rail lines
can be located, 2) the location of the stream and wetland limit the placement of the new rail spurs,
and 3) the fact that the soil is composed of sand down ° six feet below the surface the existence of his undevelopd land
ts the
ues
placement of the new rail spurs. Mr. Brooks also arg
next to the site should not constitute a special circumstance with respect to the granting of a variance.
5
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
4"V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
The Examiner agrees with this. The lack of development on Mr. Brooks' field results in the
existence of a large buffer from public uses, but it does not constitute a special circumstance for
which a variance can be granted. The Examiner amends Conclusion No. 2 to reflect this. However,
other characteristics of the site, as stated earlier in this paragraph, do constitute a special
circumstance on which to base a granting of a variance in this case. Thus, the error, corrected in the
Decision on Reconsideration, does not effect the granting of the variance.
Argument 14 (Paragraph 20): Spill Prevention Not Assured.
on No. 3 of the Variance Application Analysis,Mr. Brooks argues that there
With respect to Conclusi
is no support in the record to conclude there will be no spills onto adjacent property. However, in
a condition of the Prior Decision, the Examiner required that the applicant must submit its drainage
plan to the Public Works Department for approval, and the Department must find there will be no
spills onto Mr. Brooks' property before it approves the drainage plan. The concerns raised by
Mr. Brooks were specific and were taken into consideration when making a decision on the
applications: the condition of approval refers to a letter (Exhibit 8) supplied by Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks' concerns regarding enforcement of the conditions of approval should be directed to the
Code Enforcement Official of the City of Kent.
DECISION
The Request for Reconsideration of Conclusion No. 4 of the Conditional Use Application Analysis
is GRANTED. The Examiner made in error in stating that the distance from the rail spur to
Mr. Brooks' property line is 370 feet. The Prior Decision is hereby revised to state that the distance
Of 370 feet is from the rail spur to the nearest house on the property owned by Mr. Brooks. The
Request for Reconsideration of Conclusion No. 2 of the Variance Application Analysis is
GRANTED. The Examiner made an error in stating that the lack of development around the subiect
property constituted a special circumstance for purposes of ;ranting of the variance. The Prior
Decision is hereby revised, eliminating the last sentence in Conclusion No. 2 of the Variance
Application Analysis.
The remaining requests for reconsideration are hereby DENIED for reasons stated above.
COMN ENT
Mr. Brooks' commitment to preserving the health of the environment is commendable and should
be encouraged among all citizens. But the applicant's request must be considered in the context of
the site's location in an industrial distract. In 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates certain lands as being important for the encouragement
of an attractive employment center and for the strengthening of Kent's role as an economic center
in South King County. The Plan also designates other lands as being important for the ecological
6
Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration
Matlack
#V-97-3 and#CE-97-2
and aesthetic vitality of Kent. The uses allowed in one designation are very different from those
allowed in another designation. The applicant's proposed use conforms to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Industrial district in which the property is located. The City Council
has set aside other areas in the City as undisturbed wetland areas. Thus, a determination has been
made that some areas are best suited for industrial development and other areas are best, left
undeveloped.
Mr. Brooks' testimony included a statement about the importance of the site as a seasonal wetland
and a stop-over for migratory birds. However, no evidence was presented that any species would
be harmed if the applications were approved. If Mr. Brooks has evidence that migratory bird
stopovers must be retained even in industrial districts in order to protect certain bird species, the
Examiner encourages him to approach the City Council with proposed amendments to the Kent
Zoning Code to reflect this concern.
Dated this 23rd day of September, 1997.
���
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
ch:v973.rec
7
DISTRIBUTION OF HEARING EXAMINER MATERIAL
THE DECISION OF MATLACK, INC. 4V-97-3 & 4CE-97-2 REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION WAS MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING ON 9/23/97:
Public Works Director; Jerry McCaughan, Kristen Langley, Carol Storm,Marilyn Parker
Parks Director; Lori Flemm.
Building Official
Fire Marshal; Jackie Figgins
City Clerk
Routed in Planning Department
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner File
Planning Department File
South County Journal
Federal Way News
Kent School District
Sent to the following parties of record:
MARK RIGOS VINCE HELT
DBM CONSULTING ENGINEERS MATLACK INC
502 16TH ST NE ;#312 19929 7 7 TH AVE S
AUBURN WA 98002 KENT WA 98032.
DANA MOWER GARY VOLCHOK
DBM CONSULTING ENGINEERS CB COMMERCIAL
502 16TH ST NE 4312 1320 FIFTH AVENUE #1M0
AUBURN WA 98002 SEATTLE WA 98101
MICHAEL GENDLER
1424 FOURTH AVENUE 441015
SEATTLE WA 98101
R J BROOKS
3802 E MCGILVRA PLACE
SEATTLE WA 98102
BURTON BROOKS
1845 KILLARNEY WAY SE
BELLEVUE WA 98004
AU6 13 '97 19:39 FR0M:6RICKL GENDLER
RECEIVED
BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
FOURTH AND PIKE BUILDING C1SY CF <EN1
1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 pLANNING DEPAFRTMEN 1
SEATTLE. WA 05101
DAVID A. BRICKLIN (206) 821-8888
MICHAEL W GENDLER FAX (200) 621-0512
DAVID S. MANN
JENNIFER A, DOLD
CLAUDIA M. NEWMAN August 13, 1997
VIA FACSIMILE TO 253-850-2544
Theodore Paul Hunter
c/o Planning Department
City of Kent
220 Fourth Avenue South
Kent, WA 98012-5895
Re: Matlack, Inc., # V-97-3 and CE-97-2
Dear Mr. Hunter:
In accordance with Kent City Code S 2.32.140, Richard J. Brooks respectfully requests
reconsideration of the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision dated July 31, 1997 The
grounds for this request are as follows.
Mr. Brooks welcomes the requirement for submission and approval of a detailed drainage
plan that specifically addresses the concerns raised in the Exhibit 8 letter. However, the
process for submission, review, and approval of that drainage plan should not exclude Mr.
Brooks from participation and comment. Accordingly, A % of your decision should be
amended to require that the drainage plan and all materials submitted with the plan be
provided to Mr. Brooks for review and comment. Mr. Brooks should be afforded 30 days
from the receipt of such materials to submit his comments to the Public Works
Department. He should be provided notification of any action by Public Works and an
opportunity for review.
The same provision should be added to 19 of your decision with respect to the lighting
plan, and review and approval by the Planning Department.
Without an opportunity to review and comment upon these submissions, Mr. Brooks is
deprived of the opportunity to protect his property rights. The applicant has the burden
to prove that its application is consistent with the City's requirements. Douglas v City
of Spokane, 25 Wn. App. 823, 829, 609 P.2d 979 (1980) (variance application). A
determinatton that this application meets the Ci ts cannot be made in
ty's requiremen
AUG 13 'S7 15:40 FROWBRICKL I'YGL:R
20E-E2 `-, 7-35E
Theodore Paul Hunter
August 13, 1997
Page 2
advance of reviewing the submissions called for by 91 7 and 9 of your decision. A
decision which allows such determinations to be made without notice and pamcipation :o
the affected property owner denies that owner of the rights and protection afforded by :he
zoning code, and denies due process.
Mr. Brooks disagrees that the criteria for conditional use and variance have been ref.
The application does not meet Conditions A, B, D, E, and F pertaining to conditional uses
as set forth on page 4 of your decision, and does not meet Criteria A. S, or C wiLh res.
to variances as set forth on pages 4-5 of your decision.
On page 5, Finding 4 is inaccurate. There are three liomes on 77th Avenue South T^e
residence owned by Mr. Brooks may be 300 feet away from the subject property line. nut
:he properry's wetland and pasture are only 10 feet from the proposed parking lot and 70
feet From the rail line.
In Finding 6 on page 6, the purported requirements of the Union Pacific Railroac
Company are not approoriately raised to the level of legal requirements which "puts
further limitations an the location of the new spur 11nes.'
Finding 8 on page 6 references a water main and METRO sewer which are available :e
serve the subject property, but the decision does act require use of the sewer to oreven:
a spill from going into the creek and backing up onto 'YIr. Brooks' field.
In Finding 9 on page 6, the finding should be amended cc include Mr. Brooks' testltn02,
that he neverreceived notice of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Sigrilticance.
On page 7, Finding 13 asserts that the applicant will create a deeper c�a:,ncl for the
benefit of fish habitat. But their proposal will cause the channel to be only tive feet deco
in a 25 year storm.
In Finding 16 on page 8, there is reference to shut-off valves but there is no finding as to
where spilled material will flow after that. Such a finding is necessary to allow a
determination as to whether there are appropriate measures for the contmriment of a
discharge of hazardous substances.
In Finding 19 on pages 8-9, there is reference to a fence to reduce visual and noise
impacts. However, there is no finding or condition specifying the composition of the
fence. Obviously a cyclone fence will not provide either visual or noise mttigauon. The
finding and pertinent portion of the decision should be amended to require solid materials
which will address these impacts.
AUG 13 '97 15:40 rROM:3RICKL IENOLER
205-52 7-355 ? 14/05 "312
Theodore Paul Hunter
August 13, 1997
Page 3
In Finding 22 on page 9, it is stated that Mr. Brooks and his representative agreed without
objection to a July 10, 1997 deadline to respond to the additional materials. This is not
accurate. Mr. Brooks and his representative informed you that July 10, 1997 provided an
unrealistically short deadline especially in view of the intervening federal holiday, but they
committed to make their best efforts to respond by that date when you declined to afford
more time. The discussion at the hearing also referenced Mr. Brooks' need to locate and
consult with appropriate expert consultants in a very short time frame which included a
federal holiday weekend. It is regrettable that you did not afford more time and then
misstated our commitment to make our best efforts to respond in the very minimal amount
of time that was afforded.
This finding also references the opportunity to seek reconsideration, which is now being
done through this letter. Of course, reconsideration very rarely is a full substitute for a
hall and fair opportunity to be heard in the first instance. It would have been somewhat
more helpful here, and it Is respectfully recommended for all ruture decisions, to have the
specific provision for reconsideration and also for appeal to the City Council cited and
quoted at the end of the decision (as was done with a portion of Ordinance 3320 pertaining
to superior court appeals) so that applicants :ad other participants will be aware of their
further opportunities and the requirements governing them.'
With respect to your conclusions, fir. Brooks requests reconsideration of Conclusions 1
and 4 because the proposed use is not compatible with the use of Mr. Brooks' property
and is detrimental to the use of that property. In Conclusion 4, you state that there is 370
feet of buffering between the proposed rail spurs and Mr. Brooks' property line. But the
distance front the proposed new spurs to the property line 1s much shorter than that.
In Conclusion 5 on page 11, landscaping will protect adjacent properties from adverse
effects only if sufficient and appropriate landscaping is used. The applicant proposes
deciduous landscaping which will provide little or no relief in the winter. Conclusion 5
is not supported by the evidence absent specific requirements for landscaping which
provides for full screening of the visual and auditory effects of the proposed use. Further,
the reference in Conclusion 5 to topographic characteristics is vague and unsupported by
the evidence. Your decision does not require any berms that would be effective in
promoting the screening sought to be achieved.
With respect to the variance application, as noted above the variance applicant has the
burden of proof. �l�las v itv f So kann, glnirn. Further, a variance is not available
' In this case, the City of Kent refused to provide copies of the pertinent code
provisions ror reconsideration and appeal to the City Council until it received a formal
written request pursuant to the Washington Public Disclosure Act.
AU6 13 'ST 15:40 FRCM:9RICKl ENOIER
Theodore Paul Hunter
August 13, 1997
Page 4
when the claimed hardship is a self-inflicted one. Lewis v. Medina, 87 Wn.2d 19, 23,
348 P.2d 1093 (1976) (property owner who had participated in subdivision not entitled to
variance resulting from hardships purportedly caused by subdivision). Here, this owner
voluntarily conveyed a portion of its property to Puget Sound Energy (then Puget Sound
Power & Light) for a substation, thereby inflicting upon itself the size limitation now
urged to support a variance.
The property already is used for industrial purposes, the substation. Accordingly, it
canna[ be concluded that the property has been deprived of a privilege granted to other
proprrry owners in this zone.
In 12 of the variance application analysis on page 12, it is asserted that the property is
"unique" in that there is no development surrounding tiie property. This is untrue.
Brooks' adjoining property is developed with a single-family residence and a pasnire.
Moreover, this appears to be a determination that a variance is justified simply because
Mr. Brooks has not yet developed his property to its maximum industrial intensive use
There is no factual basis to conclude that there is anything unique about industrial lands
not completely surrounded by maximum intensity industrial development, nor is this a
Proper basis to justify a finding of special circumstances or the granting of a variance.
The determination in 1 2 that the size of the property presents some design constraints
does not take into account that the current size of the parcel is a self-inflicted result of
allowing a portion of the land to be used for the substation.
There is no support in the record to sustain a determination that the proposed development
will include improvements to the spill prevention system already in piace until a detailed
drainage plan and spill prevention and control plan are submitted and subjected to review.
Conditions requiring future plans do not provide an evidentiary basis to conclude that the
necessary improvements can or will take place.
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Brooks respectfully requests that the decision to grant the
conditional use permit and variance be reconsidered and that the conditions be reconsidered
and amended to provide enforceable mitigation and protection rather than requirements for
AUG 13 'ST 1::41 FROWSRICKL 'EN%ER Zoe-oc
Theodore Paul Hunter
August 13, 1997
Page 5
paperwork that can be submitted and approved without participation by the immediately
atTected property owner.
Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN & GENDLER, LLP
Michael W Gendler
,Vt WG:psc
cc: Vince Helt
Dana B. Mower - via Facsimile to 253-887-0925
Richard 1. Brooks
DISTRIBUTION OF HEARING EXANITNER MATERIAL
THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR MATLACK, INC. #V-97-3 & 9CE-97-2
WERE MAILED TO THE FOLLOWING ON 7/31/97:
Routed in Planning Department
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner File
Planning Department File
Sent to the following parties of record:
MARK RIGOS
DBM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
502 16TH ST NE #312
AUBURN WA 98002
DANA MOWER
DBM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
502 16TH ST NE 41312
AUBURN WA 98002
MICHAEL GENDLER
1424 FOURTH AVENUE 41015
SEATTLE WA 98101
R J BROOKS
3802 E MCGILVRA PLACE
SEATTLE WA 98102
BURTON BROOKS
1845 KILLARNEY WAY SE
BELLEVUE WA 98004
VINCE HELT
MATLACK INC
19929 77TH AVE S
KENT WA 98032
GARY VOLCHOK
CB COMMERCIAL
1420 FIFTH AVENUE 41700
SEATTLE WA 98101
VERBATIM MINUTES FOR
MATLACK, INC.
#CE-97-2 AND #V-97-3
Hearing Examiner Hearing of July 2, 1997
Theodore Paul Hunter: The order of procedure that we'll follow on each of these applications is to
first to allow the City an opportunity to present its analysis and recommendation. They have
received the application, they've determined that it's complete and they've conducted an analysis of
the application and are bringing a recommendation forward at this hearing. I receive that only as a
recommendation. I'm also interested in hearing from the applicant or the applicant's representatives
with any supplemental information or additional considerations that they would like me to consider.
Then I also want to hear from the citizens of the City that have an interest in the application with any
comments about it, questions or concerns. We then will allow the City and the applicant to respond
to those questions, comments or concerns. These hearings, each of these hearings are what are
termed quasi-judicial hearings and that means a couple of things of interest to us today. First of all,
it means that I make my decision in these matters based only on the information brought forward in
this hearing room. The written documents and the live testimony are the only things that I will
consider in each of these applications. So if you do have information, it's important that you bring
it forward in this room today. Once the items are received and I've determined is complete, I then
issue a decision on the applications within ten working days. A quasi-judicial proceeding also means
that all testimony that is given must be given under oath and I will ask in a minute that each of you
take an oath or affirmation if you expect to testify today. On each of these applications there has
been prepared by the City a file that the Planning Department has put together and in the file are a
number of documents related to the City's review. If, during the course of the hearing, anyone needs
to see the file, planner here does have that file and you're welcome to look through that. Each of
these applications has undergone an environmental review under the State environmental policy act
and each case a mitigated Determination of Nonsignifrcance has been issued with a number of
conditions. Those conditions are detailed in the MDNS itself. There has been provided a comment
and appeal period for the MDNS and each of these applications the comment period and appeal
period has past. So our focus is on the application with its associated environmental review and it
is my job then to determine if these applications are consistent with the criteria that has been
established by the Kent City Council. If they are consistent with the those, they will be approved.
If they are not consistent, I either will ask for conditions to make them consistent or find that they
cannot be conditioned and,therefore, must be denied. All right, any questions about the process or
procedure. Mr. Gendler?
end er: We will have the opportunity to ask questions to the applicant:
Hunter: Yes, you will have that opportunity during the course of the hearing if there is a specific
witness for the City that you would like to ask questions of, we will make sure that we will allow
you that opportunity. All right, let's begin then. I will ask all of those that expect to testify to please
1
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/#V-97-3
raise your right hand and do each of you swear or affirm to tell you the truth in the testimony that
you give and, if so, please answer I do.
Voices: I do.
unter: Witnesses have been sworn and we are ready to begin with the application by :Matlack.
Incorporated. Mr, Matthews Jackson. Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson.
Matthews Jackson: Afternoon. Sorry I was late, I was waiting for a fax for a comment on this
application so I do have a copy of that here to present as an exhibit. I'm going to present the staff
recommendation on the Matlack application for a variance and conditional use permit. The
applicants are requesting a variance and a conditional use permit in order to develop four additional
rail spurs on an existing piece of property. They are actually going to be expanding into a lot located
south of their existing project. The zoning code requires a 50 foot setback for any hazardous
substance handling facility from any property lines and the applicants are requesting a variance from
that condition of the zoning code and they are also going to be required to get a conditional use
permit because they are expanding a hazardous substance facility. That's why we're here today to
have this hearing. Barghausen Consulting Engineers is the applicant on this project who is
representing Matlack. The site is located at 19929 77th Avenue S, on the valley floor of Kent. It's
zoned M3, our General Industrial zoning district and it's also designated Industrial in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The total Matlack site including this proposed project would cover
approximately 9.54 acres. The new rail lines are on a lot which is about 4.14 acres in area. Now this
site has had previous hearings in front of the Hearing Examiner. It has had two conditional use
permits issued, one was reviewed under file #93-5, December 3. 1993; another was heard on...under
file#94-6 on October 5, 94. Both of those, the initial conditional use was to initiate the use of the
facility to handle those hazardous substances. Subsequently, they were requesting a variance and
another conditional use to expand and build two rail lines that you see there right now.
Hunter: Mr. Jackson, are you aware, have those conditional use permits been implemented in a
manner consistent with conditions that were applied to this.
Jackson: They have been implemented and consistent with the conditions that were applied in those
applications. At the time those applications were in front of the Hearing Examiner. environmental
review was done and there was a series of conditions applied to them, which they had to meet prior
to being in compliance with the City's codes which they have done. Conditions of approval of this
application that staff is recommending are picked up off those other conditions.
Hunter: O.k.
2
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Jackson: Environmental review as you mentioned, was reviewed under this project under ENV-97-
16 which was issued on April 10 of this year. Specific areas of interest on this site, pertain to both
a wetland and a drainage ditch/minor creek. The lot to the north is the existing Matlack
development, the lot to the south is the proposed site for the new rail spurs. The shaded area is the
proposed impervious surfaces so those will be paved areas. What I would like to point out is the four
rail lines. It's somewhat difficult to see on the overhead, on the drawings in general. There are four
rail lines, one going approximately here, second here, third here and the fourth here. This boundary
here incorporates both a on-site detention swale, a wetland buffer and wetland the proposed re-
location of the creek...of the ditch which has been reviewed under the City's SEPA process.
Hunter: O.k. Mr. Jackson, what you're referring to is attached to your staff report is it and labeled
site plan?
Jackson: It is labeled site plan in the staff report which anybody here can have a copy of to take a
look at.
Hunter: Thank you, and for information of those here, this is admitted as exhibit 1, the entire staff
report with the attachments.
Jackson: The applicants, Barghausen Engineering, prepared both a drainage, based on analysis of
the ditch and a storm drainage calculations which were provided to the City as part of their
environmental review process and the conditions that were placed on it are based on acceptance of
those documents. Those are attached to this file as part of the record. I believe you have a copy of
those two in your file.
Hunter: Yes, I do, thank you.
Jackson: When considering this application, staff looked at not only the impacts of this proposed
expansion but the ccumulative impacts of the previous conditional uses and variances issued here.
And it's recommendation for conditional approval, staff felt that there is specific criteria that this
application has to meet for a variance and for a conditional use, staff feels that there are existing
business in this area that handle hazardous substances which were developed prior to our current
zoning standards which are located closer than 50 feet, are closer to the property lines than what the
applicant are asking for here, the site is zoned general industrial. That's the most intensive industrial
use zone in the City. So there's an expectation that there will be these types of operations there but
what we have to do it try to mitigate those impacts, potential impacts to neighboring properties.
There is a hardship as far as the size, shape of this property. Obviously there is a large portion of
this site that can't be used for future development. Staff felt that the size of the property is adequate
3
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
for the expansion because they have acquired the additional land. If they were proposing to put
additional lines on the existing property there would be more concerns as far as having so much
intense activity on one lot. But, since they have expanded to the south, staff felt that there's adequate
land there to continue the operations as they proposed. I would like to say that I have talked to a
couple of people concerning this project. I have a letter here from Wayne Bressler who is
representing Puget Sound Energy, I will give you a copy of that for the record.
Hunter: Mark this as exhibit 2, letter from Puget Sound Energy. Addressed to you, Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: It is. I talked with Mr. Bressler a couple of times. Their primary concern is that they have
a 30-foot easement on the north side of this property to have access to a substation, Puget Sound
Substation located on the west side of this proposal. Their issue is obviously that they have...they
need to have access to that property 24-hours in the case of a failure in the system. These proposed
rail (cough), excuse me, these proposed rail lines will cross that easement but he had expressed to
me that he had conversations with a representative from Matlack who said they would be willing to
provide access through their property in a case of an emergency if there was any kind of a blockages
of those rail lines across their easement. Speaking with the Public Works Department and they are
here to add additional comments on the issue of the both the stream's relocation, the wetland and this
issue. They felt that...that easement is outside of the City's jurisdiction as far as enforcing it, that's
a private easement that's been negotiated between properties and any kind of a modification or
of outside of our but I definitely want
agreement that comes subsequent to this is kind
to mention that as part of the record because it is a concern.
Hunter: Well, and inasmuch as it's a public utility that provides power needs to the City perhaps the
applicant's representative comment on what arrangements have been made, if any, for
noninterference of the access easement.
Jackson: O.k. Further, they have...they need to have a certain grade of access to their substation.
They bring in multiple ton equipment potentially to that site so they need to make sure that their
access to that site is at a certain grade. They didn't express that specifically to me but, I believe, he
mentioned that in his letter and finally,the issue of drainage which was a concern with the neighbors
to the south. I believe they are here today to make comments. There is a single-family residence
on a similar size parcel located adjacent to this property on the south. The wetland, which is located
on a portion of this property, is also located on a portion of their property and their main concerns
when I spoke to them were about the impacts that impervious surface would have as far as draining
onto their property and further impacting their potential for development or the integrity of that
wetland.
4
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Hunter: Now do these concerns that you just mentioned, Puget concern and the neighbors concern
relate to the variance proposal or the conditional use or both?
Jackson: They relate specifically to the conditional use, the expansion of that facility onto that
neighboring lot. I believe that if the variance application really as far as having those rail lines closer
than 50 feet to the property line wasn't a specific concern; is the concern with additional expansion
of the conditional use.
Hunter: Does the variance allow location closer to the wetland area than otherwise would be
allowed?
Jackson: No, it doesn't. The variance is only requesting relief from the setback from the property
lines.
Hunter: O.k. Can you indicate on that site plan, where that variance would be located'
Jackson: O.k. The terminus of the rail lines is approximately right here and the propem line which
goes along 77th is right here so there would be encroachment on the western propem line and also
on the northern property line. Now one of the conditions that we are recommending on this is that
there be a lot line adjustment to make this a single lot so this will be a combined development
covering two parcels so it would have to be consistent with that and that's one of our conditions prior
to issuance of the building permit for any kind of construction out there.
Hunter: Where's the lot line now?
Jackson: The lot line is approximately right here.
Hunter: Um hum and you want a boundary line adjustment...
Jackson: We want...the lot line that divides the two properties is right here.
Hunter: I see.
Jackson: So we want a boundary line adjustment to make this one parcel.
Hunter: Oh, right. O.k.
Jackson: So that it meets code as far as that's concerned.
5
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
unter: Um hum.
Jackson: But the particular concerns are more related to...are specifically related to this expansion
of that use there. The all 24-hour type of operation that can go on there impacting the residential
property to the south.
Hunter: Um hum and that's true of this easement area as well, is that right?
Jac son: That...
Hunter: Impact easement access?
Jackson: The easement...it does not impact the easement access, right.
Hunter: O.k.
Jackson: So with that, I will say the staff is recommending conditional approval based on the
testimony I have given and what's written in the staff report. And I'm here to answer any questions
that you might have as well as representatives from other departments in the City.
Hunter: I would like to look at your recommendations just for a minute.
Jackson: O.k.
Hunter: There appear to be four in number. And you mentioned one of them the boundary line
adjustment.
Jackson: Condition number one is basically reiterates the fact that the applicants will be required
to comply with the mitigating conditions of the SEPA review.
Hunter: And, what are those. Let's take a minute....
Jackson: To look those.
Hunter: Access those...because you have brought up a couple of concerns that I think we need to
pay attention to. To see if there is anything in that MDNS that addresses those concerns.
6
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Jackson: Should be in this file. Two files for one application, so some things are in one and some
things are in the other. O.k. There are five pages of conditions here. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are
based on traffic mitigation, the expected increase in the amount of traffic on the street based upon
the potential for increase rail transfer on the property as well the improvements will be required
along 77th Avenue S. Going further down, condition number 5, prior to the issuance of any onsite
construction permits, developer shall receive approval for a detail drainage plans submitted to the
Public Works Department and those plans are required to show onsite detention to the Kent
Construction Standards, infiltration, pond retention system and I will let Public Works answer
specific about these, but, there's a whole series of conditions written to onsite detention, downstream
capacity analysis, which will be required prior to any kind of a release of a construction permit out
there.
Hunter: And did you examine this when you made your recommendation.
Jackson: I examined this and I thought a very thorough review....
Hunter: Does it seem to be more detailed than typical or just the same or...
Jackson: This is probably more detailed than tvpica] because there are the issue...there's the issue
with the stream channel which is something that is not a typical process with the City but one that
has some specific conditions on how you can relocate a stream channel which is included in
condition number 7 of the SEPA report.
Hunter: Um hum.
Jackson: The wetland mitigation we have is the most propem, that go in for development in recent
vears have some sort of a wetland or have a sensitive area on it. The conditions that you see here
are typical to other projects that you see in the City. There are a series of conditions that are written
here to protect the integrity of the wetland as well as to mitigate for any potential impacts of a spill
or some incidents on the property and that's what condition number 3 and 4 of the recommendations
for approval on this application. The City right now has a spill prevention control and counter-
measure plan filed with the Fire Marshal and they will be required to update that plan in the case...to
illustrate what their emergency measures are as well as certify with the Fire Marshal the types of
material that they will be handling if there are any proposed changes to what's already on file with
the City.
unter: Um hum.
7
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Jackson: So, we are looking at those potential impacts.
Hunter: So your suggestion is that recommended conditions 3 and 4, also have a...are developed to
mitigate pgssible impacts to the wetland and stream area?
Jac on: Three and four will mitigate potential impacts to the wetland and stream area as well as
on-site hazards to people will be working there and off-site impacts to the neighboring properties
in the worst case scenario. These do...these conditions are reflected in the previous permits that were
approved and are just reflections of a continuing monitoring of that property.
Hunter: Um hum. And, has there been any damage to environment or health risk to workers on the
site.
Jackson: I haven't had any official complaints from the property. I did talk to the neighbors to the
south who expressed concerns with degradation of that...of that wetland area. They said that there
was a...a...at one time there was some sort of a agreed type smell. Maybe they can elaborate more
than that when they speak today. But. I haven't had any kind of official complaints or responses to
this...to the site since I have been involved in it since '93. I did the staff review in '93 on this
property too and '94. So, I have been familiar with it for a few years here.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for your report. Now, I would like to hear from the
applicant's representative that there's additional information that should be considered. And,
perhaps, too if you have any further information on the Puget Sound Energy concern of the access
easement.
Dana Mower: Matt, see if you can adjust the contrast on this. Is that readable to the audience.
Hunter: That's fine for me. Yeah, go with it.
Mower: This is...
Hunter: A lot of land use process is that way, I think.
Mower: Do we have a pointer.
Jackson: Sure:
Laughter.
8
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Mower. Will it reach that far, I guess not, huh. Oh, there we go, that's great.
Hunter: O.k., that's fine. Let's go with that.
Mower: Actually,just a little bit more.
Hunter: What's this going to show me.
Mower: Several things.
Hunter: O.k.
Mower: My name is Dana Mower. I'm with DBM Consulting Engineers. Our address is 502 16th
Street NE, Suite 312, Auburn, Washington. I started working on this project about three years ago
with Vince Helt and Matlack. He's the operational manager there and, at that time, I was with
Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Since then I've started my own company and so we are finishing
up the application with DBM. What I have here is a recent aerial photo of the site and I would like
to point out a few things as I walk through the history of this project and what it's taken to get to
where we are today. When Matlack first approached me about the concept of providing four
additional rail spurs on the project, I told him that it was going to be a long process, that there were
several environmental issues that needed to be dealt with and several agencies that would need to
issue permits on the project and many of which would be difficult permits to get because of the
environmental issues on the site. The site has wetlands, it has flood plains, it has soils
considerations, it has access considerations and so on. A number of sensitive issues which have
caused the project to go into its third year of planning now. As you can see from the diagram, the
site is located immediately adjacent to their existing facility. Matlack's existing facility and you will
notice that there are two rails right along the south property line, right here. In fact, the date these
aerial photos were taken, there was a train sitting right here. And, I'll have Vince, the operation
manager, come up in just a minute and explain to you why the configuration for the rails are as the
proposed plan shows.
Hunter: O.k. you're referencing a photo here. Are you going to then submit that when you're done.
We label that as Exhibit 3.
Mower: I'm going to enter that as an exhibit, yeah. Right, a part of the record. Essentially, the rail
cars come in here off of the main track and pull into their yard and then they off-load materials from
those trains into trucks and then they distribute those throughout the Western Washington area to
various users and their business is very successful and they are looking at expanding it now with the
9
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
four rail tracks. There are two...they are hard to see now in that photo, but there are two tracks that
were constructed under a conditional use permit that Mr. Jackson was discussing. When they first
brought it to me, I'd asked them if they had looked at relocating their site. I was concerned about
this property and getting permits for them within a timely manner. And, they said yes they had but
their site was well established and the markets were well established for them in that area and they
wanted to...they thought this was their best option at this point to expand their existing facilities.
The conditional use permit...the building permits that have gone before as heard Mr. Jackson say,
have been completely fulfilled. I don't believe there was ever any violations noted on the property.
Matlack has been a good neighbor. They have been a participant in the community for a number of
years now and based on that we took on the project. What you'll see in the packet is very close to
a set of final engineering design plans, final landscape plans, final wetland mitigation plans for the
property and you'll notice, based on the previous exhibit that Mr. Jackson was talking about,
there's...there's only about a fifty percent maybe sixty percent utilization of property. The rest of the
property is being used for storm water conveyance, storm water biofiltration, water quality treatment
and wetland mitigation area. A complete wetland mitigation plan will be submitted upon approval
of the conditional use permit. The City, NERCS and the Corps of Engineers have accepted the
wetland call on the property,which is part of your packet, and the wetland mitigation shown to occur
up in the-excuse me-down in the southwest corner of the property in here. King County Drainage
District#1 owns a 30-foot right of way along this portion of the ditch as well as this area further to
the south and we have been in contact with them and once the conditional use permit is issued, we
will enter into agreements with them to exchange their right of way along that ditch and replace it
with the relocated ditch. We've been in close contact with Phil Schneider of the Fisheries
Department. I don't have the JARVA permit here with me as we speak but I do have a verbal
agreement with him as of last week that he will issue the JARVA based on the plans that are made
part of the record. And I have updated plans, we'll enter into the record today that show the
landscape requirements, the specific horizontal locations, centerline of the ditch, the side slope
specifications and most importantly from Fisheries and Wildlife's view point is the creation of fish
habitat which does not exist in the existing ditch. The existing ditch, although based on the aerial
that you see here, has some water standing it in, was created artificially back in the '30's. This area
was'a barrow site based on the photographic evidence that we have obtain from Walker and
Associates, apparently somebody had, for...probably one of the road building projects in the
area...determined that material on site was sandy enough to use as bedding material and it looked
to us like that the ditch had been created about that time with the 'rulldozer, not a backhoe. As a
result the sideslopes are very flat, about 5:1 or 6:1, much flatter than ou normally see in the valley.
Consequently,the ditch is much wider than it needs to be from a hydraulic standpoint and the bottom
of it has been dug below the outlet\inward elevation so the water level that you see there in this
photograph reflects the groundwater table elevation in the area. We've had a number of onsite
inspections with the various agencies, and Corps of Engineers, NRCS and the City personnel and
10
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
so on. The bottom of that ditch is basically pure sand. In fact, the whole site is basically pure sand
for a depth of about six feet. What we have done with the ditch relocation plans and specifications
is actually increase the hydraulic capacity of that ditch. Down at the inlet which crosses the Puget
Power access road which lies along the north side of the property, right here. Puget Power trucks
will come in off 77th, past their locked gate and come across to the west and enter their facility.
There is a culvert, 36 inch CUP right here which crosses underneath their approximately 30 foot
wide road and then there's a very narrow ditch that's located in this area. And, what we will do as
part of this application, we will remove that 36-inch pipe, it's a constriction. It causes a backwater
condition to occur upstream and very nearly floods some of the businesses and this residence right
here. And, so that condition will be improved. We've submitted two reports to the City Engineering
Department that they, I believe, have approved or signed off on. One is a basin-wide analysis to
determine overall in the basin how much water can be predicted to come down through this channel
in the I00-year event and that entire tributary acre, if I recall correctly, I got that report just about
600 acres. We have a maximum flow rate through that ditch of about 40 cubic feet per second for
the 100-year event. So, this ditch will be relocated from here around to the south property line and
the west property line. The 36-inch pipe will be replaced with a 72 inch pipe or thereabouts, having
about three times the capacity of the existing pipe and this small ditch in here will be increased to
the size of the main ditch.
Hunter: Mr. Mower, is this in a written report somewhere as well or do we just have your
testimony'?
Mower: Is this part of the packet?
Jackson: The drainage....
Hunter: I have storm drainage calculations. But it sounds like that you are going into ....
Mower: A little more detail. I'm going to enter a copy of our plan, sir, which will include the
landscape plan, the preliminary grading and drainage plan as well as the wetland mitigation plan.
So, I'll enter that today.
unter: O.k., testimony is it based on those plans then, is that what you're describing, in narrative
testimony?
Mower: Correct. That's correct.
Hunter: O.k., do you have a copy of those now to bring forward.
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Mower: Yes.
Hunter: That might be helpful for me to be able to follow you. You can submit there here to Chris
and she will mark them and... This is a revised site plan, is that.
Mower: It's a revised site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan and ditch relocation plan.
Hunter: So, how many sheets, then?
Mower: I think it's three total.
Hunter: So, you can just tell us what the top sheet is this, the second sheet is this....
Mower: The top sheet is labeled the cover sheet, it essentially shows the site plan for the proposed
facility as well as the existing Matlack site.
Hunter: O.k., let me make certain that they are different than the ones I have in the file in front of
me. The ones I have were received by the City in May 6 of'97 and they carry on them as a drawn
date of August 29 of'96, are these updated from those dates.
Mower: This is correct. These are the latest plans that we have submitted to Fisheries and they have
indicated to me verbally they will sign off on.
Hunter: All right.
Mower: These are dated 6/23/97.
Hunter: 6/23. All right. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. you were describing then the different sheets.
So, three sheets.
Mower: Sheet...that's C-1 of three. C-2 of three is the preliminary rail spur line alignment plan. That
plan shows the relocated ditch, it shows the side slopes on the relocated ditch, the relocated wetland,
the wetland mitigation area, the horizontal location of the rail spurs and the grading.-the proposed
grading across the site including the detention and the biofiltration areas. Sheet C-3 of three is
labeled grading and storm drainage note details in cross-sections, specifications for the construction
of all of those items shown on sheet 2.
Hunter: Um hum.
12
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Mower: And then there is a fourth sheet which is labeled L-1 of 1 and it's the preliminary landscape
plan and this shows the landscape plan for the entire site including the relocated ditch area as well
as the storm drainage facility and biofiltration area.
Hunter: O.k., we'll have these submitted as Exhibit 4, and indicate that there are four sheets with
the descriptions that you just gave.
Mower: Now those sheets are not materially different from the sheets that you have in your file
already, I believe, dated May of 1997. They have been changed somewhat again based on Fisheries
requirements and some landscape changes. But the horizontal location of the drainage ditch, the
location of the storm drainage ponds, the grades of the site, the location of asphalt and the rail spurs
is essentiaily unchanged. When we were designing the spur locations on the site it became evident
that we were very constrained geometrically as to where we could place the rail spurs. Essentially,
because of the turning radius requirement on the tracks themselves coming off of the main line here
we were limited to keeping the spur rails on what would be the northeast half of the site, if you drew
a diagonal from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. The remainder of the site is where the
ditch relocation, of course, is going to occur and, again, I'll have Vince tell you about the operational
requirements for those spurs and why specifically we need the variance from the 50 feet. But,
basically trucks will enter the site off of 77th and they will either back into and between those rail
spurs there's a minimum clearance requirement between those spurs to get two DWB 60 trucks off-
loaded to have the facility be useful. And, that pretty much constrains the geometry on the property.
The 50 foot variance is required for all of the reasons that we set forth in our variance application.
But, essentially, the ends of those spurs need to be long enough so that they can pull multiple trains
into and stop at the end of these tracks. As you can see over here, if you don't have a long enough
section in here the cars end up being shorter and the efficiency of the operation is somewhat
compromised. Now, a couple of other things I would like to point out on this aerial photograph is
that essentially everything around this property is developed except for the property immediately to
the south. You will notice on the property to the south, there is a home, single-family residential
home, which is located in their northeast comer. It's adjacent to the sawdust supply facility here
which is another industrial complex that's been in operation for a number of years, at least 12 years
to my knowledge. And, that house is located approximately 300 feet away from the closest portion
of this property. It would be about 370 feet away from the closest rail and, even though the City
does not require any kind of buffering landscape area in an industrial zoned area, we feel that none
is really required just because of the 370 feet or so of site distance, excuse me, distance between that
existing single family residential home. We think that's a rental house right now. But, in any case
they are probably somewhat impacted by the activities of the sawdust plant and have been for a
number of years. With regard to the other utilities which are going to need to be brought into the
site, water and sewer and so on. The sewer is really not an issue because there won't be any
13
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/#V-97-3
habitable buildings constructed as part of this proposal. Wash water will be necessary. As part of
the final plans, specifications, a hazardous spill containment plan will be prepared and submitted to
the Department of Ecology along with the requisite industrial MPDS permits and stormwater
pollution prevention control plans which are really independent of the City's cedes and requirements.
Those are of interest to the Department of Ecology. But, we will do that at an appropriate time.
With regard to Puget Power, we have had a number of conversations with them in terms of the
operational aspects of the rail facilities and, you were correct or Mr. Jackson's correct, in that Vince
has offered that, if,for one reason or another, if this was ever blocked during an emergency situation,
access could be obtained through the Matlack parcel. But, he's the one that had those direct
conversations with Puget Power. So, specifically, with Wayne Bressler, and Gus Erickson, and he
can comment better than I about that. That pretty much sums up where we are at on the project. It's
been a long, difficult process and there's a number of agencies which we have had to satisfy
requirements for. Matlack wants to stay here and continue to use this facility and it's zoned properly
and we believe that we've met all the requirements, code requirements, to obtain a conditional use
permit.
Hunter: O.k., thank you, Mr. Mower. Anyone else that ,you have today that you would like to have
speak to it now.
Mower: Yes, I would like to have Vince come up and make a iew comments.
Hunter: O.k.
Vice H t: Hi, I'm Vince Helt. I'm the terminal manager for Matlack. And. this has been a long
process for us as far as...
Hunter: What is the last name?
Helt: Helt. H-e-l-t. T as in Tom.
Hunter: Thank you.
Helt: And, this has been a long process for us but one that we need to do. One of the things that we
want to do at our facility here in Kent is expand it for business reasons, obviously. What we've seen
in the marketplace is a shift from long haul trucking over to a situation where a lot more of the
products that we deal with which are hazardous materials are shipped by rail. It's a safer means of
transportation and it just makes sense for all communities involved. So, in light of that type of a
shift that we see in transportation, we've installed two rails on to our existing facility and our plans
14
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
are to install four more on to the adjacent property to our south. We really need those. We really
need to do that in order to meet our customer needs. If we weren't able to do this as Dana alluded
to, we'd have to move and we really not anxious to do that. So, we want to expand into that property
to the south of us. What we want to do is maintain our status as good citizens here in Kent. We've
always worked with the community. We've helped with the Fire Department in their training.
They've come on site and we've worked with them at their facilities. We continue to try and be (lood
citizens of the community and we've always done things the right way. And, we've shown that in
this process by going through it meticulously, making certain that we have all the permits necessary
and meeting all of the requirements of the City, and the State, whatever. So, we want to ask that we
have a 50 foot setback as we've had on our previous rail spurs. It's needed operationally. Obviously.
anytime anybody puts any investment into property, they want to optimize it. And, we don't think
that that will change anything from what we have with our current operation where we have a 0-
foot setback. We want to optimize the number of feet of track that we are putting in that for business
needs. That's another rail car. That's definitely an advantage for us so we need—in this tight
environment with, you know, the business climate that it is, it's necessary for us. One of the other
things that was brought up, was the...Puget Power and their easement. I want to address that issue.
I did meet with Wayne Bressler and his people, his operational people, not only in his office but on
site to discuss their concerns as to the current easement and access to their facility. Their concern
had to do with 24 hour day access and also with the level of the property because they would be
bringing 18-wheel type of equipment in there to replace transformer or whatever. We have similar
concerns because all the equipment that operate is 18-wheel type equipment so we want to maintain
the level of the property and I assured them that we would do this and that would not only give them
access through the gate at their easement, but, if necessary, we would give them access through our
facility as well. Again,just trying to be good neighbors and make certain that we are cooperating
with...
Hunter: Mr. Helt, are you on the site on a daily basis?
Helt: Yes.
Hunter: 01, and can you describe the sources of noise that currently exists on the site"
Helt: Just the normal truck traffic that we would have coming in and out of there on that type of an
environment.
Hunter: How about rail lines?
15
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Helt: Well, we get...we currently get one switch a day if they come in there. Usually in the noonish
area. Either...between 10 and 2.
enter: And what kind of noise does that produce?
Helt: .rust a normal train comes in, drops a couple of cars, and goes back out.
Hunter: Not banging them together-the cars?
Helt: No. No, they're not. Now we are located between both the Burlington Northern and the UP
rail right there.
Hunter: Um hum. Can you here those operations?
Helt: Constantly.
Hunter: Do they overpower any noise that is generated on your site?
Helt: Over—yes, definitely, the BN site especially.
Hunter: Um hum. And what about your proposed expansion of four additional lines. Would that
increase the noise levels at all?
Helt: Well,there would still be the one switch a day. We don't anticipate changing that. That's the
way the Railroad does it and it would...there would be additional cars coming in. So, it could
increase maybe the time period by another half-hour or so, while they dropped it off on the
maximum. Usually, they come in there with a string of cars and they will put them on. This, in fact.
could...with us being able to be selective in our stationing..-operationally it could reduce some of
that.
Hunter: Um hum. O.k., any other sources of noise besides trucks and rail cars?
Helt: No. No, we don't have any other sources.
Hunter: You don't play loud stereos or anything like that.
Helt: No.
16
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
unter: O.k. All right. What is your construction...if this were approved, when would you see this
being implemented. What time table?
Helt: Well, we'd like to start it as soon as possible. Like I said, we've been in the process for three
years, so I'd like to see a timetable where we were in and did the construction this fall.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you for being here. I know there are others that want to comment. Will you
be able to stay here to respond... Are there others here that want to present testimony or comments
or concerns on this application. Yes, Mr. Gendler, do you want to come forward here.
Mike Gendler: Actually, what I would like to do, if I might, is ask questions of the people that we've
just heard from.
Hunter: That would be fine. Who would like to ask questions of?
Gendler: I wouldn't might starting with Mr. Helt, his was the most recent testimony.
Hunter: Mr. Helt, if you want to come back to the podium. Chris, are you able to pick Mr. Gendler
up?
endler: Good afternoon, Mr. Helt, my name is Mike Gendler. I'm here representing Mr. Brooks,
your neighbor, immediately to the south of the proposed site. Could you tell me what your current
hours of operation are?
Helt: Currently, we operate from 6 AM in the morning til 10:30 at night.
Gendler: What would be the hours of operation when you expand or build these four additional
lines.
Helt: It would be basically the same.
endler: Would be there any conditions under which you would be operating between...would you
say 10:30 at night and 6 in the morning.
Helt: Certainly. We're a trucking operation.
Gendler: So, it could be as much as 24 hours operating.
17
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Helt: That's our normal. I thought you were asking when are we staffed. We have a trucking
operation where we run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. So I have people coming and going out of
that facility at that time.
Gendler: Were measurements taken on that property in connection with this proposal.
Helt: Not that I'm aware of.
Gendler: That's all the questions I have for Mr. Helt. I would like to have a few questions for Mr.
Jackson, if I may.
Hunter: Um hum. Mr. Jackson, if you would come forward, please.
endler: Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson.
Jackson: How you're doing.
Gendler: You mentioned at the outset of your testimony that you were late because you were
receiving a fax on comments on this proposal from...who's that from'.'
Jackson: The fax was presented as an exhibit from Mr. Wayne Bressler.
Gendler: Oh. that was the one you referred to in your testimony.
Jackson: Um hum.
Hunter: Exhibit 2.
Gendler: Could you tell me what the uses are on the property immediately south of the subject site.
Jackson: South of the subject site is a single-family residence. It's an existing single family
residence that has been in place for a number of years, obviously.
Gendler: And what uses do you observe..associated with that residence.
Jackson: Um...I haven't seen any other uses in my site visits to the Matlack property beyond those
of a residential type.
18
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
e dler: So you don't know if there are any horses on the property.
Jackson: I have had conversations with the property owners who said they had some animals on the
property.
endler: Could you tell me where in the staff report, I think that's exhibit 1, the uses and the single
family residence on the property to the south is described?
Jackson: They are not described in the staff report and that is why I made certain that I mentioned
that in my presentation here today which is part of the record as well.
endler: Were they addressed in the Determination of Nonsignifrcance, do you know.
Jackson: The neighboring land uses... I do not write the determinations, the SEPA official who is
the Planning Director,James Harris, writes it. But, land...adjacent land uses as well as potential land
uses that are allowed in that zone are considered when the review is done.
Gendler: Could you tell me where in the DNS they address the existing uses.
Jackson: The conditions are based on the impacts...the potential impacts generated by the proposed
project. So, all the conditions that I talked about, storm water, storm water detention, the
preservation of the wetland facility, the relocation of the stream, they are to...they apply to mitigate
for any impacts to any properties, not specially to the residence, but to any properties that are
adjacent to the site.
endler: Well, we'll get to those conditions in a moment but the DNS doesn't mention that there's
this residential use, does it?
Hunter: Excuse me. I will need to just remind Counsel here that this is a hearing on the conditional
use permit and variance application and that the MDNS has been issued and we are not here to
question the adequacy of that document.
endler: Well, but my comment on that from fast of all, that's document is called out by reference
as setting forth the conditions so it would seem that if it did address something, the applicant and
the City could certainly point to that...
unter: O.k., within that scope. I think that's permissible.
19
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
9CE-97-2/#V-97-3
en ler: I also want to point out that there will be evidence that no notice of the DNS was ever
provided to the adjoining property owner and,therefore, it's our view that it's not valid or at least the
purported finality of it is not valid. Whether the document is valid, remains to be ... question this.
Hunter: O.k., in the...your questions then that are in the context of the MDNS as a
condition...recommended condition of approval for the conditional use and not as a challenge to the
adequacy of the MDNS, is that correct?
Gendler: That's right.
Hunter: O.k.
endler: We'll only a moment to establish that the notice wasn't given but...
Hunter: Yeah.
Gendler: You know, that staff argue for the purpose that you just indicated that...
Hunter: O.k.
endler: You know, that you pointed out that, I believe Mr. Jackson was the one that pointed out
that of the four conditions one of them incorporated everything there.
Hunter: Right.
Gendler: And he went through some of the....
Hunter: O.k., I'm sorry for the interruption. Please, please continue.
endler: Who owns the property immediately to the west of the subject site.
Jackson: There is the property. right of way there for the railroad, obviously, Puget Sound Energy,
also owns a piece of the property and then on the northeast side...the northwest side is Western
Processing.
end er: Do you have the Puget Power or Puget Sound Energy...
Jackson: Puget Sound Energy, right.
20
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
e dler: Do you know how that use because established?
Jackson: I'm not sure how that became established. I'm assuming that they either leased or
purchased a portion of that property from them...from the railroad. That's my assumption.
Gendler: You don't know that though.
Jackson: Right.
Gendler: Are you familiar with the "current use" program`.'
Jackson: The "current use" program?
Gendler: Right.
Jackson: More specific on that?
Gendler: A program that King County has for tax deferrals for property owners...
Jackson: Right.
Gendler: ...who keep their properties in certain uses, favoring wildlife habitats...
Jackson: Sure, I...I as I spoke with the neighbors, they mentioned that they had engaged in some sort
of agreement with the County on...but, the City has some agricultural lands where the County has
purchased development rights to protect those as agricultural uses. Those zones...those areas are also
zoned for agricultural uses. This area is zoned for General Industrial. New single family residences
are not allowed in that zoned but existing ones are allowed to stay and be rebuilt indefinitely as long
as they stay there. But, the zone is intended for industrial uses. But, I do have some knowledge of
that program with the County, does give tax breaks to people who agree to keep certain uses,
agricultural type uses, in place.
endler: Do you have any knowledge of whether this City participated or encouraged that program
with respect to the parcel to the south?
Jackson: The only information I have on that is, regarding that parcel, information that I got from
the folks that are here today. They told me that...Mr. Brooks told me he had worked with the City's
encouragement to do that but I have no documentation or record of that. That wasn't part of my
21
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
review for this application. That process happened at a prior time. What we are looking at is
mitigating for the potential impacts of this development.
G endler: Do you think that should be taken into account looking at mitigation for this development?
Jackson: I think that the conditions that are applied to this project through the referenced SEPA
document do consider impacts to the properties regardless of use. Obviously, the City's intent is to
protect all the citizens, not just the businesses, but the people that are living on their own propem
adjacent to it.
Gendler: Again, we'll get to those conditions in a moment. Do you know if these subjects, not Mr.
Brooks' parcel, but the site that is proposed for this rail extension, do you know if that's site is
included in the "current use" program?
Jackson: I do not.
endler: Can you tell me about what investigation was made of the wildlife uses on the propem
that's the subject site as well as on the one immediately south of it?
Jackson: The wildlife review, if..was done as part of the SEPA review which I did not do, so I can't
directly answer that question.
Gendler: So, the only knowledge you have is what you read in the DNS and...
Jac n: What I read in the DNS and what I've seen when I go out there. You kno%k. I...typical type
habitat for, you know, birds. numerous birds around the area. There's a lot of blackbemes. so there's
birds in the vicinity. But. beyond that review for the DNS, no. I did not do that rep iev..
e dler: Let me ask you about the buffers. What buffering is required on the east side of the
property which adjoins 77th Street or Avenue is it?
Jacks : Buffers as far as the City requirements for landscaping, that kind of thine"
endler: No, as far as this proposal.
Jackson: There is no specific requirement. They are showing some extensive landscaping along that
property line which would be acceptable. There's type...there's landscaping requirements that are
required in the Zoning Code for any use in that M3 zone which is along that right of way, Type III
22
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
9CE-97-2/4V-97-3
landscaping,typically is 6-foot tall evergreen tree, 30 foot on center or deciduous trees based on their
caliper at planting, spacings, based on that. So, there's nothing specifically required based on this
application. But, the requirements that are there for any use in that zone.
Gendler: Do you see any references to a ten-foot buffer in any of these documents. You didn't
appear to review...
Jackson: Ten foot buffer, as far as...
Gendler: On the...from the east side...again, with reference to...
Jackson: Along the street right of way?
endler: Yeah.
Jackson: I would have to double check in my documents to see.
Gendler: And did you see any references to there being a five foot buffer to the property
immediately to the south?
Jackson: Now buffer and landscape requirements, now those could be two different things. So, we
can look in the Zoning Code and I could tell you exactly....
Hunter: It's on page 9 of your staff report, is what he's referencing.
Jackson: All right. What we are talking about here is the landscape buffer requirements.
Gendler: I think we are looking at paragraph 5 on page 9. I guess my question is whether or not
consideration was given to requiring as extensive landscaping to protect the residential property to
the south, as there appears to be to protect the industrial east on these?
Jackson: These requirements from the Zoning Code are based on the street right of way, so the street
frontage which gives a visual relief and there is not requirement for additional landscaping down
there. One reason...that's one option that staff has in making a recommendation is additional
buffering. The reason there wasn't anything additionally tied to this on the south, namely the Brooks
property, is the location of the existing natural areas that are going to be left there. So there was no
additional requirements that we had in the staff report. But, I do believe, in the DNS, there is some
mention of types of plantings in that area that you can take a look at.
23
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
nd r: Do you know if any of the vegetation along the south boundary of the subject site is going
to be removed?
Lack : On the south side of the subject site? There hasn't been any kind of an application for that
type of review yet. I believe there will be work obviously that goes on in there as far as on-site
detention. There will be a bio-swale located on the property and that kind of..... so there will be
some activity in that portion. That's true. And there will be removal of necessary vegetation to
accommodate that...those facilities.
end er: In your staff report and again in your presentation, was anything mentioned of other
hazardous substances sites that have smaller setbacks than 50 feet here. Were those sites developed
under a prior Zoning Code?
Jackson: Correct. There are existing uses that are in place prior to the standards that we have now.
That's...that's correct.
endler: And so, if those properties were undeveloped and made those same proposals now, they
would not be able to do what they've down because of the newer requirements?
Jackson: They would be required to come here, as the Matlacks have,to request a-,.:riance. But one
of the criteria for granting a variance is that the property being deprived of privileges and rights that
other people of neighboring properties have h rj. If you can show that there are other properties in
the vicinity, not every property, not all the properties, but some. that is one of the criteria that's
looked at as...that's a common situation where the rules change and development happens over time.
Gendler: That's what makes it come back to these mitigation measures that we discussed in the
DNS. And I ask there's reference to paragraph 5 with detailed drainage plans. Have those been
submitted to the City, yet?
Jackson: I'm going to refer that to the Public Works Department. They would be submitted to them.
endl r: O.k., so...
Jackson: There's a ..what we require is a review of a conceptual drainage plan. The City will review
that to see that if will conceptually will work and then the details are worked out through the permit
process_ One reason we are doing the initial up front for this kind of project and for subdivisions,
for example, is to try to bring some of this issues to light before we actually go to the next step.
24
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
e dl r: But, if this step, we don't have a resolution of the issue of whether a drainage plan will
work, do we?
Jackson: Well that's a question we can ask the Public Works Department. When you ask any
questions.
endler: O.k., but, at this point, the conditions you are relying on, are simply requirements that in
the future somebody try to work these things out.
Jackson: Yeah, the conditions that...we do a...we do a concurrent review of applications. So I look
at the land use issues, Public Works Department looks at the drainage issues. If they have concerns
with them, they can ask for more information. We can postpone or continue hearings which we have
done on numerous occasions based on drainage plans but I got no feedback that the information they
have in their hands, led us to believe that they cannot accommodate what they are lookin, at there.
The specifics on that I will have to Gary Gill, here.
Gendler: How many had any feedback if they can either. have you?
Jackson: Um...
Gendler: Not have any feedback yet at all.
Jackson: Well, I've had feedback...
Gendler: Or after the statement...
Jackson: Right, well, I have.... The feedback that I have is that conceptually, based on information
we have, that it will work. So...
endler: Conceptually....
Jackson: Right. When there's not a problem, when there is a not problem...when there is problem
present and on numerous instances there have been on various applications which are part of the
record, you can...not this record...but other records, we have postponed, denied or continued these
hearings.
endler: Do you know if Mr. Brooks wrote a letter to the Planning Department, asking for
information about this proposal?
25
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Jackson: I personally did not receive a letter from Mr. Brooks. I talked to his wife, provided lots
of documents for them to take a look at.
e dler: If he wrote a letter to the Department, you didn't come across your....
Jackson: I...I have not received anything for the file and I don't know if the Hearing Examiner has
either.
e dler: And Mr. Harris is the Planning Director?
Jacks n: Mr. Harris is the Planning Director.
Gendler: Hold on a second, please. That's my questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.
Hunter: There's nothing in our files from Mr. Brooks, is it. We have no comment.
endler: Well, we do have a letter we wrote to the Planning Department the day we got the notice,
so.
Hunter: Did you want to submit that?
endler: Yeah,he'll submit it when he testifies. Obviously, Mr. Jackson never saw it, there's really
no sense in....
Hunter: O.k.
Jackson: Is that going to be presented as an exhibit from...
Hunter: Yeah, that was identified as Exhibit 3. 1 believe. Aerial photo of the site.
Voice: May I respond to the rebuttal, please?
Hunter: Let's see if there's anyone else here that wants to testify with questions, comments or
concerns. Yes, Mr. Brooks.
Brooks: I'm Dick Brooks. I brought this piece of property which is about 11 acres in 1972. And.
my brother and I co-owned the entire site for a number of years until it was actually....we divided
a number of our personal assets in 1987. Shortly after we purchased the site in 1972, we were
26
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
approached by the City of Kent. And we asked by the City if we would consider putting this into
the current use/open space program because they have been required under something they did by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to supply additional seasonal wetland for migratory bird use. We
did that. And with the support of the City of Kent in 1974, this land was put into that program. And
if you took at the site even today or if you look at it all winter long, it's very well used for that
purpose. There's literally hundred of thousands of migratory birds floating on the water which is
impounded on the site. One of the things that bothers me is that in 1992 or whenever Matlack
applied for their conditional use permit we weren't notified, we had no knowledge of it, it was an
accomplished fact before my daughter, who lived on this site for six years, happened to walk down
the road and find a rain soaked notice in the blackberries down near Matlack. And the same is true
today. The first notice we had of anything on this site was the 21 st of this month. On a saturday we
received a notice in the mail that there was going to be this hearing and at that time, you know, I
talked to a number of people. The man from the King County Surface Water District, he said he's
known about this for years, for at least a year, he said. And, yet, if this is under discussion for all
this time, why weren't we notified. If you read the documents, you know the staff report it tries to
brush under the carpet the fact that this piece of land exists. Now, at the time we carved the site, it
had a farm house on it that dated from the turn of the century and incidently, immediately across
202nd, there's two additional houses on the sawdust supply site. Sawdust Supply has been
mentioned as an industrial operation. But,they don't operate nights,they have been a good neighbor.
They produce compost. It's not something that we have ever objected to. But, we do know and
we're well aware of the lights and glare and the problems that take place up to the north even though
thev are 300 feet further north of us then they will be if this...if this permit is granted. I mentioned
that in the course of things in 1987 we divided the property into two pieces. Subsequent to that,
almost simultaneously with that we were approached by people that were cleaning up the Western
Processing site across the tracks, slightly northwest of us. I allowed them to put two deep wells at
two...three different depths on our site. I think those wells are still monitored. Now, through the
years, the only thing...income we've had is from the rental from the house and some of the use as
horse pasture. We have kept our bargain with the City for 25 years. We've provided not only storm
detention on the site but we've supplied seasonal wetland. Now, one of the things that bothers
you...you know, I've only had just a very brief time to read the environmental checklist which we
didn't see until just a week ago. That was the first we had notice of anything going on down here.
Well, as you can guess, then, there's a certain amount of activity on my part. When my wife came
down to get a list of documents and I will give you the list of documents. Some of which we've
gotten but we've had them only for a week. I did talk to Mr. Jackson and subsequently, I talked to
Mr. Spanjer of the City. I was told he was your surface water man. Both Mr. Jackson and Mr.
Spanjer made the same observation that it looked like they were trying to stuff many tracks on this
given piece of property. I don't know why such an observation isn't in the staff report. But, it's not
there as far as we can find it. I was contacted by Puget Power as to whether or not I was interested
27
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
in putting this substation on our property and I turned that down but I did, in fact, give them my
brother's name and that apparently resulted in, I don't know whether he sold the site or whether he
merely leases it, that's not known to me. Nor do I know if he still has part of the property in the
current use program. He may well have. I'm just not privy to that information. I think the thing that
I've got to say over and over again is that finally yesterday I talked to Mr. Mower and the reason I
called him was because I had knowledge of who the man was and I only know him by his first name.
Larry, the water...the King County Drainage District. He suggested that I call Mr. Mower because
he represented King County's Drainage District interest. But in those discussions I was told that Mr.
Mower is also representing Matlack so I didn't have an independent. I was hoping for some sort of
an independent view at that point. I do think that it's sad. Mr. Mower yesterday told me and he
invited me down to look at the plans for the first time. But, nobody came forth to tell me where they
were. He said the plans were all but accepted or all but approved. I pointed out that at times,
something happens north of us. The water flows in the southeast comer of our property and runs at
an angle and then it used to go to the northern property lines where it ran due west in a ditch til it hit
the railroad ditch and then it went on from there. Sometime after Puget Power put in their road and
sometime after Matlack put in their spur track, the water got deeper and deeper on our side of the
line. And, I think Mr. Mower explained that by saying they had too small of a culvert under the
track. And,I said is there any plan to change that, well,that would be too expensive and besides that
the culvert Puget Power put in, under their 30 foot road was also too small and that was the
restriction. Now,those are events that have taken place in the last few years and,I guess, I keep...the
question I would like to ask is when are they going to get it right, see. Because, in the final analysis,
all I have to sell, if I continue to keep my bargain with the City, is a decent place to live and we
continue to upgrade the house and a horse pasture. We have had a garden on it. You plow that soil
and it's like plowing powder snow. It's an amazing type of river alluvial. And, it's something that's
f Kent. And what brothers you more than anything
almost...has almost disappeared from the City o ,
is they can hide the fact that this has been in the current use program for 25 years by saying that it's
in an industrial zone. We knew that. But we also knew that the land as an industrial site was worth
a lot of money. But, despite that, despite the fact that we spent a lot of money or could have had the
opportunity to sell it over and over and over, we've been contacted. We didn't do it. Now, I guess
it gets down to the final...the final problem that you have, is having made the sacrifice, after
everybody expands their land, I'm worry about whether there's going to be light and glare and noise
and if you just look at the surface water. Let's assume, for example, they've got six acres of paved
surface and it's one of those nights that we have a spill when it's raining an inch, they need
prodigious detention pond to withstand that spill, to contain it. If they don't it's going to back up
because the ground is nearly flat, we'll have a contaminated pasture.
28
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Hunter: Well, Mr. Brooks, I guess that's what this hearing is all about and what I'm interested in
from you and I understand you're testifying as a neighboring property owner. Just what impacts do
you think will occur on your property as a result of this proposal?
Brooks: I think there are three. I mentioned them. I'm certain that, you know, we'll have lights all
night long. The trees shield us somewhat from lights now will be cut down because they will be on
Matlack's property under the new lines. The large trees that house redtail hawks and other things,
we have coyotes on the property at one time. Well,those will be cut down because they are up there
where the spur tracks will have entrance for trucks. So all the trees will be gone, we won't have any
shelter. They've given us a five foot planting easement with no plans for trees or any shelter. See
I can think of all kinds of ways they could shelter us, with berms and plantings on berms and so forth
so we didn't have to...but, if you've got noise all night long and lights all night long, you don't have
much of a residence. That's the problem.
Hunter: Now that's the concern is to living on the property rather than wildlife? Is that...
Brooks: The concern,of course, is the only source of income we have is that house and pasture, you
see. So, if they do something that makes our house uninhabitable then all of our sources of income
from the property are disappear. So light and glare is the first one. The threat of a spill, will
contaminate our pasture. If they have a spill, we'll get it. The concern about the surface water plan.
We've had water, at times, as far or almost to the back door. Have they got a plan that we can rely
upon that will make sure that our property is no worse off than it is today.
Brooks: Those are three issues, I think. Surface water,spillage, light and glare and noise.
Hunter: And you mentioned you had something in mind, at least, to mitigate impacts from light and
glare.
Brooks: Well, I think that I can suggest a number of things that would...but, I would like, you see.
what we would like very much is the opportunity...they submitted drainage plans here which I've
never seen. We would like to have the opportunity to review those plans. I'm an engineer, but I
would hire an hydrologist to review them.
Hunter: Um hum.
Brooks: I think it's unfair to have, you know, the applicant, the judge and jury of thing, without anv
opportunity, without any proper notice, to comment on the issues that would in effect depreciate
what we have left.
29
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Hunter: This is your opportunity, Mr. Brooks, to provide comment. I'm Iistening...
Brook a: But, I can't comment on something I haven't seen. That's the problem. You see, I don't
have any....
Hunter: O.k. What...is that specifically the drainage plan, is that what you're....
Brooks: The drainage plan, how they are going to shield us from light and glare and noise. They
have no plan for odor, for example. You see, all the issues associated with the transfer of heavy and
hazardous chemicals, next door to a residenc .tee out there without mitigation.
Hunter: Now, I would like to find out about that. You're raising issues that the City, the applicant
are here and maybe there are some responses.
Brooks: There—the only thing I notice in their environmental checklist, under odor, for example,
they had nothing. Light and glare, I couldn't see anything, I don't know anything, if anything that
has any thing to do with water.
Hunter: O.k.
Brooks: When I talked to....
Hunter: Well, sir, your testimony, now, perhaps for the first time, focuses these issues and what I
would like to do is hear if there are any responses and see where we're left after that.
Brooks: I would like to hear those too. But. I will be hearing them for the first time.
Hunter: And me as well. So. I appreciate your testimony. Let's find out who can respond to those
issues. Does the City want to provide response initially or the applicant" Mr. Mower, you have
some response to these concerns'.
Mower: Yes, I do. Now. this is similar...this preliminary iandscape plan for the project this is
similar to the plan that was part of this proposal at the time of submittal. I've got a copy here of the
latest one that we just entered into the record and I just wanted to point out the concerns relative to
buffering and landscaping and so forth. There is a defacto, very large landscape buffer on this
property that doesn't need to be there by Code but needs to be there practically speaking because of
the ditch relocation. We are looking, this have a north arrow, envision a south arrow, we're looking
at the top of the photo there...the plan is directly south and this is the area where there would be the
30
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
most direct visual impact from that house located 300 feet to the south. If you look at the planting
schedule, these are two inch caliper, I believe, vine maple trees along with ground cover and bush
and is planted along here on a five foot strip. It's not required by code, but we showed it on the plan
as buffering above and_beyond the code requirement. Look what happens when you come further
to the west...this being the southeast property corner. This is where the ditch relocation is scheduled
to be reconstructed. This distance, across the ditch, is over 60 feet. At the top of that ditch we have
a number of two-inch, one-and-half and two inch caliper trees, along the property line we will be
planting the slope down the ditch. The other side of the ditch coming back up will be planted with
large trees, two inch caliper or thereabouts and so this will be about a sixty-foot planted area with
vegetation. So, there...there is a substantial vegetative buffer along the majority of this property.
If you look at what happens further to the west, it...it's just gets to be more and more dense, down
here where the rail spurs enter the property...in the northwest property corner, to the tune of about
300 feet. So we doubt seriously that from a house located 300 feet away at eye level there will be
any visual contact made with this facility once this planting is established.
With regard to drainage issues on the property, we submitted as part of the record, two separate
drainage analysis and reports. One is a basin-wide analysis, this is the document which indicates that
there's about a 600 acre upstream tributary area, we have a basin delineation map. This was provided
to Don Wickstrom as part of this application. Here again, you might be familiar with it, but I have
a copy....
Hunter: Is this document dated September 6?
Mower: This is the document dated January 1997.
Hunter: I don't believe that's in the record.
Mower: O.k. We can now make that part of the record.
Hunter: O.k., can you submit it then at this time?
Mower: Yes.
Hunter: We'll mark that as an exhibit then. Which number are we up to now? /
Mo-we Prior to that....
Hunter: Five.
31
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Mower: ...the purpose of that study was to determine the 100 year flows through the ditch, through
the culvert, for the express purpose of the culvert sizing determination. And, the previous storm
drainage calculation report that we prepared and submitted was dated September 6, 1996 and that
is part of the record.
Hunter: That is part of exhibit 1, as an attachment.
Mower: That has to do with the onsite pond sizing, biofiltration requirements and also discusses the
capacity of the drainage ditch. What is occurring, and Mr. Brooks is correct in that Lam' Capilero
(sp?) who was the field superintendent for the Drainage District has ::gown about this project for
some time. The reason he has is because DBM Consulting Engineers is the district engineer and for
any project which we would perceive to have a conflict of interest in, for instance, on this project.
we would hire a separate outside firm as a peer review before any permits are issued to relocate the
ditch for the District. But, what's happening downstream...I would like to show you what's
happening at the problem culvert. We keep referring too, at the Puget Power right of way crossing.
Matt, can you help me one more time, would you tell me which button to push`.'
Jackson: Bottom left or right, excuse me.
Mower: Right here. The other two, not the focus. This is that culvert, I believe in January of last
year, at it's not-only undersized at 36 inches, it can orily handle a capacity of about 20 cfs. the
maximum 100 year storm flow in the pipes is about 40 cfs, so it's just undersized. But. it has a grate
on the face on it as you see on that photo and it collects debris. Unless that debris is removed on 1
regular basis, it causes a backwater effect, it's essentially like putting a :ork in that undersized pipe.
That's what causes the upstream flooding and it's a maintenance problem and we will correct that
as part of this application.
Hunter: Can you have that submitted as an exhibit then"
Mower: Yes.
Hunter: Exhibit 6 would be a photo of the culvert.
Mower: The District has talked about removing that grate. But the problem is that downstream
storm drainage ditch on the downhill side is so narrow and constrained the feeling is that it would
cause more of a problem over a wider area than that blockage. But, this would correct....the
relocation of the ditch would correct that problem. I'll let Vince talk a let bit about....a little bit more
about noise and odor on'the project. From my perspective, everytime I have been out on this facility
32
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
which has probably been a grand total of 20,25 times over the last three years, never noticed an odor
problem. The hazardous materials that are handled are handled in conformance with State and
Federal codes which are very strict. And, things like hydrogen peroxide and so on, never noted an
odor problem. But, we also are working on another facility similar to Sawdust Supply right now
where there is an odor problem and"there is an odor problem on Sawdust Supply itself. The BOD
upstream from the ditch where they discharge is an odor problem and it's part of the Drainage
District of our drainage district's responsibilities we are in the process of trying to correct that odor
problem. That problem is due to leachate coming through their bark supplies and in overflow
conditions, draining directly into the creek. What's that causing is anaerobic conditions in the creek
itself and that is really the sole source of any odor or septic or hydrogen sulfite problems in the area.
Hunter: So, there's no odor from the Matlack operation?
Mower: Not that I've ever observed from any of the chemicals, the types of chemicals that they've
handled.
Hunter: O.k.
Mower: My last point is that you can see from this photograph that Sawdust Supply is a very
industrialized property and there is a lot of heavy machinery that operates during normal business
hours in that area. Matlack operations are generally constrained to trucks pulling in. turning their
motors off, off-loading and all talks about how long it takes to load and off-load a truck that they
don't leave their engines running, I don't believe. But, this diesel equipment, heavy machinery, cats,
inloaders, dumptrucks. trucks with pops, 18-yarders and so on, are coming and going from that
facility constantly, down this road, down another access road that comes down here.
Hunter: Is that all hours of the day and night?
Mower: I'm not sure what the hours of operation are for Sawdust Supply. But. nevertheless it seems
to me, that when I've been out there,just giving some personal testimony on the noise issue, this...if
I was a person living in this house over there in there, I'd be tar concerned about the diesel emissions,
and noise and odors and so on from this facility than anything that Matlack has been doing or will
do as part of this facility. Once last comment with regard to the number of rail spurs on the property.
Again, about 45 percent of the property is going to be devoted to wildlife habit in the terms of the
ditch of relocation, as you can see from the relocation plans...
Hunter: Mr. Mower you handed a photo here, but, I don't, do you need this as an exhibit.
33
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Mower: Yeah, let's enter that as an exhibit.
Hunter: What is it intended to show?
Mower: Just wanted to show the industrial activity immediately adjacent to Mr. Brooks property
on the south.
Hunter: I think that's a matter of record.
Mower: O.k.
Hunter: Is there something special that the photo shows that we don't otherwise know?
Mower: That concludes my testimony. Vince might have a few more things to say.
endler: Mr. Examiner could I just ask one or two questions of Mr. Mower while he's there or....
Hunter: Yes, you didn't have an opportunity to examine him earlier, did you?
endler: Just two questions.
Hunter: O.k., that's fine. Mr. Mower why don't you stay up there a minute.
endler: Mr. Mower did you King County's standards of criteria calculating the 100-year...in
making the 100-year calculation.
Mower: The City of Kent....we required to utilize the 100-year storm. 1 1/2 to the 2-year release rate
per Fisheries requirement, 24-hour event.
endler: Do you have those...how do those formulate compare with King County's.
Mower: They're similar, in terms of the volume requirements, biofiltration requirements.
endler: Who did...do you who did the culvert designed for the Puget Power culvert crossing?
Mower: I don't know.
e dler: Thanks.
34
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Mower. Mr. Helt did you want to say anything at this point?
Helt: O.k., I just wanted to address, first of all the point on odor and when I first moved to this area,
I lived in Jonathan's Landing, right next to...and I worked next to that Seattle Sawdust for quite a
number of years, since 1988, and I think that anybody who lives in the Kent Valley knows that
prevailing wind is from the south and so, odor, we receive also from South Seattle...the sawdust pile
as well.
Hunter: What types of odors does your operation generate.
Helt: Well, it would be diesel, you know, when the trucks start up and that sort of thing.
Hunter: Associated with vehicle operation only?
Helt: Right. It would mostly be associated with that.
Hunter: What else?
Heft: Well, we have a truck wash there, that could be...
Hunter: Nothing with your products that you're handling, nothing with the chemicals that you're
handling?
Helt: No. The products that we are currently handling, hydrogen peroxide, not odorless really.
Phosphoric acid is not really that pungent. And, so there's that's really going to be a problem as 1
see it. Wanted to point that out, also that there was a note made about the lights and the lighting at
the facility and the type of lighting that we have at the current facility and we're going to put like
kind on the existing facility are a box type, they're directional. So, what we're trying to do is not
light the area but light what we want and that's our lot. So that's what we do. We have aimed lights
and they go at our facility and we plan the same type of lighting for the other area. And. as far as.
the rail activity, I think there was a point that was brought up on that. What we have is we have the
distance between the tracks so that we can turn trucks around and be able to drive in and out of there.
Our operation is set up where...what we do is we have carts with pumps on them, and they're electric.
and that's our preferred method of transfer or we use nitrogen, an inert gas, to push a product in or
air and in all those cases,the air is coming out of our building. We have air compressors inside the
building which, you know, would contain any sound that would come from those.
Hunter: You have the Jights on all the time?
35
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Helt: At night.
Hunter: Um hum. How do you direct them.
Helt: They're directed into the facility. They are on a fan,they're on about a 30-foot pole and they're
sitting on an angle, where they're directed into the facility.
Hunter: Is there any off-site spillage of the light then, when you do that?
Helt: Well, I...when you have anything that's going to have some carryover effect but I wouldn't
think that it would, you know, be minimal.
Hunter: Is necessary for you to light the entire site or do you pinpoint operations of loading and
unloading?
Helt: What we do we light the entire site so...it's basically, you know, we wanted a lighted and
fenced facility so that when our people are in there 24-hours a day, you know, we have drivers that
are going up and down, they'll see...be able to have visibility, it's for safety reason.
Hunter: Headlights aren't sufficient?
Helt: Well,you have guys out there working...they're cranking up dollies and they're moving around
checking their equipment. They want to make sure that the equipments safe, that if there's some
problem on it, that it's visually that they miss it,that they-don't have...only the light from a flashlight.
So, we are not...we are thinking of our employee safety and we thinking of the motoring public as
well. We want to put safe equipment on the highway.
Hunter: Um hm. O.k., and that's your plan for this proposed expansion is to light this entire rail
area?
Helt: We will be lighting the entire rail area with directional lighting into it.
Hunter: O.k. and that's your plan for this proposed expansion is to light the entire rail area.
Felt: We'll be lighting the entire rail area with directional lighting in to it.
Hunter: And, that's different than your other operations area isn't it?
36
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Helt: It's the same.
Hunter: The same?
Helt: Yeah, all of our facility...currently, we have roughly 5.4 acres and it's all fully fenced and
lighted.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you.
Gendler: Mr. Hunter, again, could I ask a couple of follow-ups to Mr. Helt, please?
Hunter: Sure. A re-cross.
endler: Mr. Helt would it be possible to direct all your lights from the south so they go across the
site back towards the northern...the northern direction and light it that way?
Helt: What we will probably do in this instance, is...is we have some existing light that we will
remove in order to open up the facility. Then the lights will be coming from the south edge on the
perimeter of the property so they will be directed towards it. So, you're correct in what you're
saying.
Gendler: Can you avoid any lights that are facing south and...
Helt: Well, the...
Gendler: ...avoid lights....
Helt: ...the lights are on the north end, the perimeter of our property which in essence be about 1.000
feet from...from the house. The only lights that would be directed in that direction..and they're
directed in a downward and outward path like this so it's not like we got them standing up or we have
open lights. They are directed down and out in boxes so the lights on the southend would not be
directed toward the farmhouse, they would be directed towards our property so we would meet that,
yeah. Be the same, I think we are saying the same thing.
Grinder: Mr. Helt...
Hunter: Make sure I understand it. What are you saying? That they are placed on the south edge
of the property only?
37
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Helt: We will have lights on the south edge of the property, they will be going around there and
when we remove and join the two properties, there will be some lighting that will be removed from
that area.
Hunter: Um hum.
Helt: But, it won't be just; well, there will be some coming along that, what would be west side and
the east side. But, again, they will be directed down. So it's not entirely south. I guess.
endler: Well I guess my question would be ones on those east and west sides, could they be
directed from the south towards the north?
Helt: I don't know. I'm not an expert on lighting. All I'm trying to do is, you know, have a safe and
lighted facility for operational and my employees, so.
�Cyendler: O.k., I also had a question about odor...have you submitted any lists of the chemicals you
handled to the Planning Department for evaluating odor impacts?
Helt: I don't know what they do with what we submit to them but we have provided two, according
to our conditional use, every chemical that we transload there, that information is provided to the
City.
endler: It was provided in the application here or is that something that you provide to the Fire
Marshal?
Helt: its...its—what we do provide is to the Fire Marshal.
endler: But, I guess what my question was, when you say it's provided to the City, do you
provide...did you provide it in connection with this application.'
Helt: I don't know. Was it specific or was it general. We are talking about a conditional use, isn't
it for the transfer of hazardous materials for the conditional use.
Hunter: I think his answer is, Mr. Helt, doesn t...is not aware of sending this information as part of
this application.
elt: Talked same time as Mr. Hunter so unclear.
38
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
4CE-97-2/4V-97-3
endler: Talked same time as Mr. Hunter so unclear.
endl r: ...because I didn't see any part of the application, I was just wondering if that is something
you could have provided, somebody ask you to do that, so we can find out if addition to peroxide
which is odorless, there are other chemicals which aren't odorless that we ought to be concerned
about, the odor.
Helt: Yeah, I don't know what our...we are working with hazardous materials and we are working
with customers, I don't know, our product mix sometime changes but, I don't know how that works.
Hunter: Is that something we can do. (Do you have a calendar?) Thank you Mr. Helt. Any further
response, any further testimony from anyone on this application. First of all, anyone from the City
want to respond. No. O.k. Any further applicant response? O.k., did you want an opportunity for
a closing remark?
endler: Well, Mr. Brooks just wanted to address one or two factual things if he could.
Brooks: Address these two issues. In attempting to dilute any impact from the north, they brought
up the question of Sawdust Supply to the south. Sawdust Supply has big piles of things. They do
only operate on normal business hours. We don't have the problems at night, we don't have glare,
we don't have the lights shinning in.
Hunter: Right, understood.
Brooks: The other issue has to do with odor. At one time when they first started that composting
operation, they did allow drains, big drains across our fields, a long time ago and that before the
METRO sewer. So, that's not an issue as far as we can tell, we don't see any significant issue from
the standpoint of leachate from any of their piles. And, I think, the third thing that you should
remember is that when they get through making it, you can put in on the land and that's what it's
made for.
Hunter: Um hum.
Brooks: It's not something that in an open space that we consider hazardous.
Hunter: How s that?
Brooks: In an open space application it's not something we consider hazardous.
39
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Hunter: O.k., anything further.
en ler: I don't know if you did what to entertain the opportunity to make some statements to the
nature of closing argument. But, I didn't testify, but comments I have pertain to the application of
the conditional use permit requirements and variance requirements.
Hunter: Now you are here as an attorney for Mr. Brooks and we often do allow opportunity for a
summation, if you would like to do that on behalf of your client now, it would be a good time to do,
if you are prepared to do that?
endler: I am.
Hunter: O.k.
endler: Again for the record I'm Michael Gendler, 1424 4th Avenue, Suite 105, Seattle, WAS
98101, representing Mr. Brooks. We don't think this application is ready for approval and we don't
believe it qualifies for approval under the specific criteria for conditional use permits and variances.
The application, staff report. do not take into account the uses on the adjacent property to the south.
There's not a single mention that there's residential use there and I don't think we can buy into the
notion that these measures are designed to protect any use regardless of what it is. That particularly
comes out, the tension between Mr. Jackson's suggestion that we're protecting all uses against the
applicant's suggestion that you have this other industrial use that causes more impacts than us. I
think, shows how those things really can live together. There's no consideration of the effect of
current use program status of the adjacent property or the applicant's property ks isn't
. Now Mr. Broo
able to testify to the current status of the applicant's property, but he was able to testify that was part
of the property put into that program when it first came up and given the purposes as well as the
limitations. I think. that needs to be clarified before they go any further. The Determination of
Nonsignificance does not address any of the potential impacts on the Brooks property. It doesn't
mention the current uses and. I think, perhaps most important is that every single one of it's so-called
mitigating measures, and conditions that are specific to what I'll call the "water issues", are not
conditions at all. What they are is deferrals of necessary studies and analyses to the future. If you
look at the traffic conditions, the condition says widen this road. Now, when can they look at it and
decide, is that an adequate condition,-does it alleviate an impact. If one thinks there will be more
traffic, widening a road may alleviate that impact. But, when you look at the mitigating measures
for drainage plan,they don't say, we have this potential drainage problem and here's how we're going
to solve it. Instead they say, we have this potential drainage problem, we don't even know what it
is because we haven't even identified the uses to the south or described them and the way we're going
to solve it is by telling the applicant to submit a plan to solve it in the future. And so we end up in
40
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
this situation which, I felt very tense and uncomfortable with, when Mr. Brooks is trying to explain
his concerns to you, Mr. Examiner, and you were asking him, well, your telling him,now's the time
for you to comment. Well, how can, even an expert, comment on plans that are submitted today.
Now, you at least have ten working days to look these things over and decide whether they cut the
mustard. But, this is our one and only opportunity to present evidence and these are things that just
came in today and....
Hunter: Are you asking for additional time?
Gendler: I...I think we are asking for additional time because we would like to have the opportunity
to have an expert look at these plans and decide if..you know, if our concerns are empty we don't
want to be causing pain for anyone here.
Hunter: O.k., let me...maybe I can help out here, cut this short, if I can, I would like to let you know
what I want to do right now. O.k. I want to keep the record open on this until July 17th. By July
10th, I would like the..Mr. Brooks...to review the product list and determine if there are odor
impacts, to review a lighting plan with the applicant and determine where the lights will be placed
and to look at the storm water plan, Exhibit 5, that was submitted today and Exhibit 4, the storm
water construction plans. I'm doing that because there is an incompatible use that is located next to
the proposed expansion, one of the key findings and conclusions that I need to make is that the
performance characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with other uses in the neighborhood.
That's existing uses, it doesn't say what other uses might be in the future or what other uses have
been in the past and the information that has come forward today in some ways is newer information
that I believe that the citizenry has not had the opportunity to see it in the level of detail needed in
order for me to make those findings. So, in those three areas only, a product list which can be
supplied and is made available on a regular basis to the Fire Marshal, the applicant can either supply
it directly to Mr. Gendler or you can obtain it from the Fire Marshal, whichever way you can get it
most quickly. But you can look at that list and comment on it that by July 10, whether any of
products might possible in any way produce odors. The lighting plan is one that Mr. Helt began to
speak to, as to, he already decided to remove certain lights. 1 would like you to identify where the
lighting locations would be that's certainly possible given the status of the site plan development,
you've done a through landscape plan, storm water drainage plan and a lighting plan, doesn't appear
to me to be that difficult to conceptually put in place; how the lights would be located. In fact, you
seem to be very close to be doing that today in your testimony. So that would be supplied, again,
to Mr. Gendler for comment by July 10. The storm water plans that were submitted today, Exhibits
4 and 5, Mr. Gendler you should obtain copies of those, again, from probably from Mr. Mower and
comment on those as well. That record then of comment would be supplied to my office through
Chris Holden to the Hearing Examiner as well as to the applicant. Your comments on that date and
41
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
then the applicant would have an additional week to respond to those. Now, if that time frame seems
to tight, but I think everything is available, information should be available today or tomotro A
n ler: Well,the concerns that I have with that is the one vou just mentioned whether Mr. Mower
is in position to had me copies of four and five right now. That alleviates that concern. On the other
hand we are looking at one week with a federal holiday in between, I can't say right now whether
we can find someone qualified to review drainage plans in that time.
Hunter: Mr. Brooks testified that he's an engineer and had contact with the engineering community
I think that's sufficient to at least begin the process. I'm not convinced that there's a level of detail
or sophistication that's at the level that requires exorbitant amounts of time. It's one that I agree
is...there is some new information, you should have an opportunity to review it, but I don't want to
have it linger on. If there are some difficulties in providing information, that's a different question.
endler: Because...
Hurter: That can come back to me or you can agree amongst yourselves to additional time
consideration. But, I think, Mr. Mower has already indicated those materials are available.
Basically,what I'm looking at is having the record closed by t.:t 17th. If you want to adjust that time
frame, or the applicant feels that they can respond more quickly and allow additional time for
comment, that's up to you folks. But, I would like to see the materials in by the 17th, which is
applicant's response to the Brooks review of those materials and just in those areas. Odor from the
product plan, lighting plan and the storm water plan revie� f Exhibit's 4 and 5. Does that make
sense to everyone here? Mr. Gill. comment?
Gary ill: Unable to hear because spoke from audience.
Hunter: Well, I don't know, depends on what the comment is. clarification. question.'
Gill: Well, it's more a clarification issue because the way the SEPA conditions were written on the
contrary, it says the applicant has to construct on-site detention in accordance with our standards,
has to provide water quality treatment in accordance with our standards, that's pretty specific. That
isn't putting anything off into the future.
Hunter: Well, I'm not, we are not debating that issue, now. What I'm responding to is that we have
plans, revised plans submitted today with the date of June '_3. I'm just allowing an opportunity to
comment on those plans as to whether they'll accomplish intent and purposes.
42
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
Gil So, the Brooks comment is that as the Engineering Department being able to..........
Hunter: No, I'm not asking for the City to comment.
Gill: I just want to....
Hunter: No, no it's only Brooks who has the only interest here as to the adjacent ownership of the
adjacent parcel. Not...I don't expect the City to comment.
Gill: Because all we've done is right now is look at the concept and it appears to be workable.
Hunter: Yeah, no...no City review is expected. No, this is an issue between applicant and opponent.
01. That's what we'll do then.
Gendler: Right. I'd like to know if I can address these other criteria as well or .....
Hunter: These are the three areas that will be reviewed.
endler: I understand that but there are issues as to whether this project qualifies for a variance and
those need to be addressed. If you would rather have me address it...
Hunter: No.
Gendler: ....in written form but I haven't had the opportunity to...
Hunter: Oh, you means in terms of a summation....
Gendler: Yes.
Hunter: ....on the variance issue'
Gendler: Yes.
Hunter: O.k., two minutes.
e ler: O.k. As far as special privilege they are relying on existing use to justify further variance.
The staff report goes on saying nor will approval will be a limitation on other uses in the area. And,
that's a misstatement of the City's variance criteria which speak...special privileges inconsistent with
43
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/#V-97-3
the limitation on other uses. On page 5, again, the improper reliance on the prior variance is
repeated. Then there is reliance on the existence of other hazardous substance land uses which pre-
date the current zoning code. And, I guess, that just means and Mr. Jackson just about came out and
said it, everybody needs to come in here and ask for a variance and since we have people who pre-
date the zoning code, we're going to give everyone a variance because they will all have special
privileges. Since I only have two minutes, I'll just cite one case, Jefferson County vs Seattle Yacht
flub and that tells you that nonconforming uses :on't set precedence for further variation. As far
as necessity goes, there is a statement that the staff report relies on the approval of the existing
development justification for variance as essential to expansion. Mr. Mower today said, well, it will
be operationally inconvenient. Well, this also a doctrine about self-inflicted hardship. Mr. Burton
Brooks sold part of that property. The site woulu have been larger but now there's a Puget Power
substation and I think the necessity element is missing as well for both of those reasons.
Hunter: Mr. Gendler, if you would like. I'm very open to have them in a letter form to me, it does
need to be agreed....
Gendler: O.k.
Hunte : But, what I'm attempting to do here is...we do have another application....
Gendler: I understand that.
Hunter: People have been waiting patiently to be heard. I think. I do want to give you the
opportunity and you can submit it in a written form.
Gendler: I will do that. I appreciate both the opportunity and the patience of the others. I'm sure
they all recognize that, you know, this one is important to the people concerned and their only
chance to be heard on it. Thank you very much.
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Gendler:
Brooks: There is one other issue that I was concerned about and that was the nature of the spillage
and the containment thereof.
Hunter: And you're....right.
Brooks: Must include that issue too.
44
Verbatim Minutes
Matlack Inc.
#CE-97-2/4V-97-3
Hunter: Yes, I saw the spillage and containment, Mr. Brooks, as related to the possibility of odor
issues. So, that is related.
Brooks: Very good.
unter: Right.
Brooks: Perfect.
Hunter: O.k. Thank you. Then the record is open on this hearing until the 17th of Jule on those
issues I stated.
45
l
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 , 1997
Category Other Business
1. SUBJECT: PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: On May 6, 1997 , Council adopted
Ordinance No. 3348 regulating the operation of personal water-
craft on Lake Meridian. As part of its motion, the Council
directed that the regulations contained in the ordinance be
reviewed after September 15, 1997 . The Public Safety
Committee, after having considered the matter, directed that
an ordinance be prepared to allow personal watercraft to be
operated on Lake Meridian, with the same restrictions through-
out the year as placed on personal watercraft from May 16th
through September 15th. The proposed amendment would allow
personal watercraft to operate at speeds in excess of eight
miles per hour between the hours of 12 : 00 noon and 6 : 00 p.m.
on even number days of the calendar throughout the year.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Safety Committee voted to submit this
item to the full council without a recommendation
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCALJPERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
rl
Councilmember ! - moves, Councilmember �� �L.'ti' seconds
the adoption of ordinance No. relating to the operation ,
of personal watercraft on Lake Meridian. �, , t �, l- .1 _ ,I�C-"
y
DISCUSSION
ACTION: A
UI
Council Agenda
Vf
�� !. Item No. 4K
'I
ORDINANCE NO.
I�
AN ORDINANCE of the Citv Council of the City
of Kent. Washington, amending Chapter 4.06 of the Kent
City Code relating to the operation of personal watercraft on
Lake Meridian.
THE CITY COUNCI
L OF THE CITY OF KENT. WASHINGTON, DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Section 4.06.200(C)of the Kent Citv code is herebv amended
as follows:
Sec. 4.06.200. Lake Meridian - Motor powered vessel restrictions - water skiing and
personal watercraft operation.
A. Generally The following rules and regulations are adopted for the use of
motor-powered vessels on Lake Meridian:
1. It is unlawful to use or operate anv vessel powered by motor power
on Lake Meridian. except that vessels with the following engines
will be permitted:
a. 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 co
njunction unction 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
1 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS
_ I I
engines equipped with a muffler or silencer of sufficient size
and capacity, to effectively muffle and reduce noise similar
to that of outboards and inboard/outboards. This includes
both propeller and jet propulsion watercraft.
I
b. Air-cooled outboard or inboard engines of stock
manufacture rated by the manufacturer at ten horsepower or
less,
i
c. Electric fishing trolling motors.
?. No vessel shall operate in excess of eight miles per hour after 6:00
II of thirty-five miles
p.m. until the hour of 9:00 a.m. and not in excess
I
per hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
;. Vessels exceeding speeds of eight miles per hour shall remain at
least two hundred feet from the shoreline and one hundred feet from
other vessels and swimmers and shall proceed around the lake in a
counterclockwise direction.
4. All vessels operating on Lake Meridian shall cam United States
Coast Guard approved personal flotation devices in good condition
for each person in the vessel.
'Motor-powered vessels operating after sundown shall be equipped
with and have lit proper running lights.
6. The anchorage or moorage of unoccupied vessels is prohibited
except when tied to a pier or dock with the permission of the ,'�tincr
of the pier or dock.
No remote controlled vessels powered bN internal combustion
engines shall operate betore 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.
3. Skin diving is prohibited except as necessary for public employees
and their agents or other authorized personnel to perform their
duties or in the case of an emergency,
II 2 - PERSONAL ATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS
B. Waterskiing. The following regulations apply to all water skiing activities
as defined in RCW 88.12.010(22) including, but not limited to. being towed
behind a vessel on skis, an aquaplane, kneeboard, tube, or similar device:
l. Water skiing on the lake at speeds up to and including eight miles
i;
per hour is permitted any time between dawn and dusk.
?. Water skiing on the lake at speeds over eight miles per hour shall be
limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
3. It is unlawful to water ski within three hundred feet of shore except
as follows:
a. from privately owned shoreline, water skiers may start at
and return to shore by means of the most expeditious route;
b. from Citv owned shoreline, water skiers may start or return
(deep water start) from a distance of 200 feet or greater from
shore but are prohibited from starting or stopping within 200
feet of shore. For purposes of this provision. City owned
shoreline includes the swimming beach and boat launching
areas of the park. For purposes of starting at and retuming
to shore as authorized herein, water skiers may temporarily
exceed the speed limit of eight miles per hour.
4. All persons in vessels towing� persons on water skis tubes
surfboards. or similar contrivance shall remain seated at all times.
�. All operators of vessels having in tow or otherwise assisting a
person on water skis, tubes. surfboards or similar contrivance shall
comply with Section 4.06.060.
6. Regulations stated in this subsection shall not apply to vessels used
'll
i
in water ski tournaments, competitions, expositions. or trials
'I
therefore, which have been duly authorized by the City.
� C. Personal 6Vatercralt. In addition to RCW 88.12.145 adopted in Section
4.06.020. the following regulations shall apply to personal watercraft.
3 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGULATIONS
1. Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds up to and
including eight (8) miles per hour any day except during hours of
darkness.
2. Personal Watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds in ," ess
of eight (8) miles per hour only as follows:
a. between the hours of 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m.: and
I
b. on even numbered days of the calendar throu1hout the %cart
I a�
e -
,
SECTION S. - Severabilrn If amp one or more sections. suhsections. or
� sen
tences
nces of this
Ordinance are he
ld to be unconstitutional or invalid. such decision shall
'I I
I
not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance and the same shall remain
in full force and effect.
SECTION4. - Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take eflcct and be in
force thirty (30) days from the time of its final approval and passage as pro% ided h% lay%
JIM WHITE. v1AYOR
ATTEST:
I,
BRENDA JACOBER. CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I�
ROGER A. LUBOVICH. CITY ATTORNEY
4 - PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REO LATIONS
:! PASSED: day of 1997.
APPROVED: day of 1997.
PUBLISHED: day of 1997.
I'
I herebv 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
p lawordinancyetsk4 ow
,II
I
I
i
i,
II
l
I
- PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - REGU LATION
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1997
PRESENT: Jim Bennett, Chair
Leona Orr
Tim Clark
Roger Lubovich
Meeting called to order at 5: 09 p.m. by Chairman Bennett.
DV ORDINANCE•
Lubovich explained that our current city codes authorize the court to
issue no contact orders for defendants that are arrested on domestic
violence charges. There is a question on whether or not the no contact
order can be issued while they are in custody as opposed to being
released from custody. Lubovich is proposing an emergency ordinance to
go to council tonight that clarifies the city code so that the court
can issue no contact orders for those charged with domestic violence
while they are in custody and the charges are pending. It would go
before council tonight as an emergency ordinance that would be
effective immediately.
Clark stated it is evident that this is simply a house-cleaning item
and moved adoption of the emergency ordinance and recommended that it
be forwarded to full city council for approval. Orr seconded motion;
passed unanimously.
HUD GRANT•
Leona Orr explained that there appears to be some discrepancies in a
Federal Housing and Urban Development grant that the city uses to get
money to hire police officers, indicating she has prepared copies of
the information she received. The August 1997 grant application states
that there is an increase in violent crimes in Kent. However, the
Mayor and the Police Chief are citing that we have a decrease of crime
in Kent. Orr indicated that she will be asking for an independent
investigation on crime statistics at council tonight. As the budget
is being prepared for 1998 , Orr indicated she felt it is important that
this information be clarified. After some discussion between council
members as to the validity of this issue.
Leona Orr made motion that the issue be presented at council tonight;
motion seconded by Jim Bennett. Tim Clark expressed his opposition.
Motion passed 2-1 .
TRANSFER OF FUNDS•
Police Chief Ed Crawford asked that $6500 be transferred from the
Police MDT Fund to reimburse expenditures of weight-control equipment
for the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit, which was purchased during
the construction of the Regional Justice Center. The Commercial
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
Vehicle Enforcement Unit is a section of the Police Department' s
Traffic Division that monitors heavy-truck traffic.
Motion by Tim Clark to approve transfer of funds; seconded by Leona
Orr. Motion passed 3-0 .
JET SKIS•
Jim Bennett explained that back in the spring there were several
committee meetings on the subject of personal watercraft/jet skis. An
ordinance was prepared which was to sunset .In September 15th. Bennett
explained that on September 16th he started receiving phone calls and
found himself confused because he thought that meant the ordinance went
back to what was there previously. Due to this confusion, Bennett
opened the meeting for public comment.
Roger Lubovich indicated that to clarify at this point the committee
needed to know what we have and how we got here. Lubovich read the
ordinance so that there was a clear understanding of what it says.
Lubovich explained that the sunset was specifically discussed by this
committee, however, the sunset was not included in the ordinance itself
as it was determined that it would be evaluated at the end of the
season. Lubovich indicated the language of the ordinance states:
Personal watercraft may be operated on the lake at up to and including
8 miles an hour any day except during the hours of darkness. Lubovich
explained this means anytime, any day of the year, except during
darkness, which is by state law. You can operate a jet ski up to 8
miles an hour on the lake. That includes today, tomorrow, summer, any
day.
_ Lubovich indicated that part two of the ordinance states that personal
watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds in excess of 8 miles
per hour only as follows:
A) between the hours of noon and 6: 00 p.m. ;
B) on even numbered days of the calendar; and
C) from and including May 16th through and including September 15th of
any year.
Lubovich further explained that is the exact language from the original
ordinance that was presented to this committee and to the council. The
season is now over, and it is now time to review the ordinance.
Leona Orr indicated she was confused because it was her understanding
that when the trial period ended, personal watercraft/jet skis as well
as boats would be allowed to use the lake. Orr explained she had not
seen any reports as to what happened over the summer regarding stops
being made or tickets issued, whether it was successful or
unsuccessful. Orr stated she thought the sunset meant that after
September 15th the restrictions were lifted and personal watercraft/jet
skis had the ability to use the lake on any day within normal
restrictions.
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
Lubovich agreed there appeared to be a misunderstanding, indicating
that there needed to be a determination of whether or not the ordinance
should remain in effect, whether it should be amended, repealed,
altered, or left alone.
Bennett indicated he had spent time on the lake in different areas and
monitored the noise levels, the boats and the jet skies. He and his
family spent July 4th and 5th at the lake and tried to look at it
subjectively, but saw numerous occasions where the skiers were more
dangerous or as dangerous as the jet skis.
Orr indicated that until some sort of documentation as to whether or
not the ordinance worked over the summer, she would like to continue
with the every-other-day plan to be sure that people are allowed use of
the lake, perhaps an amendment to the ordinance could be prepared.
Lubovich explained that he could draft an ordinance with modifications
or amendments, whatever the committee desired.
Bennett stated he would like to carry on with Orr' s motion and then
open for discussion. Orr moved to present ordinance as it was over the
summer; motion seconded by Bennett. No comment by Tim Clark.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mary Olson 14400 S.E. 270th PL. , Kent WA 98042
Mary Olson indicated he feels the audio and video tapes should be
reviewed from the meeting concerning the sunset clause terminology.
Mr. Olson expressed his concern regarding council being able to table
issues at any time, make changes, etc.
Jim Bennett explained that they normally have the option of looking at
the ordinance before it goes into law; however, this was sent in
emergency form and therefore never came back to council for review.
Bennett explained that changing the language or preparing a new
ordinance can both be done legally, but to go back and review previous
discussions would just be "opening a can of worms . "
Mr. Olson stated he felt that they need to know if it was a review or
question of the sunset. Bennett stated they obviously felt it was a
sunset clause and Mr. Olson stated they thought it was not. Lubovich
indicated by law it is not a sunset. The law is very clear on that and
explained that it will remain in effect until something else is done.
Orr stated she felt there was confusion on the issue and did not really
have anything to review at this time, explaining that there is no
documentation showing what happened.
Tom Brotherton 26805 148th Avenue S . E. Kent WA 98042
Tom Brotherton passed out charts on state noise ordinance information
and discussed them. Mr. Brotherton explained that there is difficulty
with the personal watercraft having to be 300 feet from shore in order
to be not violate the noise ordinance in the summer and 650 feet off
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
shore in winter, which means you cannot operate one off the water and
not violate the state noise ordinance.
Mr. Brotherton also brought documents from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Noise and Effects, and a Noise and Effects handbook. All
detail the effects of noise on human beings and state the danger level
is 75 decibels . or above. He wishes the city to review these documents
and the ordinance for citizens ' health purposes and safety.
Jack Wolinski 13835 S.E. 260th Kent WA 98042
Jack Wolinski sent out letters to registered personal watercraft owners
because he feels the ban _s incorrect. He referred to the previous
testimony regarding the noise ordinance and related that he knew of
boats with loud whistles violating the noise ordinance. Mr. Wolinski
stated the no parking signs bother him as well as limited parking at
the park and limited people on the lake. Although a lot of problems
which have been present in the past have been better this year, some
things that bothered Mr. Wolinski included the way the ordinance was
written regarding the hours of 12-6 in the winter not being conclusive
to the weather situation. He felt that the lake should be open all
day, from 9-6, and that jet ski owners should be equal with boaters,
because he felt that everyone who pays taxes should get the same usage
on the lake. Another disturbing issue to Mr. Wolinski was limiting
people on the lake. He felt that the police were on the lake and it is
their job to regulate what is going on anyway. People should take care
of their own personal watercraft or boats. Mr. Wolinski further
reiterated how strong his feelings were toward equality between jet
skiers and boaters, and not having a particular group of people getting
preference. Explained that as far as the noise issue goes, personal
watercraft has to meet the same industry standards as boaters, and if
someone was to modify their exhaust system, the manufacturer cannot
have control over that. He wished everyone would work together to make
this work.
Mr. Bennett suggested that the last thing to do is divide a
neighborhood over a recreational venicle and wished to get this
resolved.
Susan Wolinski 13835 S.E. 260th Kent WA 98042
Susan Wolinski brought up the idea of utilizing the Federal Emissions
Standards Safety Program. She explained that no manufacturer would
spend all kinds of money setting up manufacturing and selling boats if
they violated those standards. She thought that should be reviewed.
Further, Ms. Wolinski stated that safety has been an issue on the lake.
She mentioned that she got a hold of a group called the U. S. Power
Squadron, recommended by the state parks and boating. She thought it
would be an option to have people who wished to use the lake pass a
safety program for which they. would receive a certificate. They would
then use the certificate to purchase a decal that they would put on
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
their watercraft, ensuring lake users that they have gone through a
public safety program.
Jill Clifford 26703 148th Ave. S.E. , Kent, WA 98042
Jill Clifford wanted to thank the council for a temporary reprieve from
the noise. She stated that she works out of her home all day and has
enjoyed not having the noise every single day.
She raised a number of issues the first being the water level on the
lake which is very high. She mentioned the docks are already under
water and a lot of erosion takes place when you have jet skis and
boats, particularly jet skis, go around the lake in the winter time.
Secondly, the safety issue. Ms. Clifford asked if there were patrols
on the lake during the winter, because without patrols of the lake
during the winter time she felt jet skiers should not be there. Ms.
Clifford did not think that the watercraft access on the lake could be
regulated.
Ms. Clifford felt the noise and traffic on lake was an issue that you
cannot sit down and resolve with neighbors, due to differing opinions.
Steve Crowell 26709 148th Ave. S. E. , Kent, WA 98042
Steve Crowell stated he was surprised and not surprised about the
sundowning conversations. Mr. Crowell recalled that he heard that
sundowning was the choice between two proposals and had a split city
council. The two proposals were an outright 365-day-a-year ban on jet
skis on Lake Meridian and a part-time ban which would compromise.
He felt sundowning was to see if the part-time ban was successful and
would be revisited possibly at the end of the year to see whether it
was going to be a full-time ban or a continuation of the part-time ban.
He explained that he was a little surprised to see city council members
admit that they didn 't read or understand the ordinance that they voted
for passed. He felt the real question was whether to continue with
ordinance as it is or revisit it and take the other alternative: total
banning year round.
Marilyn Gibbs 14661 S. E. 267th St. , Kent, WA 98042
Marilyn Gibbs has lived on the lake for approximately six years now.
When she moved to the lake, she specifically moved there after
researching which lake in King County she could use motorized craft on.
Ms. Gibbs feels that when this legislature was enacted, one of her
rights that she moved there for was taken away. She explained that she
used the lake a lot and is out there frequently. She thinks that if
the noise is an issue for people, they bought their homes there and
they moved there knowing what that was like, just as she did. She felt
that if that bothered them, they need to move to a nonmotorized lake or
a semi-motorized lake. She reiterated that she felt like one 'of her
privileges had been taken away.
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
Ms. Gibbs mentioned that the lake is a resource for the people of the
city of Kent to use as a recreational facility, and have taken away
their rights too.
Bill Turnbull 13926 S. E. 256th Kent WA 98042
Bill Turnbull agreed with the previous speaker. He mentioned that
historically Lake Meridian had been used for boating and recreation for
many years. People who had bought homes on the lake knew that the lake
was used for boats. He stated that old boats ' exhaust goes directly to
the atmosphere and are a lot noisier than some of the boats used now.
Mr. Turnbull mentioned that he has a boat which goes 65 m.p.h. , a lot
bigger than a jet ski and a lot more dangerous. He felt that any
restrictions put on a jet ski should also be put on a boat.
Mr. Turnbull also stated that when the park was remodeled several years
ago, there was a move to do the park in two steps. The first step was
having a boat launch, which was convenient because the only people who
could use a boat were people that had dock and a boat. So, this is not
a new move to restrict access to Lake Meridian. Mr. Turnbull felt that
the lake should be totally open to motorcraft or totally closed to
motorcraft, should include both jet skis and boats, and should have no
division. It is a public park, etc.
Ellyn Ricker, 26715 148th Ave. S.E. Kent WA 98042
Ellyn Ricker has lived on the lake close to 20 years, and there were no
jet skis at that time. When they were, they were illegal. Ms. Ricker
explained that only when the exhaust was modified a few years ago and
placed under water did they become legal on Lake Meridian.
Ms. Ricker stated that as the population grows it is very reasonable
that laws have to change as well . She would like to reinforce that due
to state-owned fishing launch, regulation on the lake is impossible.
The state does not come out and maintenance it, let alone regulate it.
They don 't even close the gate on it anymore. So, people can launch
from that access. They ' re only supposed to launch there for fishing &
if have a license. But, because not regulated it ' s abused, all summer
long. So, regulation is not possible unless the launch can be taken
away from the state.
Jim Lackey, 14410 S. E. 270th PL. , Kent WA 98042
Jim Lackey lives across from the county park where the noise is the
worst, although very nice in the summer with quiet days every-other-
day. Mr. Lackey expressed his hope that quiet days not be taken away,
that jet skis split the community, and the compromise is working.
Barry Kai ht 20318 121st Ct. S.E. Kent WA
Barry Kaight objects to quiet days and thinks that if you say quiet
days, it should mean no boat traffic whatsoever. He felt it was worth
mentioning that it is a public lake and all tax payers in Kent should
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
have access to that lake equally, regardless of whether or not you have
property or live on the lake. Mr. Kaight agrees there is more traffic
but felt that to limit watercraft use to people that live around the
lake or to try and isolate it so public cannot have access is wrong
because it is no more their lake than anyone else's. Mr. Kaight
explained that banning one type of motorcraft is immaterial in regards
to talking about quiet days and not quiet days because you cannot
differentiate between quiet day with boat running down the lake and jet
skis on lake. Mr. Kaight agrees with the previous statement but cannot
understand why banning one type of watercraft would give a quiet day.
Bill Rausch 26430 136th Ave. S. E. , Kent-, WA 98042
Bill Rausch felt that the compromise last summer worked well. He
encouraged that this be studied carefully. He related that jet skis
still had access and could operate under 8 m.p.h. any time of the day
(inaudible) except at dark, which worked out well for noise purposes
and safety issues. Mr. Rausch stated that one of the reasons for the
every-other-day compromise was due to the police boat only being able
to commit to being out on the lake on certain days, which was the day
they would target. He felt that data would support that most calls to
911 were for safety violations or noise, or anything else that happened
like that. Mr. Rausch felt the real issue was not whether or not it
worked, because worked well, but felt ordinance is good.
Tim Lombardo 27520 46th Ave. S. Kent, WA
Tim Lombardo related that he goes once or twice a month in the summer
time because of overcrowding. He said he realizes people don't like
jet skis because of noise, etc. However, he is a jet skier, boater,
and skier. Mr. Lombardo does not want discrimination and supports
limiting the number on lake. He feels the every-other-day compromise
is okay, but wants it equal. He feels that boats do not have any more
rights than jet skiers.
Sam Vass 14610 S E 266th Street, Kent, WA 98042
Sam Vass lives across the street and wants to remind council of zoning
laws. He feels we should out law loud boats or jet skies, period. He
related there is no excuse for loud boats, of which jet skis fall in
that category.
Corey Klaught 20716 105th PL. S. E. Kent, WA
Corey Klaught is a boat owner who goes to Lake Meridian every chance he
gets. He feels jet skis are a problem because he skis; however, does
not want to ban them because he has been a jet ski owner and thinks
they should have every right to be out there as the boat owners do.
Mr. Klaught thinks that if they start banning jet skis at Lake
Meridian, it ' s going to go ballistic everywhere else and will start
banning everything everywhere. He feels that when people pay the same
amount to license any boat or vehicle, they should have equal rights
and a ban should not be done.
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
Robin Rausch 26430 136th Ave. S.E. Kent WA 88042
Robin Rausch lives on the lake. She feels that jet skis are a problem
and poses the question of how to deal with it. She stated that safety
issues reveal that most injuries are related to personal watercraft.
She related that in dealing with this problem she did not think a total
ban was appropriate but to try to control the problem at first with
police controlling some problems. Also, to make jet ski usage on days
when the police would be patrolling the lake. Ms. Rausch felt that jet
skis caused the majority of violations and complaints, and co repeal
any portion of this is to go against all testimony receivea previous .
She related the problems occurred after et skis came. She felt that
by limiting days jet skis could be on lake heightened liability and
responsibility. Ms. Rausch further related that this summer was the
easiest summer tc deal with, problems and noise diminished. She wished
to leave the ordinance in place, review stats, and see what happened.
She felt that safety should be a concern and this is how to solve the
safety issue.
Carol Vass 14610 S. E. 266th Street _._Kent. WA 98042
Carol Vass feels that things are treated differently (gives examples of
different types of governments) . Felt that categories of like things
are treated differently.
Tanya Klink 11408 S.E. 228th, Kent, WA
Tanya Klink stated she has been a personal watercraft owner for 12
years and that her concern issue is with safety, which is not only a
problem for Lake Meridian but state-wide. She felt it was not such a
bad idea to issue separate licenses so people go through safety classes
before they buy personal watercraft. She said that jet skis are here
to stay and there needs to be compromises for them. Ms. Klink related
that most of the accidents are head injuries, 90 per cent. She
suggests that helmets be worn. Ms. Klink felt that jet skis should be
treated as equal and that the every-other-day compromise is not bad but
should be for boats as well .
Casey Gibbs 14661 S. E. 267th St. , Kent_ WA 98042
Casey Gibbs lives on the lake and is also a jet skier and water skier,
so sees both sides of argument. Mr. Gibbs disagrees with regulations
of jet skis as well as boats on lake, however, does agree that the lake
is only of limited size and does require a certain access regulation
for all users, not just jet skis or boats. Feels even/odd thing is a
problem because often times his schedule does not work with the days,
due to working strange hours as does his wife, and does not always have
a day off on even days when they'd like to go around the lake on
personal watercraft. Mr. Gibbs wished to modify the motion to change
the law so that it would read from the hours of 12-6 every day of week,
thinking that this would be a good compromise. Mr. Gibbs does not
think jet skis should be banned during winter and feels he should have
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
October 21, 1997
Page 2 of 9
rights during winter as well as other people. He would be in favor of
changing the motion to that effect.
Mr. Bennett heard favorable comments on the compromise stats and stated
they needed to be reviewed as well as evidence .presented before any
decision is made. Mr. Bennett felt that we need to move forward with
the motion. He had copies of amendment available to all to review and
then come back for the next meeting prepared. He felt there was plenty
of evidence from both sides and does not want to divide the
neighborhood.
Roger Lubovich read amended ordinance: Personal watercraft may be
operated on the lake at up to speeds up to and include 8 m.p.h. any
day, any time, except during hours of darkness. So, that' s still in
place.
Part two: Personal watercraft may be operated on the lake at speeds in
excess of 8 m.p.h. only as follows:
A) between the hours on 12 : 00 noon and 6: 00 p.m. ; and
B) on even-numbered days of the calendar throughout the year.
So, basically ordinance provides for 12 : 00 to 6: 00 high-speed operation
on even-numbered days all throughout the year.
Ms. Orr stated that was what she had originally proposed and felt there
needed to be new information on noise in winter as opposed to summer.
Unidentified audience member asked if police will provide patrols.
Orr related that was something that needed to be looked at. She said
she didn 't know how many accidents or injuries occurred and would like
to have statistics before going further. This ordinance is not being
adopted, only being proposed, but could be adopted at next meeting.
Bennett indicated he understands the motion and suggested it be brought
back for discussion at the next meeting, to be held November 18th at
5: 00 .
Lubovich clarified that the ordinance passed last spring with no sunset
provision. Motion of the council was to review the oridinance at the
end of the summer season to review performance and determine whether
the ordinance should be repealed, amended, or left alone. He was asked
to draft an ordinance modifying the present ordinance which extends
odd/even days of operation throughout the whole year instead of just
the summer.
Lubovich stated that the ordinance will be brought back at the November
18th meeting and could be thrown out by committe or approved to go on
to full council.
Motion to come back to next meeting by Orr; seconded by Bennett.
Motion passed 2-1 . No comment by Tim Clark.
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 8 of 8
Marilvn Gibbs 14661 SE 267, lives on Lake Meridian. Circulated a letter that she and her
husband wrote. She stated that she doesn't feel its the noise on the lake that has impacted
the eagles, its the insecticides. She has seen the eagles are out there when the boats and
the jet skis are there and when they are not. Feels the ordinance that was proposed last
spring is not the ordinance that was enacted. The ordinance was written with Mr.
Brotherton in attendance and she feels it is biased and changed. This was evident at the
last meeting when people were very confused about the sunset clause and exactly what
happened on September 15th. Most were lead to believe that it would go back to the way it
was before. She feels the people who are really against this are the people that don't use
the lake. She does not want to see her use of the lake taken away, stating she feels very
strongly about it.
HEARING CLOSED by Chairman Bennett.
Bennett stated the issue would be moved to the December 9th Council meeting. under
"Other Business" and it will be up to the Mayor to decide how much input is to be given at
that time. Usually holds his speakers to three minutes. Bennett further stated the he hoped
the neighbors do not divide themselves as a result of this.
Following discussion between committee members on moving the issue out of committee.
Tim Clark moved to have all items presented to the committee at this meeting entered as
part of the public record: motion seconded Connie Epperly. Motion passed unanimously
Tim Clark moved to send this issue forward to full Council for discussion under "Other
Business" without committee recommendation: motion seconded by Connie Epperly.
Motion passed unanimously (3-0).
Meeting adjourned at &15 p.m. by Chairman Bennett
klr
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 7 of 8
Lubovich advised that he had already been approached concerning this particular section.
He believes the section was taken from the old King County Code and its not very clear.
He has looked at and doesn't know why its even needed, unless there is some benefit in
making it easier to enforce. It is outdated and probably needs to be looked at for
modification or to be removed.
Scott McGill 13709 SE 255 P.L. lives a couple blocks off the lake. He owns neither a jet ski
or a boat. He just moved into the Lake Meridian area within the last year. He does have
friends who have jet skis and friends who do have boats. He has not attended previous
meetings, but stated it appears the biggest issue here is noise. Lake Meridian is a small
lake. From the experience he had on the lake over the summer, he found more noise
generated from the larger craft than he did from any of the wet bikes or jet skis, etc. From
where they sat on the beach, however, most of the time he could hear lawn mowers over
the jet skis. Stated he feels this discussion about noise is getting ridiculous. Noise is
noise, whether its a lawn mower, a jet ski, an outboard motor, people on the beach, people
having a party, whatever. He stated that personally he does not find the noise of a jet ski
obnoxious, he finds outboard motor noise louder and more obnoxious. The second thing
he saw are the amount of vessels on the lake, there were just too many of them. There has
to be a way to limit the amount of vessels. Also, he has found that the operators of the jet
skis are more responsible that a lot of the boaters, stating he didn't even want to talk about
the issue of alcohol and boaters.
Epperly asked if the lake could possibly be closed to residents only. No, it is not an option.
Ralph Gerber; has lived on the lake 41 years. He stated he has never seen people out
there on the jet skis who have followed the rules. Its no fun if they don't zig and zag around
the lake and jump it up out of the water. With their muffler out of the water, it just roars.
They cannot use their own beach on the weekends at all. the waves are too high and their
little grandkids can't swim in it. The silt is coming off the bottom of the lake. Gerber stated
they first got permission to waterski on Lake Meridian. after King County did their studies
and said there's no way you can go fast on that lake and not stir up the sediment on the
bottom and destroy the lake. They limited the speed to 28 mph, but now somebody in the
City of Kent has raised it to 35 mph. But those boats don't go 35, they go 50 to 60 mph.
Gerber stated their taxes are twice as high as the people across the road, they are paying
for the beauty of that lake. The few outboard motors that he sees are usually trolling,
fishing. You don't very often see an outboard skiing. They can't hardly go fast enough. He
stated he feels they are entitled to have it quiet. The jet skis drive them crazy. You feel
like taking a gun out there. Gerber said the police department is doing a good job, but they
are not issuing tickets for speeding, they are warning people. trying to slow them down.
When the county bought the picnic area, residents said it would be fine as long as they
didn't put in a boat launch. Well, first thing they did was put up a boat launch sign. After
complaining to the county, the were told the couldn't go by what employees told them, they
had to go by what the general public wants. Gerber stated he feels something is very
wrong.
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 6 of 8
Hood River down at the Gorge. There is a lot of windsurfer traffic there and there's a big
effort by some of the areas to close windsurfing, citing basically the same reasons. They
are trying to protect us from ourselves, but its not their responsibility. He stated he doesn't
need somebody else to protect him from himself. More than anything else, however, noise
seems to be the biggest issue here. He lives in Kent Eastridge, pretty much directly in the
flight path where the Boeing jets come in to Boeing field. And if this group is going to be
protected from the NOISE on a public lake, he feels that he should be protected from the
noise from the jets that are flying over the top of his house, which are a lot louder than any
jet ski. What's fair for one is fair for all. His proposal would be to shut down the lake to
everyone, where nobody uses the lake for motor watercraft, or open it up so its fair for
everyone else to use because it is a public lake.
Dr. Sam Robottom; expressed his concern about the impact of the noise on the wildlife.
When he moved on the lake 50 years ago there were quite a few eagles, but they have all
but disappeared. There are a couple still there, but he feels the noise does bother them.
And, if they are still considered an endangered species, we shouldn't be having the noise
out there.
Tom Brotherton. 26805 14_AV SE; explained that the ordinance we now have was derived
over a long period of time by a large number of people trying to solve this problem. They
were trying to reach a compromise for people who use the jet skis and for those who are
disturbed by the noise. Its hard to find a compromise that makes everyone happy. Jet skis
are a pretty recent phenomenon and a lot of jurisdictions are struggling with how to live with
jet skis close to people. taking into consideration safety and noise issues mainly, and
pollution to some degree. The ordinance we have is pretty good. All the people he's
talked to around the lake have thought that its a partial solution. Its not a total solution. If
you own a jet ski you want to run it more time. If you don't own a jet ski. you don't want
them anywhere near you. It not like we're saying you can't use it. its just that we want
freedom from annoyance for all the people part of the time. The seasonality was chosen
for that freedom from noise for people and also because there aren't many jet skiers who
actually try to use the lake in cold weather. The majority of the reason was the police boat.
The police boat is put in the water in the middle of May and taken out in the middle of
September. When the police boat is on the lake everyone acts a lot nicer. They were
much more safe, they stayed further away from other people, and they obeyed the laws.
Brotherton recommends that the ordinance be left the way it is -- maybe look for other
things to adjust in the ordinance, but seasonality is one of the key facets that let people live
with the opposing camp. Does not like the draft ordinance as presented. recommends to
stay with it the way it read over the summer.
Gary Stewart 26620 127 AV SE; stated his concern was the wording of the ordinance
under Section I, A and B. He owns a watercraft that has an air cooled engine, but he
cannot use it on the lake because its a 40 horsepower and they want to limit it to 10
horsepower because its an air cooled engine. He doesn't see why they have differentiate
between the way engines are cooled.
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 5 of 8
risen, people are losing their beach front. One resident has lost four feet of his beach front
property due to the erosion of the soil because of the watercraft. Last year when this
ordinance came out, although the jet 'Kis make a lot of noise, resident were willing to live
with it because it was only every otne day. That was acceptable.
To have to put up with it everyday just because there shouldn't be a separation of one type
from another is not. People who live on that lake are taxpayers too and their property taxes
are a lot higher they can't enjoy their own property. There are times when the wave action
is so bad on that lake that if you even want to have your children in inner tubes out trying to
swim, they better have dramamine because the wave action is that bad.
Jack Wolinski 13835 SE 260th- CourteE of Kent Kawasaki, he was able to get some
printed materials on the issues. There ir: literature that is available to everybody, 20 Ways
to Protect our Environment is a good flyer and is produced by the PWA. There is also a
book called the Guide to Multiple Use Waterway Management, Creating a Safer Waterway,
which contains the five points talked about earlier. He stated that there are some statistic
that need to be pointed out that he finds really alarming. Why are people calling 911 when
its supposed to be an emergency phone number. (Members of audience interrupted that
they were told to call 911.) Wolinski stated he had the floor and it was not open for
discussion. He too lives on the lake and he pays taxes just like everyone else here is
sharing, but why people call 911 when th, could be a life threatening situation out there
on the lake or maybe within the corn- ., and people are calling about a personal
watercraft or boat doing something. This is not what it was designed for and stated it his
personal opinion that it should stop. He stated a couple other things that needed to be
brought up are, taken from the same personal watercraft industry council statistics, the
average personal watercraft owner is 37 years old. A lot of the arguments that are being
discussed here all state the same thing, supervision on the lake. As Mr. White
campaigned. there were 954 hours out there being patrolled on the lake. He personally did
not see it all, but he wasn't home all day long. But the average income of a personal
watercraft owner is about $95.000 and that's per capita of combined income throughout.
Whether its the parents or uncles or grandparents who let their sons and daughters and
grandchildren use them unsupervised, that's a problem that those individuals need to take
care of. The safety issue is again bound to the owner. He needs to decide what he's going
to do and how he's going to do it. There's also various programs on various safety
programs and video tapes that come from the manufacturers. What needs to be done is
figure out a way where everyone can get together on this program to make it happen. The
whole object is to get this ordinance so that its fair to both sides. With only 13 violations
this year out of the 954 hours that were spent on the, he stated he felt it was a pretty
successful summer. Regarding the problem with soil erosion. there is the same problem
with a boat that displaces 3,000 pound of water versus a craft that holds 500 pounds. If its
doing it for one type then its doing it for the other. People need to be open minded on both
ends. The enforcement is there, bu- he thinks a lot of the problem was the confusion over
the ordinance. He thinks a solution can be put together that is fair to all.
Barry Cade 20318 121 CT SE, He is an avid windsurfer and he goes sailing down at the
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 4 of 8
judgement on it. It was brought back today, hopefully, with some new ideas and some new
thoughts.
To follow upon the case submitted by the first speaker, Lubovich stated its not really based
on the same set of facts. The case has to do with a violation of a condition issued by the
Corps for the development of a boat launch and a permit violation is the reason why it was
invalidated. It was a permit condition violation. The condition being you cannot deny
access to this launch if we let you put it on the river. It was a permit violation which is not
the same as a police power regulation. Turnbull argued that he believes it does have to do
with a permit violation and does cite federal law that says you cannot unfairly restrict or
discriminate against the various classes of watercraft. The two things that he was really
trying to address, one was the federal law that prohibits discrimination and the other is the
possibility that in the two permits there may be language that is common in the Corps of
Engineers which would prohibit discrimination.
Burke Lowrey United States Power Squadrons; Presented a video taped called "Jet
Smart". He proposed to the committee that one of the problems they are having throughout
the State of Washington and throughout the country in general is the fact that there are a
lot of people competing for a lot of public resources and they are trying to get people to
start taking some classes. He would also like to connect with some dealers and possibly
get a course like this sold through the dealerships when the watercraft are sold so people
who are buying can be aware of rules and regulations that pertain. It appears there is a lot
of the equipment being sold without a real understanding of how fast the equipment is and
the rules, regulations and responsibilities that accompany the purchase of that vessel.
And. these are vessels, they have registration numbers and according to the Coast Guard,
these people are supposed to follow the same rules,and regulations as everybody else.
Following a question from the audience as to information on the number of 911 calls,
Connie Epperly asked how many accidents had occurred on the lake. Bennett advised
that he knew of one boating violation, but it didn't identify what the violation was or what
type of boat it was.
Pat Meldv 26718 138 PL SE, Advised that she knew for a fact that there were quite a few
calls made to 911 and they were on days when the police boat was not patrolling the lake.
The personal watercraft were in clear violation of the ordinance and a lot of times as soon
as they saw the patrol officer going to the boat after several calls were made, they would
get off the watercraft and depart. They knew when the police officers were around. A lot of
times personal boaters tried to go around and tell others that they were violating the law
and if the police department came out they would be cited. On the occasions when she
herself called because there was a violation of ordinance, even with her sliding glass doors
shut, all the windows and doors shut, and the comment of the 911 operator was "Oh my
god, what's that noise. It was the jet ski. She stated that she knows its supposed to be a
safety factor, not a noise factor, but when she can't leave windows or doors open because
of the noise, and can't hear people talking on the telephone, she finds it a violation of her
rights. In addition, right now during the winter months when the water table of the lake has
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 3 of 8
season involved personal watercraft. Colorado State Parks - personal watercraft make up
less than 10% of the registered watercraft, but they account for 50% of the states boating
accidents. Collier County, Florida - in February they restricted the use of personal
watercraft, by name, to a minimum distance of 750 feet away from the shore, reducing the
risk to bathers as well as noise. Fort Lauderdale, Florida - in September they banned
personal watercraft from city waterways, residents have complained about the noise and
the wake caused by the small craft and some say they also create a danger to swimmers
and boat traffic. Federal National Parks - in September the Star Tribune in Minneapolis
reports that federal officials announced a moratorium will be imposed on the use of
personal watercraft in the National Park system, stating the moratorium is part a long
overdue review of boating and water recreation rules throughout the National Park systerr
questioning whether personal watercraft are compatible with the rules of some parks. Lake
Tahoe - in June banned personal watercraft with two cycle carbureted engines, citing water
pollution and noise pollution. As you can see, personal watercraft are not just another type
of watercraft, they are frequently separated out from common boats. It is not just some
effort by people on Lake Meridian to discriminate and oppress people who ride jet skis.
They are incredibly dangerous in comparison to regular boats, and the statistics are out
there.
The Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) has published a five point personal
watercraft platform. Crowell advised that they appear to be a very responsible organization
and they have taken to self-governing, self-policing. PWIA members are manufacturers of
jet skis. Number one in their five point plan is boater education. They have developed
classroom materials now used in more than 12 states and national organizations such as
the U.S. Coast Auxiliary. the U.S. Power Squadron, local boating enforcement agencies.
Residents along Lake Meridian encouraged from the start that there be an educational
program that required some sort of certification and proof that you had been trained in
order to be allowed to use a jet ski on that lake. The police department advised they had
no resources to administer such a program. Point number two is noise reduction, an
admission that there is noise problem. PWIA endorses the use of so called shoreline noise
measurement laws as contained in the National Marine Manufacturers Association. This
was another proposal from the Lake Meridian Community Association and the people
around the lake, but again were told the Kent does have the resources to do that. Point
number three is a model PWC legislation, however, Crowell was not able to get a copy in
time for the meeting. Point number four is strong, effective boating law enforcement. The
original times and dates that were put in were to restrict the use of personal watercraft on
that lake to coincide with times when there was adequate law enforcement on the lake.
The proposal presented is to put more jet skis out there when there is no police coverage.
Point number five is balancing the rights to all parties They talk about everyone has to be
represented equally and about how situations have been resolved. He stated that what is
being proposed here is not in concert with what's been recommended by residents from
around the lake and is not in concert with what PWIA would advise you to do.
Bennett clarified that the Committee is not making the proposal. The ordinance was made
up from input from the members around Lake Meridian and the committee is just passing
Minutes from Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 18, 1997
Page 2 of 8
the draft ordinance, made any changes they would like to see and came to the meeting
today with those changes.
At Bennett's request, Roger Lubovich explained what the current law is and what the
proposed ordinance does. Last May, City Council adopted an ordinance that restricts the
use of personal watercraft as follows: personal watercraft may be operated on the lake at
speeds up to and including 8 mph any day except during the hours of darkness. Part two
covers high speed use. Personal watercraft may be operated on the lake in excess of 8
mph only as follows: between the hours of 12 noon and 6:00 p.m. on even numbered days
of the calendar. Lubovich explained that at the last meeting there was discussion about
opening up high speed use on even numbered days, as it was during the summer. The
proposed ordinance would allow personal watercraft to be operated on the lake at speeds
in excess of 8 mph as follows: between the hours 12 noon and 6:00 p.m. on even
numbered days of the calendar throughout the year. This change would authorize high
speed use year round.
Chairman Bennett opened the meeting for public comment, asking that individuals come
forward and identify themselves:
Bill Turnbull 13926 SE 256th. presented information he had researched on a court case
that was heard in Illinois. His interpretation is that the court decision says it is illegal under
federal law. as well as permits issued by the Corps of Engineers, to discriminate against
different types or different classes of personal watercraft, boats or vehicles that are using
those waters. He feels the committee should carefully consider a resolution that would
treat all types of water craft equally, as the ordinance presented here today does not. He
feels that the information he has presented gives all the arguments that were used in the
court case and citations of federal law. He advised that there were two permits issued by
the Corps of Engineers for building the park at Lake Meridian and there may be restrictive
language in those permits also.
Roger Lubovich that he would have to look into the case. but felt there was probably a
different set of circumstances associated with it.
Steve Crowell 26709 148 AV SE; advised that he had information that conflicted with the
information just presented. He had spent time looking through resources that were
available over the internet. There was a lot of information about personal watercraft being
separated out from other types of boats and laws that were totally separate. He feels to
some extent that this situation is the fault of the city for the way that they have implemented
the jet ski laws and the way they have supported them. From the testimony that has been
presented, it is intuitively obvious that jet skis are somewhat more dangerous than boats
and they make lots more noise, but there has been no empirical proof given. From the
information he gathered, Crowell presented the following statistics: State of Pennsylvania -
of the registered boats. 5.5 % in 1996 were personal watercraft; of reported boat accidents.
33% involved personal watercraft; injuries, 31%, and collisions, 61%. State of Michigan
Department of Natural Resources - 45% of the 689 boating incidents reported during 1995
MINUTES FROM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1997
PRESENT: Jim Bennett, Chair Roger Lubovich
Tim Clark
Connie Epperly
Meeting called to order.by Chairman Bennett at 5:05 p.m.
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for Domestic Violence
Roger Lubovich explained that the city's application for funding has been approved through
the Bureau of Justice Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program in the amount $69,402.
Ten percent of the $69,000 would be city matching funds. The grant has been earmarked
for domestic violence response enhancement. It does not supplant any current program It
is a two year grant and they intend to use half of it, approximately $35,000 with the
matching funds for the first year for a domestic violence advocate position to assist the
current domestic violence advocate. For the second year they would possibly continue with
the domestic violence advocate position and also look at police overtime for domestic
violence response. The temporary position has been requested in the budget. but it is a
condition of the grant itself. This has been discussed at previous Operations Committee
meetings. Lubovich further explained that as one of the condition of acceptance of the
grant, they require that a public hearing be held on the dispersement and use of the grant
money, which can be done at committee level. The public hearing has been advertised to
for today's meeting.
Chairman Bennett asked if there were any questions. and then opened the meeting for
public testimony.
Clark asked if there were any members of the public who wished to testify on the issue of
the domestic violence grant monies. No comment from the audience was presented
Tim Clark moved to close the hearing, motion seconded by Connie Epperly Motion passed
unanimously (3-0).
Tim Clark moved to approve acceptance and dispersement of Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant funds as presented and requested the issue be placed on the December 9.
1997, City Council Consent Calendar for approval by full Council motion seconded by
Connie Epperly. Motion passed unanimously (3-0).
Tim Clark thanked Captain Jim Miller of the police department for the work he did on the
grant application.
Ooeration of Personal Watercraft Ordinance
Jim Bennett explained that a copy of the draft ordinance was sent out to those who signed
the mailing list at the last meeting. He was hoping that people got together after reviewing
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 1997
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: UNIFORM AND LINEN SERVICES
2 . SUMICKRY STATEMENT: On December 2 , 1997 , the Operations
Committee recommended award of a three-year contract for
uniform rental and linen laundry services to Unifirst
Corporation for $52 , 295.72 . Bids were opened October 8 , 1997 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Finance Director and technical support
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations Committee (3-0)
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember . ItY,\ moves, Councilmember
�,% l seconds
to authorize the'Mayor to sign a three-year uniform and laundry
service contract with Unifirst Corporation to service the
city' s laundry requirements.
DISCUSSION•
1
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5A
TO: Operations Committee
FROM: May Miller, Finance Director
DATE: November 25, 1997
SUBJECT: Counsel Approval For Mayor to Sign Laundry Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
Request authorization for the Mayor to sign a three year laundry contract with Unifirst
Corporation to service the City of Kent laundry requirements.
PROCESS:
After several committee meetings and extensive selection criteria, Unifirstwas unanimously
recommended by the committee, even though itwas not the lowest bid received.
Based on the following criteria and service requirements our selection was Unifirst
Corporation.
1. Unifirst's quality products were of a higher grade material. The clothing durability was
important, considering the length of the contract.
2. Evaluation of vendors, references, service and delivery abilities were extensively
considered.
3. Responsiveness to the evaluation objectives and committee interview process was
considered.
4. The Collective Bargaining agreement between the City and Teamsters Union was also
taken into consideration.
Detailed evaluation process is attached for your review.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorization for the Mayor to sign a three year laundry contract with Unifirst
Corporation to service the City of Kent laundry requirements.
TO: May Miller, Finance Director
FROM: Tom Vetsch, Customer Services/Purchasing Manager
DATE: November 15, 1997
RECOMMENDATION:
We recently advertised bids for Laundry Services with the bid opening held on October 8,
1997. The bid was for services of uniform rental and cleaning per teamsters contract
effective September 1 , 1997.
We received and evaluated 5 bids based on current services terms and rental cost
associated with staff uniforms. Two lowest bidaers were evaluated by the full committee.
VENDOR WEEKLY COST ANNUAL AMOUNT
1. Overall Laundry 753.54 39,184.08
2. Unifirst Laundry 1,007.61 52,295.72
3. American Linen 1,074.43 55,870.36
4. Cintas Laundry 1,889.06 98,231.12
5. Aramark Laundry 2,098.14 109,103.28
Committee is recommending Unifirst Corporation to service the City of Kent departments.
Overall Laundry was low bidder but was not recommended by the committee based on the
evaluation process.
The term of the Contract shall be three (3) years, commencing on the date of execution.
Full replacement of all uniforms will take place at the (18) months period of the contract.
Page 2
PROCESS:
We recently advertised for Laundry Services by use of an bid process. Committee was
formed with members from the Teamsters Union, Employees Services, Purchasing
Department and Management representatives.
OBJECTIVE:
Vendor should meet current specifications outline in the Bid Proposal and within
Teamsters Collective Barging Agreement.
Evaluate vendor pricing and recognize any hidden costs. Two lowest bidder were
considered.
Check references on all services to be provided.
Check Delivery requirements and service levels.
Meet negotiated terms of the Teamsters and Employee Services Agreement.
Review altematives provided from the vendors and considered benefits to all parties
concerned.
PROCEDURE:
Review union contract negotiations and requirements
Laundry committee formed from union and management
Specification developed for bid
Bid advertisement and response times
Pre-bid conference (5 firms represented)
Evaluation proposal (5 firms submitted)
Interview session by committee (2 lowest bidders)
Reference questions/check firms services
Recommendation by the committee determined
Impacts of decision, budget, facility, staff, services
Recommendation to operations
Council approval
Contract signing by mayor
Vendor measuring, ordering and delivery.
Change out from current company to new vendor
Follow up on overall process with 60 days
Kent City Council Meeting
Date December 9 . _1997
Category Bids
1. SUBJECT: GREEN RIVER NURSERY MODULAR CLASSROOM/OFFICE/
WORKROOM
2 . , SUMMARY STATEMENT: The bid opening for this project was
held on November 26, 1997 , with three bids received. The low
bid was submitted by 21st Century Builders LLC in the amount of
$84, 768.82 . The Engineer's estimate was $97, 696.56.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the
contract be awarded to 21st Century Builders LLC.
3 . EXHIBITS: Public Works Director memorandum
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Director of Public Works
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc. )
5. UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember N i moves, Councilmember t seconds
that the Green River Nursery Modular Classroom/Office/Workroom
Structure contract be awarded to 21st Century Builders LLC for
the bid amount of $84 , 768 . 82 .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 5B
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORDS
December 3, 1997
TO: Mavor &City Council
/
FROM: Don Wickstrom� )UIN�
RE: Green River Nursery Modular Classroom/Office/Worlcroom Structure
Bid opening for this project was held on November 26, 1997 with 3 bids received.
The low bid was submitted by 21 st Century Builders LLC in the amount of
$84,768.82. The Engineer's estimate was $97,696.56.
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the Green River Nursery
Modular ClassroonVOffice/Worluoom Structure contract be awarded to 21 st Century
Builders LLC for the bid amount of $84,768.82.
BID SUMMARY
21 st Century Builders LLC S 84,768.82
Clements Bros. S 118,164.40
MDM, Inc. $168,900.00
Engineer's Estimate S 97,696.56
MOTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds that the Green
River Nursery Modular Classroom/Office/Worlaoom Structure contract be awarded
to 21 st Century Builders LLC for the bid amount of S84,768.82.
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
R E P O R T S
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING COMMITTEE
E. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
F. PARKS COMMITTEE
G. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pending Litigation
BRENDA JACOBER
CITY of To (Please put in Council agenda
packet)
(, Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/F.iX(2S3) 350-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
November 18, 1997
Planning Committee Members Present City Attomev's Office
Tim Clark Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney
Jon Johnson
Judy Woods
Planning Committee 'Members Absent
Leona Orr. Chair
Planninz Staff Other
James P. Harris. Planning Director Eric Wells. Polygon Northwest
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Gary Young, Polygon Northwest
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
;Margaret Porter. Administrative Assistant
Councilmember Jon Johnson opened the meeting. He remarked that he would be Acting Chair as
Leona Orr was absent.
PL-aNNED UNIT DEVELOP\IENT (Kevin O'Neill)
Kevin O'Neill. Senior Planner. Planning Department. reminded the Committee that this is a regulator%
review request made by a private citizen, Polygon Northwest. He stated that in April the Planning
Committee reviewed this proposal and decided to have the request heard by the Land Cse and
Plannins Board. The Land L�se and Planrun(2 Board held a pubiic hearing and recommended approval
of the Planned unit De%eiopment (PC:D) request to the Cii-, Council in July with amendments as
listed in the memo to the City Council dated August 19. 1997. In August. City Council requested that
this item be sent to the City Council Planning Committee for further review. However, this item was
delayed to allow the applicants to meet with surrounding property owners. He reminded the
Committee that the applicant is asking for the change for a specific site-, however, if this request is
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th Avenue Fence
Downtown Strategic.fiction Plan
"I).,h \,I-%( I iOI -II :C\,' 'S ViIfIAL,F0 Anon:
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
November 18, 1997
Page 2
approved it will be a change in the Zoning Code for the entire City. Basically, the amendment is for
three things; one, to allow PUDs in single family zoning districts, but only on parcels of 100 acres or
more in size; second, that the PUD would allow attached units: and third, to allow a PUD master plan
process so the project could be approved conceptually �rtd then built in phases. One change that was
made by the Land Use and Planning Broad was that the phasing would take place in 7 years and not
10.
Planning Director Jim Harris commented the Committee is discussing a policy amendment to the
Zoning Code and not a specific site.
Councilmember Woods asked that if this was approved, could a company could come in and make
an application to construct a PUD.
Mr. O'Neill replied affirmatively. Furthermore, if an application was submitted there would be
Specific steps that would be taken to consider the request. The applicant would be required to conduct
a community meeting prior to the public hearing. The application would be reviewed under SEP,A.
and there would be a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. In addition, there would be notice
to adjoining property owners of the public hearing. Furthermore, in some case, if the underlying
zoning use was different, the reque�- would go to the Tull City Council for final review and approval.
Mr. O'Neill suggested that the motion be the same as that recommended by the Land Use and Planning
t 19, 1997 with conditions and with the addition that under permitted uses, that if
Board on Augus
dwelling units were to be attached in a PUD. they would have to be condominiums. Mr. O'Neill
commented that the word "condominium" would be a defined term in the Zoning Code.
Tim Clark MOVED and Judy Woods SECOND the above motion.
Tom Brubaker, assistant City Attorney. commented that .he motion shouid also amend Se.non
15.04.080 of the Code. He expiatned that this amendment would allow the City_ Attomey's Office to
review the proposal on the condominium and maintenance changes to the Zoning Code.
Judv Woods asked if Tim Clark would accept the "friendly amendment" Tim Clark accepted.
Tim Clark asked if the housing would be owner-occupied.
Eric Wells, representing Polygon Northwest, commented that the housing developed would be sold
i1tr. Wells stated that vlr. Gary Young and himself have already met with the
as owner-occupied.
neighbors regarding this project. Polygon Northwest realizes that if this PUD action was approved
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th,4venue Fence
Downtown Strategic.-action Plan
Citv Council Planning Committee iVlinutes
November 18, 1997
Page 3
by City Council, they would need to hold another community meeting and then o through the
requirements outlined.
Councilmember Woods commented that changing this policy doesn't necessarily mean that pre lect
is currently being planned. Ms. Woods remarked that making this change indicates that there is a
on indi in the wa idual
v inm
of thinking that everyone wo
change uld have a single family resident to a change that more people will be living condominium-style hous ,
property .
Acting Chair Johnson asked for a vote. Motion carried.
PROPOSED 108TH AVENUE FENCE (SUMMIT APARTMENTSI
ttornev, informed the Committee Tom Brubaker Assistant
a st t application to con tru
tplication cta perimeter f a fence on the p opert,, I li �eapplic:ition
complex hassubmitted is being processed.
Councilmember Woods commented that there is a posting, on the site that a fence %\1, he constnlc,cd
with an access gate.
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
No action was taken on this item. It will be heard at the next Cite Council Plann,:n" Committee
meeting.
Councilmember Woods asked that there is some wad to designate what type of mulu:.ut:il% hou<,<<
is being built, whether it is condominiums, senior housing or regular multifamily
Mr. Harris commented that the senior housing has been identified and named the �`ttcs that arehwlt
on the valley floor.
There followed a general discussion concerning
the construction of owner-occupied multi family sty Ie
housing in the area.
The next meeting will be held on December 9. 1997 at 3 30 P%l.
ADJOURNivlENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:43) PM.
Planned Unit Development
Proposed 108th,4venue Fence
Downtown Strategic action Plan