HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Agenda - 01/19/1999 .............. _.__ . ..
� k
('
Colty of Kent a.
CityCou MCIAW
:
A Ave,
$jenda
CITY OF LU
f
Ii
` Il
i
f
a
Mayor Jim hip I11
CouncilnVM WS s
Leona Orr, Presi0ent
a E' Sandy Amodt Connie Z-pperi'Y
Tom Brotherton Judy . I ds �
f �
j Tim Clark Rico Yin ling
7
January 4 9, 1 9
�11111N
Office of tine pity 101* ,
I'I' 'aq''I�:I•' ,I:i�� ;. I� I �'���I':�'�'•' P'• •1 i; ii ail � li, ;, � �
.. . .... ................
Ililll�
CITY OF=0
SUMMARY AGENDA
�dVICTA KENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor Jim White January 19, 1999
Council Chambers
7 : 00 p.m.
MAYOR: Jim White COUNCILMEMBERS : Leona Orr, President
Sandy Amodt Tom Brotherton Tim Clark
Connie Epperly Judy Woods Rico Yingling
*******************************************************************
1 . CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2 . ROLL CALL
3 . CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC
4 . PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proclamation - Jaycee Week
B. Proclamation - Groundhog Job Shadow Day
C. Mrs . Kent Presentation
D. Kent Chamber of Commerce Food World 198 Report
5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6 . CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes
B. Approval of Bills
C . Y2K Consultant Contract - Approval
D. LID 340 , S . 196/200 Street Corridor Project, Final
Assessment Roll - Ordinance 3 u}'3'&
E. Skyview Warehouse No. 6 - Bill of Sale
F. 1998 Mill Creek Fish Habitat - Accept as Complete
7 . OTHER BUSINESS
A. Kay Preliminary Plat
p B. Erin Glade Preliminary Plat
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments
D Shoreline Master Program
E. Transportation Funding Alternatives Task Force
8 . BIDS
A. Development Services & Information Services Tenant
Improvement Project
(continued next page)
....
SUMMARY AGENDA CONTINUED
9 . REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
10 . REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
11 . CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
12 EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Property Acquisition
B. Potential Litigation
13 . 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 .
..._................._ ;o
1
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Citizens wishing to address the Council will, at this time,
make known the subject of interest, so all may be properly
heard.
A) FROM COUNCIL, ADMINISTRATION, OR STAFF
B) FROM THE PUBLIC
..................... ._
............._..
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A) Proclamation - Jaycee Week
B) Proclamation - Groundhog Job Shadow Day
C) Mrs . Kent Presentation
D) Kent Chamber of Commerce Food World 198 Report
............ .. .
CONSENT CALENDAR
6 . City Council Action: f
Councilmember 42 _ , / moves, Councilmember
seconds that Consent Calendar Items A through F be approved.
Discussion rn
Action
6A. Approval of Minutes .
Approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of
January 5, 1999 .
6B. Approval of Sills .
Approval of payment of the bills received through December 15
and paid on December 15, 1998 after auditing by the Operations
Committee on January 5, 1999 .
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/15/98 209752-210047 $ 635, 668 . 55
12/15/98 210048-210469 2 , 117 , 063 . 51
$2 , 752 , 932 . 06
Approval of checks issued for vouchers :
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/31/98 210470-210800 $ 765, 811 . 28
12/31/98 210801-211299 2 , 711 , 745 . 71
$3 , 477, 556 . 99
(Continued)
_..... _.. sil
I
CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)
Approval of checks issued for payroll for November 16 through
November 30 and paid on December 4, 1998 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/4/98 Checks 232041-232384 $ 297, 056 . 98
12/4/98 Advices 73222-73922 940 , 233 . 36
$1, 237, 290 . 36
Approval of checks issued for the payroll for December 1
through December 15 and paid on December 18 , 1998 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
12/18/98 Checks 232385-232681 $ 256, 134 . 32
12/18/98 Advices 73923-74506 787 , 554 . 04
$1, 043 , 688 .36
Approval of checks issued for the payroll for December 16
through December 31 and paid on January 5, 1999 :
Date Check Numbers Amount
1/5/99 Checks 232682-232970 $ 235, 572 .41
1/5/99 Advices 74507-75060 762 , 331 . 31
$ 997, 903 . 72
Council Agenda
Item No . 6 A-B
Kent, Washington
January 5, 1999
Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at
7 : 00 p.m. by Mayor White. Present : Councilmembers Amodt,
Brotherton, Clark, Epperly, Orr, Woods and Yingling, Operations
Director/Chief of Staff McFall , City Attorney Lubovich, Police
Chief Crawford, Fire Chief Angelo, Planning Director Harris,
Public Works Director Wickstrom, Finance Director Miller, Parks
Director Hodgson, and Employee Services Director Viseth.
Approximately 35 people were at the meeting.
CHANGES TO A citizen asked that Kentview be added to the
AGENDA agenda. It was added as Other Business Item 7B.
PUBLIC Police Department Accreditation Presentation
COMMUNICATIONS Lt . Glenn Woods, Police Administration Services,
announced that three outside assessors from the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies will be in Kent from January 23 through
27, 1999, to do an on-site inspection of the
Police Department to ensure compliance with 436
national standards . He noted that the Kent
Police Department is one of only five agencies in
the state that is nationally accredited. He
explained that there will be a public forum on
January 25 at 7 : 00 p .m. in the Council Chambers,
and invited the public and Council to attend and
provide input . He added that there will be a
phone-in time on January 26 from 1 : 00-5 : 00 p .m.
and encouraged citizens to call 253-520-5302 with
their opinions of the Police Department .
E=lovee of the Month. Mayor White announced
that Carol Storm of the Public Works Department
has been selected as Employee of the Month for
January. Public Works Director Wickstrom stated
that Ms . Storm has been with the City for nearly
twenty years and that she does an outstanding job
and is very helpful to citizens . He said she is
an asset to the department and offered his
congratulations . Mayor White presented Ms . Storm
with the Employee of the Month plaque .
1
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
PUBLIC introduction of Mayor' s Rea=ointee. Mayor White
COMMUNICATIONS asked that his reappointment of Robert Brehm to
the Bicycle Advisory Board be confirmed by the
Council under the Consent Calendar. He also
announced that he has asked Connie Epperly, Chair
of the Public Safety Committee, to serve as a
task force chair to look into the need for
bicycle helmets, and encouraged anyone who is
interested in serving on this task force to
contact Ms . Epperly. Epperly thanked the Mayor,
Council and city for the support shown for this
project . She noted that the first job of the
task force will be to plan and implement a
citywide bicycle rodeo.
CONSENT ORR MOVED to approve Consent Calendar Items A
CALENDAR through K. Brotherton seconded and the motion
carried.
MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6A)
Acflroval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of
the regular Council meeting of December 8, 1998 .
HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6J)
SANITATION Fox Ridge Addition No. 1. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale for Fox Ridge Addition #1 submitted by
Lakeridge Development Inc . for continuous opera-
tion and maintenance of 310 feet of watermain,
292 feet of sanitary sewer, 320 feet of street
improvements and 333 feet of storm sewers, and
release of bonds after expiration period, as
recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 119th Avenue Southeast &
Southeast 269th Street .
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6K)
Creekside Public Storage. ACCEPTANCE of the bill
of sale for Creekside Public Storage submitted by
Public Storage Inc . for continuous operation and
maintenance of 650 feet of watermain, 230 feet of
street improvements and 15 feet of storm sewers,
and release of bonds after expiration period, as
recommended by the Public Works Director. The
project is located at 7421 S . 180th Street .
2
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
TRANSPORTATION (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6C)
Interavency Aare rdina 277th Corridor.
AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the proposed
interagency agreement with Auburn regarding the
277th Corridor Project . This agreement clarifies
and allocates the various obligations between the
cities of Auburn and Kent for the remainder of
Kent ' s 277th Corridor Project and for Auburn' s
proposed 277th St . Project (Auburn Way North to
West Valley Highway) . The Agreement addresses
environmental and future development impacts and
mitigation, controls future access to the pro-
jects, specifies boundaries to integrate and
control traffic signalization, allocates
obligations for future roadway expansion, and
establishes payment responsibility.
(CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6I)
S. 200th Street Groan River Bridge. ACCEPT the
S . 200th Street Green River Bridge contract as
complete and release retainage to Mowat
'L✓ Construction upon standard releases from the
State, and release of any liens, as recommended
by the Public Works Director. The original
contract amount was $2 , 698, 855 . 77 . The final
construction cost was $2 , 685 , 628 . 11 .
ZONING CODE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6D)
AMENDMENT Ketola Recaulatory Review Zoning Code Amendment
ZCA-98-6 . ADOPTION of Ordinance No. 3435
amending the M-2 zoning district to allow dart
playing facilities as principally permitted uses,
as approved by the Council on December 8, 1998 .
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6E)
Kay Preliminary Plat SU-98-10 . SET January 19,
1999, as the date for a public meeting to con-
sider the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of
approval with conditions for the application of
Kay Preliminary Plat by Tom O ' Connor.
3
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
PLATS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6F)
grin alad* Preliminary Plat SII-9$-6 . SET
January 19, 1999, as the date for a public
meeting to consider the Hearing Examiner' s
recommendation of approval with conditions for
the application of Erin Glade Preliminary Plat
by Shamrock Development Corp.
COMPREHENSIVE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6G)
PLAN im Invos gut C2Mr•heasiye Plan And Zoning
Amendments. ADOPTION of Ordinance Nos 3436 and
3437 relating to TM Investment Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Amendments, as approved by
Council motion at its last regular meeting. The
Applicant has met the condition for rezone
(dedicating necessary right-of-way) , and it is
now appropriate to complete the comprehensive
plan amendments and rezone approved by the Land
Use Planing Board and Council .
PLANNED UNIT (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7B)
.DEVELOPMENT (ADDED AT THE REQUEST OF A CITIZEN)
Kentview P.U.D. Rick Harpster, 4453 S . 170th,
SeaTac, said that the Determination of Non-
Significance on this project should be rescinded
and looked at differently in light of information
gathered by concerned citizens . He noted that
the motorcycle club which he belongs to has been
in existence for over 30 years on the site, and
that it has been understood that the club would
always be there because of the landfill above and
the contamination leaching out of the landfill .
He stated that the location has been designated a
Superfund site, and expressed concern that family
homes would be built there . He said that the DNS
was based upon erroneous information. Karen
Hills, 6306A Webster Way, Mukilteo, stated that
they are not blaming the City for not doing their
job, but that there is information which was not
made available . Regarding the Environmental
Checklist, she said that all of the property
shown on the map of the development is not
legally identified, and that there is no tax
4
Kent City Council Minutes January 5 , 1999
PLANNED UNIT identification number or legal description of the
DEVELOPMENT ten-acre lot currently owned by Jolly Rogers.
She added that not all sources of environmental
information have been disclosed, including one
which states "The most significant environmental
impact is the proximity to the Kent Highlands
Landfill . " . She noted that there are endangered
species in the area and that the Green River is a
critical habitat for salmon. She said that Item
7 on Page 6 neglects to disclose the fact that
environmental health hazards including exposure
to toxic chemicals are possible when excavating
dirt, and concluded by saying that the decision
was based on erroneous information.
Scott Roper, 106 Hawthorne Avenue, Pacific,
expressed concern about the habitat, and noted
that in the last 20 years some homes were removed
due to concerns about the property. He said
people are moving because of the development and
that the area is being used for recreation. He
ti.✓ asked that the issue be revisited. Mayor White
asked what type of permit the motorcycle group
has to operate on that site, and Roper stated
that the property has been leased from the Jolly
Rogers, Inc . but he is unsure about a permit .
Curt Barber, 30845 55th Avenue South, Auburn,
said he is concerned about chemicals leaching
through the groundwater, and said that when trees
and 40, 000 truckloads of dirt are removed, what-
ever is in the ground will be stirred up and will
cause a significant environmental impact which
deserves to be looked into further. Karen
Tiffany, 4807 S . 216th, Kent, noted that she
spoke at the October 6 , 1998 , meeting regarding
traffic concerns, adequate storm water drainage
and contamination of water. She said that the
EPA site summary stated that leachate seeps were
noted on the east side of the landfill and that
levels of toxicity in the groundwater is con-
firmed to be above allowable limits and suspected
in the drinking water. She urged the Council to
reconsider the DNS . Darlene Strickland, 21626
5
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
PLANNED UNIT 35th Avenue South, SeaTac, suggested that cities
DEVELOPMENT coordinate transportation developments . She was
assured that cities do work together on such
projects . Diane Green, 21839 Frager Road, Kent,
said that the City of Seattle tested their well
periodically and that they have been assured
verbally that everything is fine and there is no
danger of leaching or problems with the well , but
that she does not feel safe and would like to
have it looked at . William Anderson, 918 28th
Street N.E . , Auburn, explained that he is a
licensed well-driller, motocrosser and club
member, and said that water for the club has
always been an issue. He agreed that the issue
needs to looked at again. Mike Kegley, 26220
193rd Place S .E. , Covington, a member of the
motorcycle club, said the area is a greenbelt
and that to say that what is being done is non-
significant is a very bold statement . Dan
McCarthy, 4018 9th Street Place S.E. , Puyallup,
clubmember for over 45 years, said the proposed
development is unbelievable, and noted that there
is wildlife in the area, as well as trees as old
as 100 years . He added that there are high
tension leads in the area and the property is
environmentally sensitive . He asked the Council
to save the property. Jim Anderson, 922 N. 84th,
Seattle, said he had submitted a handwritten
document in August asking about traffic and
noting that the master plan submittal and staff
report of August 5 , 1998 , contain incorrect in-
formation, that he had been to the counter again
seeking information, and that he has not received
a reply from the city as to whether a committee
would be formed. He noted that there is no pro-
perty tax number on the EIS, and read the legal
description. He said a committee is warranted
because the scope and scale has been misrepre-
sented.
Mayor White referred this matter to the SEPA
Official, Planning Director Jim Harris, and asked
him to come back to Council with a report within
6
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
PLANNED UNIT 30 days; the City Attorney recommended letting
DEVELOPMENT the Official determine how to present the
information. The Mayor asked citizens who
have documentation to deliver or send it to
Mr. Harris. Upon Amodt' s question, the City
Attorney explained that the SEPA Official
determines whether the issue should be reviewed,
and suggested that any material be submitted
promptly, as the Official will need time to
review it .
Eric Wells, representing Polygon NW, 4030 Lake
Washington Boulevard, Kirkland, stated that they
have studied the site for a number of years,
that their consultants have recently conducted
reviews, and that they will work with Mr. Harris
and staff in preparation of a report .
ORR MOVED to make the materials submitted this
evening a part of the record. Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
Epperly noted that no one was heard from during
the eighteen months of environmental review.
Amodt suggested that Councilmembers visit the
site, and said that the City can help with some
issues and that Polygon is currently working with
the motorcycle club on an agreement . Mayor White
suggested that the motorcycle club find out
whether they are legal to be there before they
sign an agreement, as he is not aware of any
zoning for motorcycle tracks . Orr pointed out
that the DNS has conditions, including a review
before each section is built, and the City
Attorney confirmed that there are 34 conditions .
TECHNOLOGY (OTHER BUSINESS - ITEM 7A)
PLAN E-mail Design and Imalementation Contract One
of the objectives of the Technology Plan was to
provide the City with a modern e-mail system.
The purpose of this contract is to retain the
services of a consulting firm to design and
implement a new e-mail system for the city.
7
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
TECHNOLOGY Woods noted that this matter was considered at
PLAN the Operations Committee meeting this date and
that the intent is to have the system in opera-
tion by June. She MOVED to authorize the Mayor
to sign a contract with Sarcom (Novagres) for the
design and implementation of Microsoft Exchange .
Orr seconded.
Clark noted that the system will result in
greater sharing between departments and is part
of a great investment made to update systems .
Upon questions from Councilmembers, Network
Manager Joe Lorenz explained that they are
looking at remote access in conjunction with
the e-mail system, that Councilmembers will have
individual e-mail addresses and that a use policy
will be drafted.
The motion then carried. Mayor White thanked the
Council for their support .
PARKS & (BIDS - ITEM 8A)
RECREATION West Hill Skate Park. Five bids were received on
December 16 , 1998 , for construction of the West
Hill Skate Park. T. F. Sahli Construction was the
lowest bidder at $94 , 480 plus tax and was under
the engineer' s estimate of $98 , 543 . Staff recom-
mends entering into an agreement with the low
bidder.
EPPERLY MOVED to enter into an agreement with
T. F . Sahli Construction for the West Hill Skate
Park project in the amount of $94 , 480 , plus
Washington State Sales Tax. Woods seconded and
the motion carried.
(BIDS - ITEM 8B)
Russell Road Park Bleachers. Two written bids
were received for the purchase and installation
of nine bleacher units at Russell Road Park. The
lowest bid by M.V. P . was under the staff estimate
of $40 , 000 . The Parks Director explained that
the $40 , 000 estimate is for material only.
8
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
PARKS & Materials Materials & Installation
RECREATION M.V.P. Inc. $38,150.00 $49,570.00
SiteLines, inc. $48,757.00 $54, 807.00
Staff recommends entering into an agreement with
the low bidder.
WOODS MOVED to enter into an agreement with
M.V. P. Inc . for the Russell Road Park Bleachers
project in the amount of $49, 570, plus Washington
State Sales Tax. Epperly seconded and the motion
carried.
FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6B)
Approval of Bills . No information available
due to cancellation of the December 15 , 1998
Operations Committee meeting.
APPOINTMENTS (CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEM 6H)
Kent Bicycle Advisory Board Reappointment.
CONFIRMATION of the Mayor' s reappointment of
Robert Brehm to continue serving as a member of
the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. His new term
will continue until 12/31/2000 .
REPORTS Council President. Orr announced that the
Suburban Cities dinner will be held in Auburn on
January 13 and that the 1999 City Legislative
Action Conference will be held in Olympia on
February 24 and 25 . She asked Councilmembers who
are interested in attending these events to
contact the Council Secretary.
Operations Committee. Woods noted that the
next meeting will be held at 3 : 30 p.m. on
January 19th.
Public Safety Co=ittee. Epperly noted that the
committee will meet next on January 12th at
5 : 00 P .M.
Public Works and Planning Committee Clark noted
that the next committee meeting will be held on
Wednesday, January 20th, at 3 : 30 p.m. , due to the
9
. ......... ...
Kent City Council Minutes January 5, 1999
REPORTS holiday on Monday, January 18th. He urged
Councilmembers to review their material on the
Suburban Cities staffing changes .
Parks Committee. Woods announced that the Parks
Committee will meet on January 19th at 4 : 30 p.m.
EXECUTIVE At 8 : 05 the meeting recessed to an executive
SESSION session of approximately thirty minutes .
The meeting reconvened at 8 : 55 p .m.
Labor Necotiations. EPPERLY MOVED that the
Council authorize the Mayor to sign a three-year
labor agreement with the Kent Police Officers
Association, Officers and Sergeants Unit, effec-
tive January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001,
subject to approval as to form by the City
Attorney' s Office. Woods seconded and the motion
carried.
Proverty Acauisition WOODS MOVED to authorize
the purchase of the Evans property for $165, 000
plus closing costs for a future neighborhood
park. Epperly seconded and the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8 : 58 p .m.
Brenda Jaco er CMC
City Clerk
10
. ...................... .................._Y__
�1W
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19, 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: Y2K CONSULTANT CONTRACT - APPROVAL
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: Approval of a contract extension with
Steve Schopfer through his company, Coda Consulting Group, for
Year 2000 project work, subject to City Attorney approval , as
recommended by the Operations Committee .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from I . S . Director and Contract
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Operations 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. 6C
Date: December 23, 1998
To: Council Operations Committee �/���
From: Marty Mulholland, Director of Information 3ervlces�" +r
Re: Y2K Consultant Contract—Approval
Background:
Late in 1997,we began the necessary inventory process of City computers, software,and equipment for the
purposes of tracking our Year 2000 position. I initially used a temporary clerical employee who worked with
department representatives and mailed surveys to system suppliers and City vendors.
It became apparent to me that with the complexities and potential liabilities associated with Year 2000
problems that we needed to bring in a more experienced contractor to work on this issue.
Steve Schopfer has been a municipal I.S. Director in this state and also in Alaska at a Telecommunications
company. He has a background that suited this project quite well,especially given the wealth of contacts he
has in this state. Mr. Schopfer is the principal of Coda Consulting Group,Inc. Mr. Schopfer's company is
assisting several other cities and the AWC with Year 2000 projects.
Mr. Schopfer began working as our Year 2000 consultant in July. He has extensively updated our records.
He has represented the City at a number of key Year 2000 events. He has worked with the AWC to
coordinate meetings with a number of Cities in the region for the purpose of sharing information and strategy
around the Year 2000 issue.
r.✓
Budget:
The Technology Plan has$400,000 identified to support our Year 2000 issues. To date approximately
$43,000 has been spent on Mr. Schopfer's services and we've also charged a number of minor and
unanticipated equipment upgrades for Year 2000 compliance to this part of the Technology Plan.
Mr. Schopfer's billing rate to us is$90/hour. We established in the Contract that he give his top priority to
the City of Kent rather than to other agencies. My estimate at this point is that we will spend approximately
$120,000 for Mr. Schopfer's services in total.
As part of our agreement with Mr. Schopfer, all records for the City's Year 2000 project are kept on City
equipment. Mr. Schopfer uses office space in the I.S. area. In order to minimize costs, we have used
temporary/clerical staff within the I.S. department to assist with mailings,etc.
Recommendation:
I believe that Mr. Schopfer has helped shape our Year 2000 project and has created sufficient documentation
to provide us with protection. I've attached a copy of our original contract with Mr. Schopfer. I've also
attached a summary of our Year 2000 project work to date.
Motion:
I move to approve a contract extension with Steve Schopfer through his company, Coda Consulting Group
yr,/for Year 2000 project work, subject to City Attorney Approval.
December 22, 1998
Year 2000 Strategic Update
Many news stories have surfaced recently about the potential worldwide issue facing virtually
every community and company that uses a computer system as we approach the millennium.
Specifically,the concern deals with the handling of dates that are represented by a two-digit year
instead of four(i.e., `98' versus '1998'). Today's computerized systems perform many
calculations and comparisons on dates which, if based on a two-digit year,could produce erroneous
results should they read '00' instead of`2000' when processed.
The City of Kent is taking the Year 2000 Challenge very seriously and has been working since
1997 to solve the problems that it presents for delivery of basic municipal services. The City
equipment we are testing has grown beyond desktop computers to include all date sensitive
equipment and systems. A Year 2000 Project Team is working to address the challenge on a
Citywide basis.
Awareness
Beginning with the October 1998 issue, our City newsletter began informing and updating Kent
citizens,partners and resident businesses on our progress in resolving the City's Year 2000 issues.
We are continuing to publish updates in the newsletter. We are also planning 2 utility bill inserts
for 1999. Awareness is crucial to the success of all Year 2000 projects. In an effort to minimize
panic, the City's Emergency Management team is working with the State Emergency Management
department on a program that will send a coordinated and consistent Year 2000 awareness message
throughout the State.
Compliance
The City of Kent defines Year 2000 compliance as follows:
1. Computer and computer-related systems that will be used prior to, during, and after
calendar Year 1999 and 2000 will operate without error relating to date data.
2. Software and applications will not abnormally end or provide materially invalid or
incorrect results because of date data, especially between centuries.
3. No valid value for current date will cause material interruptions in desired
operations.
4. All manipulations of time-related data (dates, duration, days of the week, etc.) will
produce the desired results for all date values.
5. Date elements in interfaces and data storage will permit specifying century to
eliminate date ambiguity. Alternatively, for any date element represented without
century, the correct century will be unambiguous for all manipulations involving
that element.
These standards apply to both computer hardware and software systems and any City owned
devices, which contain embedded chips.
Inventory
We have conducted a citywide inventory of all computerized equipment and machinery that could
be affected by the year 2000 computing challenge.This inventory of over 700 items includes,but is
not limited to, all hardware platforms, system level software, application software, life safety
systems and embedded chips in facilities, water, wastewater, sewer and storm systems, traffic
systems. Police and Fire systems.
The City is working with the Association of Washington Cities,Municipal Research Service
Center and a core group of other jurisdiction on coordinating our efforts sutrotmding the issue of
embedded chip inventory compliance. The City has been acting as a lead agency in these efforts.
Part of this collaboration includes contributing to a secure combined database of embedded chip
devices at MRSC. AWC, with the assistance from the State will be researching these devices in an
effort to shorten the research time and duplication of effort involved in investigating our inventory.
As of this date we have researched approximately 15% of our inventory and have not identified any
items that will seriously impact our ability to conduct the City's business.
Testing
In the area of computer hardware platforms, system software and application software we are
replacing or remediating the majority of our key systems. We are striving to make all of our
desktop applications compliant by the end of the first quarter of 1999. Our minicomputer
applications, which include Payroll,Personnel,Finance Management,Police,Jail,Utility Billing
and Business Licensing, are scheduled to be replaced or modified. Testing is scheduled to begin
on these systems in February 1999 with an anticipated completion date of August 1999.
Contingency Plans
Contingency plans to ensure continued delivery of municipal services are important to the Year
2000 effort. We are developing these plans in the early phases of the project. The City's
Emergency Management team is working with our Year 2000 Coordinator and the State's
Emergency Management Department on preparing both the City staff and the public for the
l/1/2000 deadline.
Vendors
A number of the products and services that our vendors provide are date dependent. We have }
�..� contacted all of our vendors regarding the Year 2000 Challenge and have inquired about the
dependability we can place on all facets of their products and services. In addition to stand-alone
items,we need to be sure that outside systems are still able to interface with Kent systems. Vendor
compliance and system interfacing are important elements to consider for making the City of Kent
Year 2000 compliant.
The City has identified 370 vendors with whom we do a significant amount of business. In
February of 1998 we mailed Year 2000 compliance survey requests to them. As of this date we
have received a response from 200 of them. Of that number 120 stated that they would be
compliant. We are in the process of sending out a second mailing to the remainder.
We have identified approximately 45 of the 370 as providers of critical service to the City. These
include; Puget Sound Energy(PSE),US Bank,US West,Valley Comm and all Washington
State agencies. We have endeavored to contact these mission critical vendors directly.
In October, Mayor White drafted a letter that was subsequently signed by 10 other mayors and sent
to PSE questioning their readiness. Based upon PSE responses and meetings with have had with
Tava/Beck(PSE's Year 2000 Consultant),and the Washington State department of Emergency
Services PSE still has work to do. They are in the assessment and inventory phase of their project.
We are worlang closely with PSE and are receiving regular updates from their local government
representative and Year 2000 project team.
The Finance department has met with US Bank, who performs all of the City's ACH and wire
transfers. They have verbally assured us of their compliance and are following it up in writing.
We have also drafted a series of questions regarding their upstream suppliers and are awaiting their
reply to these specific concerns.
We have been working with AWC and monthly with many cities in the region. We are
coordinating a joint meeting with US West and our cellular suppliers. This is another example of
how we are trying to work with other jurisdictions to obtain more detailed responses from the
larger vendors in our State.
In a meeting with ValleyComm, two weeks ago, they assured us of their ability to maintain their
operations through the 1/l/2000 time period and beyond.
We are continuing to contact our other key vendors and have them provide us with a complete
picture of their compliance effort above and beyond the standard response letter.
Due Diligence
In order to respond to inquiries, The City's Legal department has developed a series of documents
outlining the City position on the Year 2000 issue. These include response letters to vendors,
citizens and language that is being included in all new contracts and agreements involving the City.
The City's Year 2000 Coordinator is recording all incoming and outgoing request for information
and is the focal point for all inventory and testing efforts. The City's Risk Manager has reviewed
all insurance polices and is working closely with WCIA on their Year 2000 project.
Conclusion
The City of Kent is diligently working to ensure a smooth transition into the Year 2000 for our
citizens, resident businesses and business partners. Our goal is to identify all Year 2000 related
problems that could affect the government of the City of Kent, and correct them by August of
1999. The final months of 1999 will be spent on contingency planning and preparation and
applying late software patches and fixes.
CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF KENT AND STEPHEN SCHOPFER .
THIS AGREEMENT is made this t9 h day of July . 1998, by and between the CITY OF
KENT, a Washington municipal corporation(hereinafter the "City"), and SigQhen Schafer .
organized under the laws of the State of Washington, located and doing business at P.O. Box
1538, Woodland_ WA 98674 (hereinafter the "Consultant").
Recitals
1. The City is presently engaged in a Year 2000 2renared1= and remediation
2Mgrarn and desires that the Consultant perform services necessary to provide consultation and
advice to the City for Year 2000 remediation .
2. The Consultant agrees to perform the services more specifically described in the
Scope of Work, dated July 9 . 19S$, including any addenda thereto as of the effective date of
this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A which is incorporated herein by this reference as if
fully set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, it is
agreed by and between the parties as follows:
I. Descrigtion of Work
Consultant shall perform all work as described in Exhibit A.
H. Payment
A. The City shall pay the Consultant an amount based on time and materials for the services
described in Section I herein. The Consultant's billing rates and expected hours of service
shall be as delineated in Exhibit A.
B. The Consultant shall submit monthly payment invoices to the City after such services
have been performed. The City shall pay the full amount of an invoice within thirty(30)
days of receipt. If the City objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify
the Consultant of the same within fifteen(15) days from the date of receipt and shall pay
that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every
effort to settle the disputed portion.
C. In the event the Scope of Work is modified or changed so that more or less work or time
�,, is required by the Consultant, and such modification is reached by mutual agreement of
the parties to this contract,the payment for services and maximum contract amount shall
be adjusted accordingly upon agreement of the parties.
III. Relatlonshin of Parties
The parties intend that an independent contractor-employer relationship will be created
by this Agreement. As Consultant is customarily engaged in an independently established trade
which encompasses the specific service provided to the City hereunder,no agent, employee,
representative or sub-contractor of Consultant shall be or shall be deemed to be the employee,
agent,representative or sub-contractor of the City. In the performance of the work, Consultant is
an independent contractor with the ability to control and direct the performance and details of the
work, the City being interested only in the results obtained under this Agreement. None of the
benefits provided by the City to its employees, including,but not limited to, compensation,
insurance, and unemployment insurance are available from the City to the employees, agents,
representatives, or sub-contractor of the Consultant. Consultant will be solely and entirely
responsible for its acts and for the acts of Consultant's agents, employees, representatives and
sub-contractors during the performance of this Agreement. The City may, during the term of this
Agreement, engage other independent contractors to perform the same or similar work that
Consultant performs hereunder.
IV. Place of Work
Meetings with the City staff as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, shall take place at
the City's offices at 220 4'h Avenue S., Kent, Washington, or at locations mutually agreed upon
by the parties.
V. Termination
A. Termination for Failure to Prosecute Work or to Complete Work Satisfactorily. If
the Consultant refuses or fails to prosecute the work with such diligence as will ensure its
completion within the time frames specified herein, or as modified or extended as
provided in this Agreement, or to complete such work in a manner satisfactory to the
City, then the City may,by written notice to the Consultant, give notice of its intention to
terminate the Consultant's right to proceed with the work. On such notice, the Consultant
shall have ten(10) calendar days to cure, to the satisfaction of the City or its
representative, or the City shall send the Consultant a written termination letter which
2
shall be effective upon the Consultant's receipt of the written notice by certified mail.
Upon termination,the City may take over the work and prosecute the same to
completion,by contract or otherwise, and Consultant shall be liable to the City for any
additional costs incurred by it in the completion of the Scope of Work referenced as
Exhibit A and as modified or amended prior to termination
B. Rights Upon Termination. In the event of termination,the City shall pay for all
services performed by the Consultant to the effective date of termination, as described on
a final invoice submitted to the City. After termination,the City may take possession of
all records and data within the Consultant's possession pertaining to this project which
may be used by the City without restriction. Any such use not related to the project
which Consultant was contracted to perform shall be without liability or legal exposure to
the Consultant.
VL Discri ' anon
In the hiring of employees for the performance of work under this Agreement or any sub-
contract hereunder, the Consultant, its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such
Consultant or sub-contractor shall not,by reason of race, creed,religion,color,sex,age,national
origin,marital status, or the presence of any sensory, mental,or physical handicap,discriminate
against any person who is qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment
relates, and no consultant or its sub-contractors, or any person acting on behalf of such consultant
or sub-contractor shall violate any of the terns of RCW 49.60, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, §504 of the Civil Rights Act of 1973, The American's with Disabilities Act of 1992, or
any other applicable federal, state or local law or regulation regarding nondiscrimination in
employment.
VEL Indemnification
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, 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 negligent
performance of this Agreement, but only to the extent of Consultant's negligence or comparative
fault.
3
. ...............
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this
Agreement.
City agrees not to hold Contractor responsible for City-wide problems related to the Year
2000 bug outside the scope of the proposed contract, although contractor shall be responsible for
significant Year 2000 remediation efforts undertaken by the Consultant.
VIII. hLUMMM
The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents,
representatives, employees, sub-consultants or sub-contractors.
Within 45 days of beginning to work on the project described in this Agreement, the
Consultant shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing:
1. Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with
limits no less than$1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and$1,000,000 aggregate
for personal injury,bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall include but not be
limited to: blanket contractual; products/completed operations/broad form property damage;
explosion, collapse and underground (XM if applicable; and employers liability; and
2. Professional Liability insurance with limits no less than$250,000 limit per claim.
Any payment of deductible or self insured retention shall be the sole responsibility of the
Consultant.
The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
insurance policy, as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant and a copy of the
endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of
Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all the required insurance
policies.
The Consultant's Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain a clause stating
that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is
brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurers liability.
4
The Consultant's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City and the City
shall be given thirty(30) days prior written notice by certified mail,return receipt requested, of
any cancellation, suspension or material change in coverage.
IX. Ownership of Records and Documents
Original documents, drawings, designs and reports developed under this Agreement shall
belong to and become the property of the City. All data, documents and files created by
Consultant under this Agreement may be stored at Consultant's offices,however relevant files
and materials should be backed up to a mutually agreeable storage location on the City's
networks biweekly.
X. Recyclable Materials
Pursuant to City of Kent Ordinance No. 3066,The City of Kent requires its contractors
and consultants to use recycled and recyclable products whenever practicable. A price
preference may be available for any designated recycled product.
XL Entire Ag Mment
The written provisions and terms of this Agreement,together with any Exhibits attached
hereto, shall supersede all prior verbal statements of any officer or other representative of the
City, and such statements shall not be effective or be construed as entering into or forming a part
of or altering in any manner whatsoever, this Agreement or the Agreement documents. The
entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereunder is contained in
this Agreement and any Exhibits attached hereto, which may or may not have been executed
prior to the execution of this Agreement. All of the above documents are hereby made a part of
this Agreement and form the Agreement document as fully as if the same were set forth herein.
XU. Ci y's Right of Inspection
Even though Consultant is an independent contractor with the authority to control and direct
the performance and details of the work authorized under this Agreement,the work must meet the
approval of the City and shall be subject to the City's general right of inspection to secure the
satisfactory completion thereof. The Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and
municipal laws,rules, and regulations that are now effective or in the future become applicable to
Consultant's business, equipment, and personnel engaged in operations covered by this Agreement
or accruing out of the performance of such operations.
5
...........
xM. Consultant to Maintain Records to Support LdMdent Contractor Status
On the effective date of this Agreement(or shortly thereafter), Consultant shall:
A. File a schedule of expenses with the Internal Revenue Service for the type of business
Consultant conducts;
B. Establish an account with the Washington State Department of Revenue and other necessary
state agencies for the payment of all state taxes normally paid by employers, register to
receive a unified business identifier number from the State of Washington; and
C. Maintain a separate set of books and records that reflect all items of income and expenses
of Consultant's business, all as described in the Revised Code of Washington(RCW) Section
51.08.195, as required to show that the services performed by Consultant under this
Agreement shall not give rise to an employer-employee relationship between the parties
which is subject to RCW Title 51, Industrial Insurance.
XIV. Work Performed at Consultant's Risk
Consultant shall take all precautions necessary and shall be responsible for the safety of its
employees, agents, and subcontractors in the performance of the work hecamder and shall utilize
all protection necessary for that purpose. All work shall be done at Consultant's own risk, and
Consultant shall be responsible for any loss of or damage to materials, tools,or other articles used
or held for use in connection with the work.
XV. Modification
No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be
binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the City and Consultant.
XVI. Assienment
Any assignment of this Agreement by the Consultant without the written consent of the City
shall be void. If the City shall give its consent to any assignment, this paragraph shall continue in
full force and effect and no further assignment shall be made without the City's consent.
XVII. Written Notice
All communications regarding this Agreement shall be sent to the parties at the addresses
listed on the signature page of the agreement, unless notified to the contrary. Any written notice
hereunder shall become effective upon the date of mailing by registered or certified mail, and shall
6
be deemed sufficiently given if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this Agreement or such
other address as may be hereafter specified in writing.
XVM. Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
XIX. Non-Waiver of Breach
The failure of the City to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and
agreements 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 said covenants, agreements, or options,
and the same shall be and remain in full force and effect.
)OL Resolution of Disnntes
Should any dispute, misunderstanding, or conflict arise as to the terns and conditions
contained in this Agreement, the matter shall first be referred to the City, and the City shall
determine the term or provision's true intent or meaning. The City shall also decide all questions
which may arise between the parties relative to the actual services provided or to the sufficiency of
the performance hereunder.
If any dispute arises between the City and Consultant under any of the provisions of this
Agreement which cannot be resolved by the City's determination in a reasonable time, or if
Consultant does not agree with the City s decision on the disputed matter, jurisdiction of any
resulting litigation shall be filed in King County Superior Court,King County, Washington. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. Each party shall be solely responsible for its costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys
fees incurred in any litigation arising out of the enforcement of this Agreement.
7
IN WITNESS WSEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF]KENT CONSULTANT
By: or Jim Whit By: Stephen% & Schopfer
Dat — — Date:
Notice to be sent to: Notice to be sent to:
Marty Mulholland ,St0hen�Schonfer
Director of Information Services P.0 Box 1538
220 Fourth Avenue South Woodland, WA 98674
Kent, Washington 98032
APPROVED AS TO FORM: i
,/µRoger A. Lubovich,Kent City Attorney
ATTESTED:
Brenda Jacob ity Clerk
u:r.�,.�awuaoo
8
E2mxBTI'A—July 9*119998
YEAR 2000 CONSULTING AGREEMENT
Scope of Work to be performed by Stephen Schopfer:
1) Develop Overall Year 2000 Project Plan
a) Study Existing Year 2000 Documents
b) Identify Scope and Mission Critical Systems
c) Educate employees and increase awareness throughout organization
d) Prepare City Legal staff as needed
2) Identify Priorities for City Software Systems, including business systems and mission critical
PC-based software systems
a) Determine mission critical systems
b) Educate department employees
c) Improve accountability of vendors and/or suppliers
d) Coordinate testing project work for major business systems
3) Identify Embedded Chip systems that may be affected by Year 2000
a) Determine mission critical devices
b) Educate department employees
c) Improve accountability of vendors and/or suppliers
4) Work with Emergency Operations employees to assist in Year 2000-related planning
5) Represent the City at Year 2000-related events t
Billing Rates and Project Duration
Initial Contract:
Consultant will bill City monthly at the rate of 590.00 per hour on a monthly basis. Consultant
will work on Year 2000 project as defined above for no less than 30 hours per week unless
mutually agreed by City and Consultant.
Consultant will work on Year 2000 project for no less than 12 calendar weeks, with a planned
break in service of approximately one week in August 1998.
Extension of Contract:
Upon project extension, additional purchase orders will be created for billing purposes.
Expected hours of service will be delineated on purchase order. Consultant will give priority to
City of Kent Year 2000 project work over potential work for other clients.
9
.............
iI
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19 , 1999
`-' Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: LID 340 , S . 196/200 STREET CORRIDOR PROJECT, FINAL
ASSESSMENT ROLL - ORDINANCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works -
Board of Equalization, adoption of Ordinance No.
establishing the Final Assessment Roll for LID 340 - S . 196/200
Street Corridor.
3 . EXHIBITS: Ordinance and memo
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. 6D
P
t®: Jim White, Mayor
City Council Members
CC: J. Brent McFall, Director of Operations
Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
fnm: Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
re: Final Assessment Roll LID 340/South 196' Street Corridor
dltl: January 15, 1999
I. INTRODUCTION
The City Council Public Works Committee (composed of Tim Clark, Chair, and Members
Tom Brotherton and Leona Orr, or substituting for Council Member Rico Yingling) conducted
extensive hearings on the Final Assessment Roll ("Roll") for LID 340. By this memorandum the
record of those hearings and the Committee's recommendation is transmitted to the City Council for
its consideration, as well as the adoption of the ordinance confirming the Roll.
The City Council delegated to the Committee the conduct of the hearing on the Roll for
LID 340. Under RCW 35.44.070:
The committee. . . designated shall hold a hearing on the assessment
roll and consider all objections filed following which the committee.
. . shall make recommendations to [the City Council] which shall
either adopt or reject the recommendations of the committee. . . . If
a hearing is held before such a committee. . . it shall not be necessary
to hold a hearing on the assessment roll before [the City Council].
In furtherance of this direction from Council, the Committee held four separate hearings,
three of them nearly five hours in length. All parties who elected to protest their assessments had
proper notice, a full and fair opportunity to present their protest to the Committee, including
presentation of evidence, cross-examination of City witnesses, and closing argument. Consequently,
no further hearing is required before the Council.
`..i The Council is familiar with the South 196' Street Corridor Project. LID 340 is an essential
funding component for the Project. Attached at Tab 3 is a Memorandum (Exhibit 3 from the
Hearing record)that summarizes some of the background for the Project,the arterial improvements,
Project financing and the method of assessment for LID 340.
II. ATTACHMENTS
TAB 1 Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Works Committee
Regarding LID 340 (December 14, 1998)
TAB 2 Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Works
Committee Regarding LID 340 (January 14, 1999)
TAB 3 Memorandum to Public Works Committee from Tom Brubaker(November 12, 1998,
containing a summary of the history of the 196' Street Corridor Project and
description of the hearing process.)
Note: A complete set of hearing protests and exhibits has been placed in the City
Council office for the Council's review. Also included is a verbatim transcript of the
hearings.
TAB 4 Proposed form of ordinance confirming Final Assessment Roll.
III. LID 340 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL HEARINGS
1. Roll and Protests.
V
The Roll consisted of 460 assessment parcels. There were a total of 22 protests,
encompassing approximately 40 assessment parcels (some of the protests included multiple
assessment parcels). The Committee considered individually each of the protests and responded in
its findings to each of the protests.
2. HearinQ Dates.
The Hearings commenced on November 16, 1998. On November 16 and November 23 the
Committee conducted over ten hours of hearings. Following deliberations on November 23, the
Committee announced its preliminary decision on most of the protests. Additional time was
afforded one of the protesting properties to present additional appraisal information. The Committee
met again on December 7 to consider and then enter the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendations of Public Works Committee regarding LID 340 ("Findings"). The Findings are
attached to this memo at Tab 1. On January 4, 1999, the Committee met again to consider the
continued protest, and any further protests following the City's supplemental notice. Following that
further hearing the Committee announced its preliminary decision and directed the preparation of
Supplemental Findings.
2
3. Separate Counsel for Committee.
The proceedings of the Committee, and of the full City Council, in confirming a Final
Assessment Roll is quasi-judicial. In order to assure that the process was free from any improper
appearance,the Committee was assigned separate counsel. Wayne Tanaka,of the law firm Ogden,
Murphy & Wallace, assisted the Committee throughout the hearings and its deliberations. Mr.
Tanaka will also be available at the January 19 Council Meeting, should the full Council need any
additional assistance.
4. Protests—Assessment Method Not Challenged.
As briefly discussed above,the Committee considered 22 protests. Only three of the protests
were accompanied by appraisal reports. None of the evidence presented before the Committee
challenged the approach of the City's appraiser, Bruce C. Allen and Associates. While the
application of the methodology to some assessment parcels was subject to dispute in certain cases,
the methodology of the City's appraiser was not challenged. The Committee addressed these issues
in its Findings. Each of the protests are on file with the Clerk and are part of the record in this
matter. A copy of each of the protests has also been placed in the City Council offices for your
review.
5. Exhibits.
There were 27 exhibits, including maps, appraisal reports, photographs and specific data or
individual assessment parcels. The large maps are available to the Council in the Council's office.
A copy of other exhibits have been placed in the council office for the City Council's consideration.
Certain illustrative exhibits, which were used for the City's initial presentation (photos and
transparencies) remain available for review in the Clerk's Office.
6. Supplemental Notice and Hearings.
In addition to published notice,the City gave notice by mail, as required by state law, to the
property owner"at the address shown on the tax rolls of the County Treasurer." A question arose
as to whether the City had used the most current information from the County Treasurer for a limited
number of parcels. As a result, a Supplemental Hearing was scheduled for January 4, and further
notice was mailed to 28 owners of assessment parcels for which there may have been a question
regarding the notice of the hearing on November 16. Only one protest letter was submitted at the
January 4 supplemental hearing regarding assessments against 6 assessment parcels. Additionally,
the Committee considered one protest that had been continued from the earlier hearings.
7. Supplemental Findings.
Following consideration on January 4, 1999 of the additional evidence, the Committee
directed the entry of Supplemental Findings. The Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendations of Public Works Committee Regarding LID 340 ("Supplemental Findings") are
attached at Tab 2.
3
8. Council Consideration of Findings.
The Council directed the Public Works Committee to conduct the hearing regarding the Roll
for LID 340. The Committee has engaged in hours of hearings, sometimes of a heated and
confrontational nature. The Committee managed the process carefully,with the advice of counsel
from an independent law firm. Consistent with the Council's direction to the Committee, it prepared
its findings and recommendations. Those Findings and Supplemental Findings are now before the
Council for its consideration.
The City Council is well familiar with the process for adopting the ordinance confirming the
Final Assessment Roll. The difference in LID 340 is that the Council delegated the hearing process
to the Committee. Having delegated that process to the Committee,the staff respectfully requests
that the Committee's efforts be recognized and that the full Council accept and adopt the
Committee's Findings and Supplemental Findings and incorporate those findings into the ordinance
confirming the Final Assessment Roll.
If the Council were to allow further argument on the Committee's action,we cannot predict
the length of time or argument,unless the Council were to limit such argument. In the event that the
Council determines to allow further argument from any of the 22 protests,staff must reserve its right
to submit arguments as well, since the Committee did not agree in all respects with the staff position.
The staff believes that certain of the modifications to the Roll by the Committee are without
foundation, but the staff is willing to stand on the record without further argument regarding the
confirmation of the Final Assessment Roll.
9. Ordinance.
A form of ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll is attached. The ordinance
incorporates the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
IV. CONCLUSION
After extensive hearings and deliberations, the Public Works Committee has entered its
Findings and Supplemental Findings regarding the Final Assessment Roll for LID 340. Having
delegated this responsibility to the Committee, we ask that Council honor the Committee's efforts
and, upon review, accept the recommendations of the Committee and incorporate the Findings and
Supplemental Findings into the ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll. In the event that
the City Council determines to hear further argument regarding any of the protests,the City reserves
the right to present its arguments to the City Council regarding the Committee's actions.
P',CiviPFILESM36�nul mem dm
4
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONOCLL SIONSRAND RECOMMENDING LID 3TIONS OF PUBLIC WORKS
I .
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. GENERAL LID FINDINGS
1 . Since the early 1980 ' s, both the City and other regional and
state agencies have determined the need for a cross-valley
arterial roadway to serve the business and citizens who use the
north Kent Valley.
2 . As presently designed, the South 196th Street Corridor
Project ( "Project" ) will provide another east/west corridor across
the Valley, connecting I-5 with East Valley Highway with a grade
separated crossing of the mainline railroad tracks .
3 . On June 2 . 1998 , the Kent City Council passed Ordinance
#3404 which formed LID 340 for the purpose of partially funding
the Project . The LID boundary is generally bounded by South 180th
Street on the north, SR 167 on the east , South 228th on the south
and the Kent city limits on the Green River on the west .
4 . Project improvements are as follows :
• The intersection of Orillia Road/S . 200th Street will
be signalized, and two south- to eastbound left-turn
lanes will be added to Orillia road. Between Orillia
Road and the Green River, S . 200th Street will be
widened from two to four travel lanes with a center
left-turn lane where needed. The north leg of Frager
Road at S . 200th Street will be realigned to a "T"
intersection roughly 700 feet west of its current
location. The south leg of Frager . Road will be
eliminated and the road will terminate just south of S .
200th Street in a cul-de-sac . Bicycle lanes five feet
wide and sidewalks 5 . 5 feet wide will be constructed on
both sides of S . 200th Street .
• A new bridge will span Green River, accommodating the
four lanes of S . 220th Street and the bike lanes and
sidewalks .
• East of the Green River, Russell Road and S . 196th will
follow their existing alignment to Mill Creek just
beyond the 72nd Avenue S . right-of-way, but will be
widened to five lanes, including . a center turn-lane,
for the entire length. Sidewalks will be included in
the design, as well as bicycle lanes connecting to the
Interurban Trail .
1
(300481.00C;2)
12/08/98
...............
• From S . 196th Street, just west of Mill Creek, 72nd
Avenue S . will be extended along the existing right-of-
way to its current terminus at approximately S. 194th
Street .
• A new bridge, approximately 1, 425 feet long will span
Mill Creek, the Western Processing site, two sets of
mainline railroad tracks, and the Weyerhaeuser and
South Seattle Auto Auction sites. The bridge will
include four lanes with sidewalks, but no bicycle lanes
will be provided.
• From the east end of the bridge to 84th Avenue S . , the
road will be located along the existing S . 196th Street
right-of-way and through the Kingsport Industrial Park.
The road will consist of four travel lanes with a
center turn lane and sidewalks on both sides . No
bicycle lanes will be provided along this segment .
5 . On November 16, 1998 , having given notice in accordance with
applicable law, the Public Works Committee (Committee) of the
Council met for the purpose of hearing any protest to the final
assessment roll for LID 340 and forwarding recommendations to the
full City Council for final action. At that time the committee
received a total of 18 protests from various property owners in
the LID which had been filed in accordance with the notice and
state law. Each protest was assigned a number beginning with P1.
�.✓ A further protest from Lincoln Distribution Center was received
after the deadline and therefore was rejected as non-timely.
6 . The Committee heard testimony from the City and all property
owners who had submitted timely protests and wished to be heard.
25 exhibits were offered during the course of the hearing and were
given sequential numbers, beginning with 1 . The hearing was
continued to November 23 , 1998 for rebuttal evidence from the City
and final arguments .
7 . Based on the testimony, exhibits and final arguments, the
Committee makes the following additional general findings, which
will be followed by specific findings related to each parcel .
B . GENERAL FINDINGS AS TO ALL PARCELS
1 . Prior to work commencing on the Project, there were no
through street connections . Instead, the existing roadways are
primarily two-land paved roads with minimal drainage and lighting,
terminating at the Green River and the railroads .
• On the west side of the Green River, in unincorporated
King County, S . 200th Street is a paved two-lane road
with narrow gravel shoulders . There are plowed fields
on both sides of the road. A Class 2 stream exists
{300481.000;2) 2
12/08/98
. ..............
both within culverts and in open channels on the south
side of the road.
• In the City of Kent on the east side of Green River,
Russell Road, between S . 196th Street and the projected
center line of S . 200th Street, is an existing paved
road and transitions from three lanes to two lanes .
Although Russell Road is a designated bicycle facility,
cyclists generally use the travel lanes because the
shoulders are narrow and in some places, non-existent .
• S . 16th Street, between Russell Road and SR-181, has
three paved lanes and paved shoulders .
• Between SR-181 and Mill Creek, S . 196th Street is two
lanes wide with paved shoulders .
• Along the east side of Mill Creek lies the Western
Processing property, a designated federal Superfund
site under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
• Further east, between Western Processing and 84th
Avenue S . , two sets of mainline railroad tracks run
north/south through and beyond the project area. The
tracks are owned and operated b Burlington Northern
(BN) and Union Pacific (UP) railroad companies. To the
east of these tracks, S . 196th is paved leading from
84th Avenue S . approximately halfway to the railroad
tracks .
2 . After construction of the improvements, traffic access and
circulation throughout the north end of the Green River Valley
will be improved by the following:
• Providing another east/west arterial corridor across
the Valley.
• Providing an above-grade crossing over both mainline
tracks, allowing continuous traffic without railroad
delays along one major east/west corridor.
• Providing direct access to the I-5 corridor to the west
across the Green River, diverting substantial traffic
flow from the north and south along both East Valley
and West Valley Highways .
• Mitigate existing and future traffic conditions along
S . 180th and S . 212th Streets .
3 . In developing the final assessment roll, the City initially
considered using the zone and termini method set forth in RCW
(300481.Doc;2y 3
12/06/98
35 . 44 . 030 . However, the City testified that because of the
variety of property types, sizes, development potential and
zoning, the zone and termini method was not used. In its place
the special benefit analysis was used. City witnesses testified
that this method would more fairly reflect the special benefits to
the various properties within the LID boundaries . No other
witnesses provided testimony to dispute this assertion.
4 . The City hired the firm of Bruce C. Allen and Associates,
Inc . to perform the special benefit analysis . Bruce Allen and
Deborah Foreman performed the analysis and provided testimony.
5 . A Preliminary Special Benefits Study, dated May 12 , 1998, was
prepared. (Exhibit 20) This report was available for inspection
by the various property owners within the LID. Representatives
from the Allen Company discussed the analysis with a variety of
property owners and made some adjustments in their special benefit
analysis .
6 . A Final Special Benefits Study, dated October 30, 1998, was
prepared by Allen and Foreman and submitted as the basis for the
final assessment roll . (Exhibit 4)
7 . Any finding, general or specific deemed to be a conclusion,
shall be considered as such.
C. FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC PROTESTS
i✓
1 . P1, A. P.E. LLC was, continued to December 7 to allow counsel
for the property owner more time to present evidence and will be
subject to further hearing on January 4 , 1999 at 3 :30 pm.
2 . P2 , Puget Sound Energy. Mr. Frank Swan, a land planner,
provided testimony that his client ' s property was not suited to
other uses than a utility corridor. The City' s witnesses disputed
this assertion, and gave examples of other PSE property that have
been used for non-utility purposes .
3 . P3 , William Boeing, Jr. Pursuant to stipulation, the City
agreed that this assessment would be reduced to $0 .
4 . P4 , Paul Rehn. No testimony was provided. '
5 . P5, Mathilda De Mayo. No testimony was provided.
6 . P6 and P7, Arco Products . No testimony was provided.
7 . P8 , Beatrice Wieser. No testimony was provided.
'Information contained in the protest materials was considered
by the Committee . No witnesses provided additional testimony.
{300481.DOC;2) 4
12/08/98
8 . P9, Richard Brooks . No testimony was provided. Mr. Brooks ,
only issue appears to be that his property is currently designated
in current use pursuant to RCW 84 . 34 . 300 , and therefore is not
subject to LID assessment so long as such designation is
maintained.
9 . P10 , Peggi Gates, Orillia Industrial Associates . No
testimony was provided.
10 . P11, Michael Scully. Mr. Scully, the property owner
testified. His property is subject to an Environmental Mitigation
Agreement (EMA) which established a mitigation amount in excess of
what his assessment would be according to the special benefit
analysis . Mr. Scully provided the Committee with the square foot
assessments of adjoining property.
11 . P12 , United Warehouses . No testimony was provided.
12 . P13 , Union Pacific Railroad. Testimony was provided by
Counsel for the railroad, Carolyn Larson and George Donnerberg, a
MAI appraiser. Both witnesses testified that there were no
special benefits to the railroad property because the existing
rail tracks were the highest and best use
13 . P14 , Nicholas Nesland. Counsel for the property owner, T.J.
Parkes testified and submitted an appraisal by Roger Ockfen, a MAI
L✓' appraiser. In rebuttal , the City submitted a supplemental
analysis by the Allen Company (Exhibit 21) , and testimony of Ms
Foreman.
14 . P15 , Chevron USA, Inc . Testimony was provided by Yolanda
Byeman, property development specialist for Chevron. She
testified that because she believed there would be less traffic in
front of the Chevron property, the LID improvements would have a
negative effect on property values . Mr. James Price, a MAI
appraiser testified that in his opinion the LID improvements would
have no impact on the fair market value of the Chevron property.
He also submitted an appraisal that recited the same conclusion
(Appraisal contained . in P15) . In rebuttal , the City submitted
supplemental analysis (Exhibit 22) from the Allen company, and
testimony of Ms Foreman and Mr. Allen. In addition to requesting
a $0 assessment, counsel for Chevron requested credit for property
dedicated to the City by the former owner.
15 . 216 . Mr. Jones . The property owner testified that he was
forced to sign the EMA for his property and that other properties
in the vicinity were charged less on a square foot basis .
16 . P17 . David S . Bolin, agent for 8462 Associates . The property
owner testified, but did not submit any appraisal evidence .
1%1W {300481.DOC;2) 5
12/08/98
17 . P18 . Mr. Temkin. The property owner testified that his
property should not be considered in the primary zone of
proximity, but rather the secondary. His property is located at
the east end of the improvements . A traffic signal will be
installed to control ingress and egress from his property.
18 . The protest received from Lorna Faxon on behalf of Lincoln
Distribution Center was late and therefore should not be
considered. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the
property owner.
II .
CONCLUSIONS
A. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1 . Any conclusion deemed to be a finding shall be so considered.
2 . Special benefits are measurable increases in the value of
real property in excess of any enhancement to the general area.
It is measured as the difference between the market value of the
property without the LID project and the market value with the LID
project assumed completed.
3 . Initially, the City is favored with certain presumptions :
that the improvements are a benefit to the property within the
LID, the assessment is no greater than the benefit, the assessment
'✓ is equal or ratable to the assessments upon other properties
similarly situated, and the assessment is fair. In Re Indian Trail
Trunk Sewer, 35 Wash. App. 840 (1983) . The property owners must
present expert appraisal testimony to overcome these presumptions .
4 . The special benefit analysis performed by the City more
fairly reflects the special benefits to the properties within the
LID than the zone and termini method.
B. CONCLUSIONS AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
1 . Protests P6, P7, P9, P10 , P12 , P17, and P18 should each be
denied on the basis that the property owners have not overcome the
City' s presumptions .
2 . with respect to P4 , P5 and P8 , it appears that the properties
are currently improved with single family homes and are currently
being used as such. While this is not the highest and best use,
the Committee concludes that the assessments should be deferred,
subject to the property owner qualifying under RCW 84 . 38 . City
staff should work with claimants to complete forms necessary for
consideration by the county under Chapter 84 . 38 RCW. If the
property owners elect not to sign such a deferral, the assessments
must be paid as required by law.
�'✓` (300481.DOC;2) 6
12/08/98
�..y 3 . With respect to P11 and P16, the Committee finds that while
the property owners did execute valid EMAs on their property, the
surrounding property owners whose properties are not subject to
EMAs are paying less per square foot, and therefore, in equity,
these two protests should be granted in part . For Pil, the
assessment should be reduced to $ . 20 per square foot and for P16
the assessment should be reduced to $ .22 per square foot .
4 . With respect to P2 , the Committee concludes that the property
owner has not met its burden to overcome the City' s presumptions .
In any case, the Committee concludes that the property is subject
to other economical uses and that the property owners have valued
the property in a manner that indicates economical uses other than
as a utility corridor.
S . With regard to P13, the Committee concludes that the railroad
property is subject to assessment . The present use of the
property cannot be used to determine the benefits that may accrue.
In re West Wheeler 97 Wash. 669, 675 (1917) . The Committee
concludes that the testimony of Mr. Allen and Ms Foreman should be
given greater weight than the testimony of the railroad witnesses
because, among other things, Allen and Foreman examined specific
sales data and Mr. Allen indicated that his firm had many years
experience in appraising railroad property. Parcel 113 , however
presents a unique situation. This parcel is basically landlocked
between the merging rail tracks and thus is of limited use, other
+✓ than as railroad property. For this reason, the Committee
concludes that the assessment on this parcel should be reduced to
$25, 677 .
6 . With respect to 214 , the Committee has considered both
appraisals and concludes that the assessment should be reduced to
$75 , 000 . The Committee agrees with the Ockfen analysis to the
extent that the improvements will tend to impair truck access to
the site . Therefore the special benefits ascribed by the Allen
study are overstated to some extent . The Committee agrees that
the rest of the Allen analysis should be given more weight
because, among other things, the Ockfen appraisal contains errors
and internal inconsistencies .
7 . With respect to the P15 , the Committee concludes that the
appraisal testimony of Mr. Allen and Ms Foreman should be given
greater weight . Both appraisers concluded that the "before" value
of the property was $18 per square foot . Mr. Price did not
conduct any sales analysis of the property in the "after"
situation. Allen did under take such analysis . This gives more
credibility to the Allen appraisal .
While Ms Byeman testified that traffic passing by the gas
station would decrease after the improvements were completed, she
offered no factual basis for this conclusion. Mr. Price ' s
conclusions as to the "after" value of the property are also based
(300481.DOC;2} 7
12/08/98
on the assumption that traffic volumes would be reduced. (See page
15 of Mr. Price Is appraisal submitted as part of P15) Mr. Price
can offer no factual basis for this assumption and in fact notes
the "absence of detailed traffic studies and projections" .
Ms Foreman' s opinions were based, in part, on the assumption
that congestion in the area would be lessened, which assumption
was supported by the testimony of other City witnesses, including
Don Wickstrom. Less congested streets do not necessarily mean
fewer cars . For this reason, in part, the Committee concludes
that the Allen analysis of special benefits should be given more
weight than the Price appraisal .
Counsel for Chevron also argued that the assessments were
founded on a fundamentally wrong basis . However Mr. Price
indicated that he accepted the professional qualifications of Mr.
Allen and in fact undertook the same "before" and "after"
analysis .
With respect to the issue of the credit, the Committee
concludes that no credit should be given. The statute, RCW
35 .44 .420, applies to property that has been dedicated to make the
LID improvements . The property that was dedicated by Chevron' s
predecessors in interest was not used for the LID improvements .
III .
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the
Committee recommends to the City Council as follows :
A. Pursuant to stipulation, the Committee recommends P3 be
GRANTED and the assessment reduced to $0 .
B. The Committee recommends the following protests be
GRANTED IN PART: P11, assessment reduced to $ . 20 per square foot;
P13 , parcel 113 be reduced to $25, 677 ; P14 , assessment reduced to
$75, 000 ; P16 , assessment reduced to $ .22 per square foot .
C. The Committee recommends the following protests be
DENIED: P2 ; P6 ; P7 ; P9 ; P10; P12 ; P13 , with the exception of
parcel 113 ; P15 ; P17 and P18 .
D. The Committee recommends the following protests be
DENIED, but that the assessments be DEFERRED upon qualification by
the property owners under RCW 84 . 38 : P4 ; P5 and P8 .
E. The Committee recommends that, except as specifically
{300481.000;2) 8
12/08/98
.. ...... ..
provided above, the final assessment roll be confirmed
without modification.
DATED THIS _ day of December, 1998
Tim Clark, Chair
Tom Brotherton
ona rr
WDT217660.2P/FOOB5.090001/B0085.0085.09001
�r
V (300481.DOC;2) 9
12/08/96
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF PUBLIC WORKS COMiVIITTEE REGARDING LID 340
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Notice of Supplemental Hearing mailed to certain property
owners on or about December 16, 1998, the Public Works Committee of the Kent City Council
held a hearing on January 4, 1999 to consider protests to the final assessment role for LID 340.
Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted, the Committee now enters the following:
I.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. These supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations are a
continuation of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations previously entered by
the Committee. Therefore, the Committee re-adopts the general LID findings and the general
findings as to all parcels as set forth in that document.
2. Protest P1, APE LLC, pursuant to earlier order, was continued to this date for
presentation of evidence. The property owner had previously submitted an appraisal from Roger
Ockfen, an MAI appraiser (Exhibit 26). The City presented rebuttal testimony of Deborah
Foreman and submitted supplemental appraisal information.
3. Four additional protests were received at the January 4 supplemental hearing.
These protests were contained in a letter dated January 4, 1999 from RREEF Management Co.,
signed by Ginger Mueller. These protests were assigned numbers as follows: P19, which is the
Northward Business Park, LID parcel #215; P20 is the West Valley Distribution, LID parcels
#147 and #119; P21 is described as KCP 72 and is LID parcel #401; P22 is described as KCP
216 and is LID parcel #448. Testifying for the properties was Chuck Mahlen, an employee of
RREEF Management Co. Mr. Mahlen is not an appraiser. The City presented rebuttal
testimony from Deborah Foreman and Tom Bradley of CTE Engineers.
H.
CONCLUSIONS
A. General Conclusions
1. The Committee incorporates the general conclusions previously adopted.
B. Conclusions as to Specific Properties
{300590.DOCt 1}
1
'�"i/� WDT221280.ISXlF0085.090.001.01/B0085.090001
........ ....
1. Protest P19, P20, P21 and P22 should each be denied on the basis that the
property owners have not overcome the City's presumptions. The Committee acknowledges that
the City has preserved a possible challenge to P19 on the basis of prior notice.
2. With respect to Pl, it appears that the property owner concedes there are special
benefits to the property. The only issue is to what extent the property is specially benefited.
The Committee finds that the Ockfen appraisal (Exhibit 26) suffers from a fundamental flaw,
namely the appraisal's lack of consideration of the benefits of the improvements to 72nd along
the entire length of the subject property. Improvement of 72nd, together with the improvements
along 196th, will render this property superior to other properties in the area in terms of access
and visibility. On the other hand, the Committee concludes that the Bruce Allen appraisals and
the testimony of the City's witnesses are more believable since, among other things, they
incorporated the improvement of 72nd in their analysis. Further, the Committee concludes that
the measure of special benefit is to the property, not to whatever business may happen to be using
it at any particular time. The Foreman analysis proceeded from this principal, while the property
owner's analysis did not. Nevertheless, when comparing the subject property to immediately
surrounding properties it does appear that some adjustment should be made, particularly in light
of the Committee's recommended action on the Neslund property, P14. The Committee finds
that the subject property will be specially benefited to a greater extent than the Neslund property
primarily due to the location. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the assessment be
reduced to $203,805.
III.
RECONSMNDATIONS
Based on the foregoing Supplemental Findings and Conclusions, the Committee
recommends to the City Council as follows:
A. The Committee recommends that the following protests be DENIED: P19, P20,
P21 and P22.
B. The Committee recommends that the following protests be GRANTED IN PART:
Pl, Assessment reduced to $203,805.
On January 4 the Committee has further unanimousiy authorized the Chair to review and
approve these Supplemental Findings and Conclusions.
DATED this Iq day of January, 1999. jl�
Tim Clark, Chair
{300590.DOC;1}
141' WD1721280.1SX/Po085.090.001.01/B0085.090001 2
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
�. . MEMORANDUM
November 12, 1998
TO: LID 340 (196`'' Stre Corridor) Board of Equalization
FROM: Don Wickstrom�
CC: Mayor Jim White
Kent City Council
RE: LID 340 — S. 196`h/200'' St. Corridor Improvement
Green River to East Valley Highway
The City Council has set November 16, 1998 for the Public Hearing to confirm the final
assessment role for the 196`s Street Corridor Local Improvement District.
Background and Policy
Before the Council formally commenced the LID process, city staff began their public
outreach efforts on this LID on March 9`' by delivering a notice to the affected property
owners that described the project, indicated their potential assessment, and informed
them of an informal meeting at City Hall, where staff would be available to answer their
questions. The meeting went forward on March 25', as planned and announced, and
approximately 50 of the 260 property owners who received this notice attended the
meeting.
On May 5, the City Council approved a resolution setting the hearing date on the LID
for June 2, 1998. The public hearing on the formation of the LID officially commenced
the formation process on this LID (see attached map for LID boundary). At the
meeting, the City received only 4 protests, which represented 4.69% of the total LID.
The Council then passed an ordinance forming the LID after the meeting.
The City, King County and the South County region have consistently identified and
referenced the proposed South 196 /200' Street Corridor improvements as a necessary
link in the valley's transportation network for over a decade. The City first recognized
the project in the its adopted 1984 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and it has
�.. subsequently included the project in each of the City's annually updated Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Plans. The County also included the project in its
Comprehensive Plans, Transportation Plans and Transportation Needs Reports since
V; 1985. In 1987, the Puget Sound Council of Government's Green River Valley
Transportation Action Plan ("GRVTAP") included the project in its recommended list
of"highest priority projects."
Environmental Mitigation Agreements
With adoption of the its 1984 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the City required
new developments to mitigate their traffic impact on the City's transportation system
in accordance with the policies denoted in that plan. Additionally, when new
developments are proposed, the City's State Environmental Policy Act ordinance lists
the 1984 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan and the Green River Transportation Action Plan as reference
documents for evaluating each new development's traffic impacts on the City's
transportation system
Early on, these requirements caused developers to make various improvements to the
City's transportation system. Once the readily developable improvements identified in
either the Comprehensive Transportation Plan or the Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Plan were exhausted, the City started eliciting, under SEPA, financial
commitments (Environmental Mitigation Agreements, or "EMA's") from developments
to be applied to construction of the 196`' Street Corridor Project (LID 340). The City
based this requirement, in large part, on the extensive Traffic analysis done in
conjunction with the development of the 1984 Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
This analysis showed that, upon completion of the 196' Street Corridor Project, the
transportation impacts caused by these new developments would be mitigated. The City
required that each developer make these financial commitments in lieu of making
localized and "piecemeal" transportation system improvements at the time of issuance
of their development permit.
If, however, the developer chose not to participate in the 196`' Street Corridor Project,
the developer had the option to conduct a traffic study to determine appropriate and
immediate transportation improvements to mitigate the development's traffic impacts.
Upon the City's concurrence with the findings of this traffic study, the developer would
be required to construct all the improvements identified in the transportation study in
conjunction with construction of the development in order to appropriately mitigate the
development's traffic impacts. If the developer decided not to mitigate the developments
traffic impacts at all, then no development permit would have been issued.
With the enactment of the Growth Management Act and the City's adoption of the
corresponding Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the GMA, the requirement that
�✓ new development mitigate their traffic impacts has only been reinforced. Moreover, the
City's GMA commitment to provide infrastructure concurrent with new development
and growth under the GMA also reinforced the City's need to require that new
development mitigate transportation impacts.
In fact, due to the extensive industrial development that has occurred in this portion of
the City, the implementation of the 196'' Street Corridor project is a key factor the City
must implement to meet its transportation concurrency requirement in that area.
Without it, the City will not be in compliance with the GMA and may have to restrict
or deny new development permit applications. This project will provide a new link to
I-5 by constructing a new east/west arterial connecting Orillia Road to West Valley
Highway (SR 181) and on to East Valley Highway. Further, it provides the only grade-
separated arterial crossing of both the Union Pacific and BNSF railroad mainlines in the
City or for that matter between I-405 in Renton and NW 15' in Auburn. This grade
separation will become increasingly more crucial in the future with projected increases
in train traffic (66 freight trains per day on the BNSF tracts and 32 freight trains per day
on the UP tracks--and this doesn't include Amtrak or commuter rail traffic).
The Improvements
The project involves the construction of an arterial corridor from the Green River at S.
2001 Street northeasterly along Russell Road to South 196'' Street and then easterly
`•.� along South 196' Street to East Valley Highway.
The project includes the following improvements:
1. A five lane roadway with bicycle lanes (no bike lanes east of UP Railroad
tracks), sixty-six feet (58 feet east of UP Railroad tracks) curb to curb, with
two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane in all areas except the
two bridges.
2. Curb and gutter.
3. Cement concrete sidewalk on both sides.
4. Storm drainage improvements.
5. Street lighting improvements.
6. Landscaping.
7. Utility modification as required.
8. Lane channelization and signing.
9. Bridge over the Green River (half is paid for by the City, half by the
County).
10. Bridge over the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads.
11. Realignment of 58'h Place &Russell Road to a new signalized intersection.
12. Construction of a four lane connection northerly to 72"d Avenue.
13. Signalization at 80' Avenue.
.. ...............
14. Signalization of the South 196' Street/East Valley Highway Intersection.
Project Funding
The project will be funded by Local Improvement District #340 bonds, State
Transportation Improvement Board Grants, and City funds. The funding breakdown
based on the current cost estimate is as follows:
LID Assessments $21,515,884.00
TIB Grant $11,533,725.00
City Fund $9,556,777.00
Interest Revenue $435,000.00
Total $43,041,386.00
The City of Kent is a property owner within the LID. The City share of the assessment
is $82,396.00 or 0.19% of the total LID.
Method of Assessment
The City had the appraisal firm of Bruce C. Allen &Associates , Inc. perform a special
�✓ benefit study of the properties within the LID. Their benefit study is the basis for
determining the respective assessments. A copy of the study is attached and also is on
file in the Public Works Department Engineering offices.
The amount of special benefits attaching to property by reason of local improvement is
the difference between the fair market value of the property with and without the
improvements. Assuming highest and best use, this increase in probable market value,
adhering to each parcel, is the measure of special benefit. Because many of the
properties (appro)dmately 54% by assessment) within the LID are obligated by
environmental mitigation agreements to support and financially participate in this
project, these agreements were also considered in establishing their respective special
benefit.
Each assessment amount reflects 81% of the total special benefit attributable to each
assessed property.
Payment of Assessment
When Council passes the Ordinance confirming the Final Assessment Roll, there is a 30-
day period in which any portion or all of the assessment can be paid without interest
°+�' charges. After the 30-day period, the assessed property owners will pay the balance over
a 15-year period wherein each year's payment is one-fifteenth of the principal plus
accrued interest on the unpaid balance. The interest will be established by the market
then applicable for municipal bonds, but that interest rate historically tends to run below
commercial rates because of tax benefits applicable to municipal bonds.
Tentative Construction Schedule
1. S. 200'h Street—Orillia Road to the Green River (County portion): Contract has
been awarded with completion scheduled for late Summer of 1999.
2. Green River Bridge: Construction complete.
3. Russell Road/South 196' Street between the Green River and West Valley
Highway: Contract has been awarded with completion scheduled for late
Summer of 1999.
4. Bridge over the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks: 1999 and
2000. West side bridge approach through Western Processing site under
construction.
5. South 196' Street between West Valley Highway and East Valley Highway
excluding the bridge: Summer and Fall, 2000.
P.\IAW\F[LEW236\BoardofEqual.dwmemo.Nov l398.dx
............ ..
- reliminary LID Bc .ndary
;.� o Q
• � 11 I
S 196 ST -
+ 3: ! C/Y
�—
204 ST Q Boeing a
Aerospcce 3 is I I I I
�1
u i
u I
III �i 'J Sc I2
I:.
!
I
N �
' f
c
f T
+a l
IS 223 STj I l ! ! I0D
LID 340
9 TH/200TH STREET ARTERIAL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Kent, Washington,
modifying, approving, and confirming the assessments and
assessment roll of Local Improvement District No. 340 for the
construction of an arterial corridor from the Green River at S.
200th Street northeasterly along Russell Road to S. 196th Street
and then easterly along S. 196th Street to the East Valley
Highway as provided by Ordinance No. 3404,and levying and
assessing a part of the cost and expense thereof against the
several lots,tracts,parcels of land and other property as shown
on the assessment roll.
WHEREAS,the assessment roll levying the special assessments against the
a..i
property located in Local Improvement District No. 340 in the City of Kent, Washington
(the"City"), has been filed with the City Clerk as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council delegated under RCW 35.44.070 to the
Public Works Committee the conduct of the hearing as a Board of Equalization on the
assessment roll; and
WHEREAS,notice of the time and place of hearing on the assessment roll
and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for the time and in
the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of hearing thereon before the
Committee for the 16'day of November, 1998,at the hour of 3:30 p.m., local time, in the
Council Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and further notice thereof was
mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the roll; and
I LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
WHEREAS,notice of the time and place of a supplemental hearing on the
assessment roll and for making objections and protests to the roll was published at and for
the time and in the manner provided by law fixing the time and place of supplemental
hearing before the Public Works Committee for the 4'day of January, 1999,at the hour of
3:30 p.m., local time in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, Kent, Washington, and
further notice thereof was mailed by the City Clerk to each property owner shown on the
notice of supplemental hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed and designated in the notices the
hearings were held,all written protests received were considered and all persons appearing
at the hearing who wished to be heard were heard, and the Committee, sitting and acting
as a Board of Equalization for the purpose of considering the roll and the special benefits
to be received by each lot, parcel and tract of land shown upon such roll, including the
increase and enhancement of the fair market value of each such parcel of land by reason of
the improvement, considered all such protests, determined to modify certain of the
assessments appearing on such roll,and over ruled all other protests;NOW,THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Roll Confirmation. The assessments and assessment roll of
Local Improvement District No. 340, which has been created and established for the
purpose of constructing an arterial corridor from the Green River at S. 200th Street
northeasterly along Russell Road to S. 196th Street and then easterly along S. 196th Street
to the East Valley Highway, as provided by Ordinance No. 3404, as the same now stand
after the modification made in the Findings as referenced in Section 3 shall be and the same
are approved and confirmed in all things and respects in the total amount of
$21,314,017.00.
2 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
`'✓ SECTION Z Sliecial Benefit. Each of the lots,tracts,parcels of land and
other property shown upon the assessment roll is determined and declared to be specially
benefited by this improvement in at least the amount charged against the same, and the
assessment appearing against the same is in proportion to the several assessments
appearing upon the roll. There is levied and assessed against each lot, tract or parcel of
land and other property appearing upon the roll the amount finally charged against the
same thereon.
SECTION 3. Findings. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendations of the Committee regarding LID 340 (December 14, 1998), and the
Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Works
Committee Regarding LID 340 (January 14, 1999) attached hereto at Exhibitsl and 2 are
hereby adopted by the Council and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Notice of Roll. The assessment roll as modified, approved,
and confirmed shall be filed with the Finance Division Director of the City for collection
and the Finance Division Director is authorized and directed to publish notice as required
by law stating that the roll is in her hands for collection and that payment of any assessment
thereon or any portion of such assessment can be made at any time within 30 days from the
date of first publication of such notice without penalty, interest or cost, and that thereafter
the sum remaining unpaid may be paid in fifteen (15) equal annual installments. The
estimated interest rate is stated to be b•a'5'0/o per annum, with the exact interest rate to be
fixed in the ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of the local improvement bonds for
Local Improvement District No. 340. The first installment of assessments on the
assessment roll shall become due and payable during the 30-day period succeeding the date
one year after the date of first publication by the Finance Division Director of notice that
the assessment roll is in her hands for collection and annually thereafter each succeeding
3 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
............
NN.N..i....
installment shall become due and payable in like manner. If the whole or any portion of
the assessment remains unpaid after the first 30-day period, interest upon the whole unpaid
sum shall be charged at the rate as determined above, and each year thereafter one of the
installments, together with interest due on the unpaid balance, shall be collected. Any
installment not paid prior to expiration of the 30-day period during which such installment
is due and payable shall thereupon become delinquent. Each delinquent installment shall
be subject, at the time of delinquency, to a charge of 9%penalty levied on both principal
and interest due upon that installment, and all delinquent installments also shall be charged
interest at the rate as determined above. The collection of such delinquent installments
shall be enforced in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 5: -Severabilitv. 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 6: - 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
4 LID 340 Final Assessment Roll
.....................
114,
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19, 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: SKYVIEW WAREHOUSE NO. 6 - BILL OF SALE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, acceptance of the bill of sale for Skyview Warehouse
#6 submitted by Auburn Commercial Development, Inc. for
continuous operation and maintenance of 200 feet of watermain
improvements and release of bonds after expiration period. The
project is located at 7818 So. 194th street .
3 . EXHIBITS: Vicinity map
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. 6E
-SUE
AVg
W VALLEY
NY
N
8 N
N
y
V
N
IV �
y
77 AV 5 11 AV S
�— UP RR
IN
N
t
T N N
O �\
m a\
r BO AV s
OAKSO E
A:
� s
N
9O ✓
nd LHL
l
� 1
y 0
_ aa. 111O AV
-PIV
1 I
1
W:
VAIIEY ry m =*
SKYVIEW WAREHOUSE #6
I�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19. 1999
Category Consent Calendar
1 . SUBJECT: 1999 MILL CREEK FISH HABITAT - ACCEPT AS COMPLETE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: As recommended by the Public Works
Director, accept the 1998 Mill Creek Fish Habitat Improvements
contract as complete and release retainage to Subdivision
Management, Inc . upon standard releases from the State and
release of any liens . The original contract amount was
$185, 855 . 22 . The final construction cost was $152, 150 . 12 .
3 . EXHIBITS: None
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Public Works Director
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . 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. 6F
d
9
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19 . 1999
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: KAY PRELIMINARY PLAT SU-98-10
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the
Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval with conditions
dated December 3 , 1998 , for the Kay Preliminary Plat .
� . 3 . EXHIBITS: Hearing Examiner recommendation with map
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Hearin Examiner
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
G . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember ��_seconds
to approveAmedl€y y the Hearing Examiner ' s recommendation of
approval with conditions for preliminary plat application of
Kay Preliminary Plat .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 7A
CITY Of /"U!2 J
�,✓ Jim White, Mayor
Plan Ig ment (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(253) 859-3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: KAY #SU-98-10
APPLICANT: Tom O'Connor
REQUEST: A preliminary plat request to subdivide approximately 3.36 acres into
15 single-family residential lots.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on Kent's East Hill between SE 244`h
Street and SE 248" Street, west of 104`h Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: August 4, 1998
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: September 23, 1998
MEETING DATE: November 18, 1998
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: December 3, 1998
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Brad Hazeltine, Planning Department
Gary Gill, Public Works Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Tom O'Connor, applicant
Other
James Jaeger
Malcom Hams
EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner file containing a copy of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,
notice of public hearing, maps and staff
report.
2204th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE t2531859-3300
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above,
and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area
by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions
and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 3.36 acres into 15
single-family residential lots on property located on East Hill, between SE 244' Street and SE 248`h
Street, west of 104`h Avenue SE.
A public hearing was held on Wednesday, November 18, 1998 to allow all interested persons an
opportunity to respond to the application and recommendation of approval. The Kent Planning
Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions in a written report
presented at the public hearing. The City of Kent and the applicant appeared at the hearing. No one
presented any opposition to the application.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
1. The decision of the Hearings Examiner must be supported by the evidence presented, as
stated in the Findings of Fact, and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for
review specified in state statutes and city ordinances. The standards and criteria for review
of preliminary plat applications are found in Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code(KCC)and
Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These review criteria include:
(a) KCC 12.04.020 which provides that the purpose of the city's subdivision regulations
is to:
Provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the
City of Kent, ensuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of
Kent shall be promoted and protected, that orderly growth, development, and the
conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper
provisions for all public facilities(including circulation, utilities, and services) shall
be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into
consideration; and that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plans shall be ensured.
(b) KCC 12.04.330 which specifies eight requirements that must be shown on the
preliminary plat map including appropriate name and dates, proposed platted ..s
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
property lines, contours and elevations, proposed public service areas, square footage
calculations for developed and open space, dimensions of each lot, statements of soil
type and drainage conditions, a description of existing land cover, and a description
of wildlife present.
(c) KCC 12.04.370 which requires a written statement from the Seattle-King County
Health Department as to the general adequacy of the proposed means of sewage
disposal and water supply.
(d) KCC 12.04.430 which provides for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable
environmental amenities so that urban development may be as compatible as
possible with the ecological balance of the area including preservation of drainage
patterns, protection of ground water supply, prevention of erosion and preservation
of trees and natural vegetation;.
(e) KCC 12.04.440 which specifies requirements for utilities including sanitary sewers,
a proper drainage plan and a proper water distribution system.
(f) KCC 12.04.450 which requires due consideration to the allocation of public service
usage areas and due regard for all natural features including large trees, water
courses, historical spots and other community assets that would add attractiveness
and value to the property.
(g) KCC 12.04.490 which provides for mitigation of any adverse effects of development
upon the existing park and recreational facilities in the City of Kent.
RCW 58.17.110 which requires an inquiry into the public use and interest proposed to be served by
the subdivision and a determination"that appropriate provisions are made for public health, safety
and general welfare and for such open spaces,drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, or other public
ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds,
schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning
features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school.
After considering all the evidence presented at the public hearing on the date specified above, the
following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are entered by the Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a preliminary plat to subdivide two parcels totaling 3.36 acres into
15 single-family residential lots (approximately 4.5 units per acre). The subject property is
located on East Hill,between SE 244" Street and SE 248"' Street,west of 104'Avenue SE.
r.✓ Exhibit 1, Staff'Report page 1; Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
2. The subject property is zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential. The maximum permitted
density is 6.05 units per acre. The surrounding properties are zoned O-MU, Professional and
Office/Mixed Use overlay to the east, and SR-6 to the north, south and west. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report,page 2. Existing land uses in the vicinity include low, medium, and high density
residential development with some residences converted to business establishments. Exhibit
1, Staff Report,page 2.
3. The City Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the site as Single Family Residential,
8 units per acre (SF-8). Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 2. The Comprehensive Plan supports
infill of vacant or undeveloped lots and development near existing urban services and
infrastructure. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5.
4. The smallest lot would be 5,726 square feet. Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map; Exhibit 1,
Staff Report,page 7. The City representative testified that all lots would satisfy minimum
lot size and width standards. Exhibit I page 5.
5. Sanitary sewer would be provided by the City of Kent. A gravity sewer system would be
required, extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 3; Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map; Exhibit 1, Public Works Conditions.
6. Water service would be provided by the City of Kent. A water main exists to serve the site.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 3; Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map; Exhibit 1, Public Works
Data Information Sheet.
7. A grade and fill permit for the site was submitted and approved on December 3, 1997. The
permit approval includes a requirement for a tree retention plan. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 3.
8. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan. The Public Works Department
reviewed the drainage plan and granted preliminary approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,pages
3-4.
9. Walnut Grove Park, a neighborhood park, is located in the vicinity of the proposed
subdivision. The City Parks Department submitted that the proposed subdivision would
impact existing park and recreation facilities. Thus,as a condition of approval, the applicant
would be required to dedicate five percent of the total property being developed as open
space or pay a fee in lieu of dedication pursuant to Kent Ordinance No. 2975. Exhibit 1,
Parks Department Comments;KCC Section 12.04.490.
10. Access to the site would be off SE 244'" Street, classified as a Residential Collector street,
which currently has substandard improvements.Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 3. The current
average daily traffic(ADT)along SE 244' Street is less than 500 vehicle trips per day. The
proposed preliminary plat would add an estimated 134 daily and 14 PM peak hour trips to
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
�..✓ Kay
#SU-98-10
the area. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 3. The City reviewed the impacts the proposal might
have on regional and local transportation systems and determined that mitigation would be
required. Exhibit 1, MDNS; Exhibit 1, Public Works Conditions.
11. Internal access would be from an internal access street(identified as 102n' Place SE on the
preliminary plat map)which would be designed to residential standards and terminate in a
cul-de-sac. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 1; Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map. The applicant
would construct a walkway from the proposed subdivision to the Lang Subdivision. This
walkway would provide pedestrian access to Meridian High School. Exhibit 1, MDNS,page
2.
12. As lead agency of environmental review, the City reviewed the proposal and issued a
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(MDNS) on September 23, 1998 which became
final on October 8, 1998. The MDNS was issued subject to 15 conditions pertaining to street
improvements and traffic mitigation, provisions for mass transit, pedestrian ways,
stormwater management, erosion control, and water quality protection. Exhibit 1, ,VDNS,
page 1. Any appeal of a MDNS must be filed within ten days of the date the MDNS becomes
final. In this case, this would have been October 18, 1998. No appeals to the MDNS were
filed.
13. During the environmental review process, the City identified adyerse tTaffic impacts and
impose %on itions to mi gate e i entified impacts. The conditions include a requirement
that the applicant enter into Environmental Mitigation Agreements (EMAs) for contributions
to current and future road improvement projects. Exhibit 1, MDNS. At the public hearing,
the applicant's attorney contested participation in any road improvement project that has not
yet been designed. The applicant's attorney argued that all mitigation must be proportional
to the identified impact and that an unknown project cannot be shown to be proportional.
He further argued that a Local Improvement District must provide an opportunity for an
objection to an assessment of each participant's cost and that the SEPA mitigation does not
allow for this opportunity. Argument of Mr. Harris. The City Engineer responded to the
argument of the applicant by pointing out the differences between an EMA and the
formation and assessment of a Local Improvement District. He stated that an EMA was
specifically designed as a SEPA mitigation measure and was intended to allow an applicant
to reduce impacts to traffic such that a threshold of non-significance could be issued by the
City. Testimony of Mr. Gill. The applicant's engineering representative testified that the
applicant agreed to the conditions of approval recommended by the City in its report on the
application;while reserving objections to SEPA conditions related to traffic as presented by
the applicant's attorney. Testimony of Mr. Jaeger.
14. Notice of the public hearing was given by 1) posting on property and 2) mailing to all
persons owning property within 300 feet of the subject property. Exhibit 1, Notice of Public
Hearing Affidavit
5
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearings Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this application; to
consider all evidence presented at the public hearing; and, based on that evidence, to issue
a decision to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions the preliminary plat
application. KCC 12.04.360; KCC 2.32.090.
2. The application for approval of a preliminary plat, with conditions, meets the criteria for
approval as established by the Revised Code of Washington and the City of Kent Council.
With conditions, the application will be consistent with the Kent Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan; will provide adequate water and sewer service to proposed residential
lots; will have considered natural features of the site in the proposed lot layout; and will
provide mitigation of adverse impacts to the surrounding area including those to park and
recreation facilities. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-14.
3. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that adequate provisions will be made for
public health and safety, open spaces, drainage ways, streets, mass transit, water and sanitary
sewer, parks and recreation, and protection of critical areas. The application should be
approved subject to conditions to require stormwater drainage improvements to address
increased water flow from impervious surfaces; street improvements to address increased
traffic on surrounding streets; sanitary sewer and water system improvements to ensure that
future residents will have adequate utility services; pedestrian access improvements to parks
and schools; and park improvements or fees to ensure parks are available for neighborhood
residents. Findings of Fact Nos. 1- 14.
4. The applicant's attempt to appeal conditions related to the MDNS is not timely and cannot
be decided at this time by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant's attorney is correct in his
argument that any conditions of approval imposed upon an application must be proportional
to the identified impact. There is ample caselaw to support this position.' However, the
applicant confuses mitigation pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) with
mitigation of impacts identified following environmental review under that act. SEPA
authorizes a responsible official to issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifrcance if
conditions imposed will allow a project to proceed without any significant adverse impacts
to the environment.'During review of this application, the City determined that several
1 See,for example, Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wash.2d 621,648-49,747 P.2d 1062(1987); Guimont v. Clarke, 121
Wash.2d 586,610-11,854 P.2d 1 (1993); Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 1,22,829 P.2d 765 (1992);
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wash.2d 34,55,830 P.2d 318(1992). Christianson v. Snohomish Health Dist., 133
Wn.2d 647,946 P.2d 768,(Wash. 1997).
2 For a comprehensive discussion of the use of the SEPA MDNS process see Anderson v.Pierce County 86
Wn.App. 290, 303, (1997)wherein that court states that:
6
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
`.,. Kay
#SU-98-10
conditions were necessary in order to issue a threshold determination of non-significance.
One of those conditions relates to participation in an Environmental Mitigation Agreement
(EMA). According to the testimony of the City Engineer, this agreement is different than
formation and assessment under an LID. In fact the EMA was developed to assist
applicants in providing for mitigation of traffic impacts without the uncertainties of the LID
process. In any event, the mitigation imposed on the applicant through the required
participation in an EMA was a condition of the environmental review process under SEPA;
not as a condition of approval during review under the subdivision statute and ordinances.
Thus,the applicant is required to contest that mitigation within the time frame allowed under
SEPA. This time had passed prior to the open record hearing on the application. The
challenge to the EMA condition is brought too late for the Examiner to consider. Findings
of Fact No. 12 & 13.
The Legislature created the MDNS process to encourage agencies and applicants to work together to reduce the
impacts of a project below the threshold level of significance. WAC 197-11-350. With an MDNS,promulgation
of an EIS and intense public participation are rendered unnecessary because the mitigated project will no longer
cause significant adverse environmental impacts.
Use of mitigation to bring projects into compliance with SEPA,without promulgation of an EIS,has been viewed
favorably by the Washington courts. The Washington State Supreme Court deems the MDNS process to be
"eminently sensible." Hayden v. City of Port Townsend,93 Wash.2d 870,880,613 P.2d 1164(1980),overruled on
other grounds,SANE v.Seattle, 101 Wash.2d 280,676 P.2d 1006(1984). The Court of Appeals,Division One,has
held that
SEPA encourages compromise and accommodation by requiring that the decision-maker consider mitigation and
state why it is inadequate to relieve the adverse impact. When the decision-maker imposes some mitigation
measures,this does not necessarily mean that unmitigated impacts no longer exist or will be totally eradicated by
mitigation,but merely that as mitigated,the project as a whole is acceptable. Victoria Tower Partnership v. City
of Seattle, 59 Wash.App.592,603,800 P.2d 380(1990)(footnote omitted).
Similarly, the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) has favorably characterized the MDNS process as
conducive to efficient,cooperative reduction or avoidance of adverse environmental impacts:
The mitigated DNS provision in WAC 197-11-350 is intended to encourage applicants and agencies to work together
early in the SEPA process to modify the project and eliminate significant adverse impacts. The mitigated DNS
process is not intended to reduce the amount of environmental review done on a project,but to reduce the paperwork
needed to document the process. Richard L. Settle, DOE Interpretations of Determination of Non-Significant
Provisions,at 466 app. (1988 SEPA Handbook G-1 to G-6).
The propriety of bringing a proposal below the significance threshold by informally negotiating project modifications
has been embraced by the SEPA Rules and reined in by the requirements of WAC 197-11-350. Settle, The
Washington State Environmental Policy Act—A Legal and Policy Analysis, § 13(d)(vi),pg. 137-39. The SEPA
Rules provide that if in the course of formulating a MDNS,the lead agency determines that"a proposal continues
to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, an EIS shall be
prepared." WAC 197-11-350(2). This touchstone of the SEPA review process provides protection from abuse. If
a MDNS is issued and an appealing patty proves that the project will still produce significant adverse environmental
impacts,then the MDNS decision must be held to be"clearly erroneous"and an EIS must be promulgated.
iMee.eee....
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
DECISION
The application for Preliminary Plat to subdivide 3.36 acres into 15 single-family residential lots is
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
A. GENERAL. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed Kay preliminary subdivision, File
#ENV-98-58.
B. PRIOR TO ELCORDING THE SUBDIVISION:
1. The Owner/ Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the
Department of Public Works, and either construct or bond for the following:
a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The sewer system shall be
extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to
serve all off-site properties within the same service area. In addition, the
sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as
needed to serve adjacent properties.
The septic system, if any, serving the existing home within the proposed
subdivision shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health
Department Regulations.
b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots.
The existing well, if any, shall be abandoned in accordance with the
requirements of the Department of Ecology.
C. Detailed Drainage Plans which show how the 100-year post-developed
stormwater runoff from this development will be collected,conveyed, stored,
treated and released to the City stormwater drainage system in compliance
with the Kent Construction Standards.
d. An open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system in accordance with Kent
Construction Standards to mitigate for potential impacts to stormwater runoff
quality.
8
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
a J Kay
#SU-98-10
e. Street Improvement Plans for the subdivision road which meets the City's
minimum street width criteria. This subdivision street shall be in
conformance with the requirements for a Residential Street as more fully
described in the City of Kent Construction Standards, including but not
limited to: 5-foot wide cement sidewalks along the entire frontage of the
platted property; at least 32-feet of paved street section; combined curbs &
gutters on both sides of the street; a City-approved street lighting system;
public stormwater drainage and treatment facilities; and street related
appurtenances.
2. The Owner/ Subdivider shall submit and receive approval for a Detailed Tree Plan
from the Planning Department. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department
of Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan.
3. The Owner / Subdivider shall provide the following restriction on the face of the
recorded plat: RESTRICTION: Direct vehicular access to or from Southeast 244`h
Street is not permitted for lots 1 and 14.
4. The Owner/ Subdivider shall dedicate all necessary public rights-of-way for the
public improvements required for subdivision approval, and shall otherwise convey
all public and private easements required for subdivision approval.
5. Prior to release of any construction bonds, the Department of Public Works must
approve As-Built Drainage Plans, As-Built Water Plans, As-Built Sewer Plans, and
Street Improvement Plans for the entire project prepared by a professional land
surveyor licensed by the State of Washington in conformance to the requirements of
Appendix "E" of the City of Kent Construction Standards.
6. A fee-in-lieu of park dedication shall be paid by the owner/subdivider in
conformance with KCC 12.04.490.
C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT ON ANY TOT IN THE KAY SUBDIVISION
#cr T 98 i n THE OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Record the plat.
2. Construct all of the improvements required above.
3. Receive approval of the required As-built Drawings for Water, Sewer, Street, and
Stormwater Facilities.
ti.✓
9
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Kay
#SU-98-10
Dated this 3rd day of December, 1998.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
10
F0. 1 (NOT VISITED)
S.E. 244th ST.
R.O.W.
�p
N 89*17'49' w T — ,
R.O.W. 149.97' N 89'17'49" w
B9.er _l_ 30.00'
T c
0 0�
20' 20_f
N 891 T49' W 40'
109.87' �--�
0 3 I
OIL oa of
AN 89'17'49' W
109.77' z
N m •oo
7C I 1..,r
N 89'1 T 49' w •.J,• h,•• O CDL+ I _
109.67' O V�
O O
Z L+ N 8917'49' W I u l
el
> � 109.56'TO
O m0 �J
cI
�I
� N 89'I7'49' W
N 109.46'
�. C m U
00 o m m �I I O
�q o O I
CO_ Ig c c it NCD
N
I D Q
N 8917Y9' W oQ S 89'17'49" E I ?
1oe.36' 7 122.00'
w
� 77.01' 40.99' I
Il^m N I z
O
N 89'17'49' W J 9�„ �: N n
113.29' 01
I f if O "►.
4= m
114.05'
N 8917'49' W 1�.,.1 c� yam•a�4
CZg ?p. N 89'1 T31' W
m
70.00' I
IUI � L_ _ IINN �\ B Giti Off.
I co
L ._m
rT 29.82' 1i Win' d
N 63'8''1' E N 86'15'17' E 3
N 8917'31' W 11 / N9.
104.15 nNW '\ O sJ89
r
N 119 T31' W °j~ �9 ZJ'!� I 0
m 38.96' iC?y
bN mN z C25 N 1
m O
I�i g p m 'tea I Obi +
G + r m
uO1i N g 1.. • gym. ? O I [`ti]'! .
m P %° gl � I
m
j 72.00' SD.00'
_ 72.33'J — 100,57' —
d. a 300,90' Lam! I
i QNN N 89'17'31" w
� I Tyy
I m Dm
z I
I
_ �
Kent City Council Meeting
�- Date January 19, 1999
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: ERIN GLADE PRELIMINARY PLAT SU-98-6
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This date has been set to consider the
Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of approval with conditions
dated December 3 , 1998 , for the Erin glade Preliminary Plat .
3 . EXHIBITS: Hearing Examiner recommendation with map
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 AC//T��I�pON"
Councilmember - moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve4me ftle?ty- the Hearing Examiner' s recommendation of
approval with conditions for preliminary plat application of
Erin Glade Preliminary Plat .
DISCUSSION:
..r ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 7B
CITY OF � 11
Jim White, Mayor
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. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NO: ERIN GLADE #SU-98-6
APPLICANT: Bill Curran, Shamrock Development Corporation
QUEST-: A preliminary plat request to subdivide approximately 9.15 acres into
34 single-family residential lots.
LOCATION: The property is located on Kent's East Hill between SE 271" Street
and SE 274`h Street, west of 114`h Avenue SE.
APPLICATION FILED: July 24, 1998
DETERMINATION OF
NONSI NIFICANCE Imo: September 14, 1998
MEETING DATE: November 18, 1998
RECOMMENDATION ISSUED: December 3, 1998
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
Brad Hazeltine, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Bill Curran
Other
Charlie Kiefer
Mallory Anderson
Dan Kiefer
EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner file containing a copy of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance,
notice of public hearing, maps and staff
report.
2204th AVENUE SOUTH ! KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5995/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
ENTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above,
and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area
by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions
and recommendation are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 9.15 acres into 34
single-family residential lots on property located on East Hill, between SE 271" Street and SE 274`h
Street, west of 114`h Avenue SE.
A public hearing was held on Wednesday, November 18, 1998 to allow all interested persons an
opportunity to respond to the application and recommendation of approval. The Kent Planning
Department reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions in a written report
presented at the public hearing. The City of Kent and the applicant appeared at the hearing.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
1. The decision of the Hearings Examiner must be supported by the evidence presented, as
stated in the Findings of Fact, and must be consistent with the standards and criteria for
review specified in state statutes and city ordinances. The standards and criteria for review
of preliminary plat applications are found in Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code (KCC) and
Chapter 58.17 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). These review criteria include:
(a) KCC 12.04.020 which provides that the purpose of the city's subdivision regulations
is to:
Provide rules, regulations, requirements, and standards for subdividing land in the
City of Kent, ensuring that the highest feasible quality in subdivision will be
attained; that the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the City of
Kent shall be promoted and protected, that orderly growth, development, and the
conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be ensured; that proper
provisions for all public facilities(including circulation, utilities, and services) shall
be made; that maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into
consideration; and that conformance with provisions set forth in the City of Kent
Zoning Code and Kent Comprehensive Plans shall be ensured.
(b) KCC 12.04.330 which specifies eight requirements that must be shown on the
preliminary plat map including appropriate name and dates, proposed platted
v"
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
property lines, contours and elevations,proposed public service areas, square footage
calculations for developed and open space, dimensions of each lot, statements of soil
type and drainage conditions, a description of existing land cover, and a description
of wildlife present.
(c) KCC 12.04.370 which requires a written statement from the Seattle-King County
Health Department as to the general adequacy of the proposed means of sewage
disposal and water supply.
(d) KCC 12.04.430 which provides for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable
environmental amenities so that urban development may be as compatible as
possible with the ecological balance of the area including preservation of drainage
patterns, protection of ground water supply, prevention of erosion and preservation
of trees and natural vegetation.
(e) KCC 12.04.440 which specifies requirements for utilities including sanitary sewers,
a proper drainage plan and a proper water distribution system.
(f) KCC 12.04.450 which requires due consideration to the allocation of public service
usage areas and due regard for all natural features including large trees, water
courses, historical spots and other community assets that would add attractiveness
and value to the property.
(g) KCC 12.04.490 which provides for mitigation of any adverse effects of development
upon the existing park and recreational facilities in the City of Kent.
RCW 58.17.110 which requires an inquiry into the public use and interest proposed to be served by
the subdivision and a determination"that appropriate provisions are made for public health, safety
and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, or other public
ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds,
schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning
features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school.
After considering all the evidence presented at the public hearing on the date specified above, the
following Findings, Conclusions and Decision are entered by the Examiner on this application.
FINDINGS
1. The applicant requests a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 9.15 acres into 34
single-family residential lots (approximately 3.7 units per acre). The subject property is
3
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
located on East Hill, between SE 271" Street and SE 274`h Street, west of 114`h Avenue SE.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 1; Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
2. The subject property is zoned SR-6, Single Family Residential. The maximum permitted
density is 6.05 units per acre. Existing land uses in the vicinity include low and medium
density residential development to the north, south and west of the site. The property to the
southeast of the proposed subdivision is currently undeveloped and owned by the City.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2.
3. The City Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject property as Single Family
Residential, 6 units per acre (SF-6). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. The Comprehensive
Plan supports infill of vacant or undeveloped lots and development near existing urban
services and infrastructure. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6.
4. The smallest lot would be 5,700 square feet. Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map. The City
representative submitted that all proposed lots would satisfy minimum lot size and width
standards. Exhibit ], Staff Report,page 6.
5. Numerous significant trees exist on the subject property. The City would require the
applicant to submit a detailed tree plan, subject to Planning Department approval, with the
intent to save those trees outside the area needed for road, utility, and house construction.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report,pages 7, 9.
6. Two wetland areas have been identified onsite. Tracts E and F would contain the wetlands
and the wetland buffers. Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map. To ensure adequate, ongoing
protection of the wetlands, the applicant would be required to adhere to conditions pertaining
to wetland protection and mitigation. Exhibit 1, MDNS; Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 10.
7. The City of Kent would provide sanitary sewer and water service. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 3. A water main and sanitary sewer line exist to serve the site. Exhibit 1, Public Works
Comment Letter.
8. The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan. The Public Works Department
reviewed the drainage plan and granted preliminary approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 4; Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
9. Pine Tree Park, a neighborhood park, is located in the vicinity of the subject property.
Exhibit 1, Parks Department Comments. The City Parks Department submitted that the
proposed subdivision would impact existing park and recreation facilities. As a condition
of approval the applicant would be required to dedicate five percent of the total property
being developed as open space or pay a fee in lieu of dedication pursuant to Kent Ordinance
No. 2975. Exhibit 1, Parks Department Comments; KCC Section 12.04.490. Pursuant to
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
KCC 12.04.490(C), the fee in lieu of dedication must fund a capital improvement to mitigate
the direct impact of the development and the fee must be expended in 5 years. Fees collected
in lieu of dedication must be used for improvements within the area directly impacted by the
development. Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
10. Kent Parks and Recreation Department submitted that it intends to purchase two parcels
adjacent to the south and east of the proposed subdivision for future development of a
neighborhood park. Exhibit 1, Kent Parks and Recreation Memorandum. A 12-foot wide
pedestrian access path would be constructed from the proposed plat road to the future park
site. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4-5; Exhibit 1, Preliminary Plat Map. The City
representative testified that is it likely that the required fee in lieu of dedication would be
used for this park. Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
11. Access to the site would extend from SE 274`h Street through the subject property to 114`h
Avenue SE. The internal road would be constructed to City standards. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report,page 1; Exhibit 1, MDNS, page ?.
12. One Hundred Fourteenth Street, classified as a Residential Collector street, has substandard
improvements.Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 3. The current average daily traffic (ADT)along
114`h Avenue SE is approximately 800 vehicle trips per day. The proposed preliminary plat
would add an estimated 320 daily and 33 PM peak hour trips to the area. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report,page 3. The City reviewed the impacts the proposal might have on regional and local
transportation systems and determined that mitigation would be required. Exhibit 1, MDNS.
13. Southeast 274" is currently classified as a Residential Street and is improved with 20 feet
of asphalt. Required improvements of SE 274' Street will be provided through the South
272nd/South 277d' Street Corridor Project. When complete SE 274"' Street will become a
Minor Arterial. A LID may be formed to subsidize the South 272"d/South 277`h Street
Corridor Project. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,page 4. A fair share contribution into the South
272nd/South 277d' Street Corridor Project would be required. Exhibit 1, MDNS,page 1.
14. As lead agency of environmental review, the City reviewed the proposal and issued a
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)on September 14, 1998 that became
final on September 29, 1998. The MDNS included 16 conditions relating to street
improvements and traffic impact mitigation; mitigation of impacts to wetland areas;
mitigation of stormwater impacts; and protection of water quality. Exhibit 1, MDNS. No
appeals to MDNS were filed.
15. Notice of the public hearing was given by: 1) posting on property and 2) mailing to all
persons owning property within 300 feet of the subject property.Exhibit 1, Notice of Public
Hearing Affidavit. The applicant's representative testified that the applicant agreed to the
5
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
conditions of approval. Testimony of Mr. Curran. At the public hearing, residents in the
vicinity inquired into the use of park fees and stormwater management. The testimony
presented was not in opposition to the proposed development but related specific concerns
that should be taken into account if the proposed project is developed. Testimony of
Mr. C. Kiefer, Testimony of Mr. D. Kiefer. The residents were assured by the City's
representative that the park fees would be collected and that park improvements would be
made. The City also agreed to meet with residents in the area to address specific concerns
about stormwater impacts. Testimony of Mr. Hazeltine.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearings Examiner has jurisdiction to hold a public hearing on this application; to
consider all evidence presented at the public hearing; and, based on that evidence, to issue
a decision to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions the preliminary plat
application. KCC 12.04.360; KCC 2.32.090.
2. The application for approval of a preliminary plat, with conditions, meets the criteria for
approval as established by the Revised Code of Washington and the City of Kent Council.
With conditions, the application will be consistent with the Kent Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan; will provide adequate water and sewer service to proposed residential
lots; will have considered natural features of the site in the proposed lot layout; and will
provide mitigation of adverse impacts to the surrounding area including those to park and
recreation facilities. Findings of Facts Nos. 1-15.
3. Conditions of approval are necessary to ensure that adequate provisions will be made for
public health and safety, open spaces, drainage ways, streets, mass transit,water and sanitary
sewer, parks and recreation, and protection of critical areas. The application should be
approved subject to conditions to require stormwater drainage improvements to address
increased water flow from impervious surfaces; street improvements to address increased
traffic on surrounding streets; sanitary sewer and water system improvements to ensure that
future residents will have adequate utility services; pedestrian access improvements to parks
and schools; park improvements or fees to ensure parks are available for neighborhood
residents; protection of existing trees to assist in stormwater control and visual aesthetics,
and protection of wetland areas to assist in stormwater control and protection of water
quality. Findings of Fact Nos. 1- 15.
DECISION
The application for Preliminary Plat to subdivide 9.15 acres into 34 single-family residential lots is
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
6
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The owner/subdivider shall implement all mitigation measures required by the mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance for the proposed Erin Glade preliminary subdivision, File
#ENV-98-54.
B. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL PLAS
1. The Owner/Subdivider shall receive approval for engineering drawings from the
Department of Public Works, and either construct or bond for the following:
a. A gravity sanitary sewer system to serve all lots. The sewer system shall be
extended from the existing City sanitary sewer system and shall be sized to
serve all off-site properties within the same service area. In addition, the
sanitary sewer system shall be extended across the entire subdivision as
needed to serve adjacent properties.
The septic system serving the existing home(s) within the proposed short plat
�✓ shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department
Regulations.
b. A water system meeting domestic and fire flow requirements for all lots.
The existing well(s) shall be abandoned in accordance with the requirements
of the Department of Ecology.
C. Detailed Drainage Plans which show how the 100-year post-developed
stormwater runoff from this development will be collected, conveyed, stored,
treated and released to the City stormwater drainage system in compliance
to the City of Kent Construction Standards.
d. An open-to-the-air stormwater treatment system in accordance with the
requirements of the Kent Construction Standards to mitigate for potential
impacts to stormwater runoff quality.
e. Street Improvement Plans for the subdivision street. The Street Improvement
Plans for this subdivision street shall be designed in conformance to the
requirements for a Residential Street as described in the City of Kent
Construction Standards, and as specified in the DNS for this subdivision.
7
...............
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade —'
#SU-98-6
Said improvements shall also include traffic calming measures and/or
devices as may be determined necessary by the Public Works Department.
f. Street Light Plans meeting the requirements of the City of Kent Development
Assistance Brochure for Street Lighting Requirements prepared by a
qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington. This
brochure is available from the Transportation Section of the Public Works
Department.
2. The Applicant shall submit and receive approval for a Detailed Tree Plan from the
Planning Department. Grading Plans cannot be approved by the Department of
Public Works without an approved Detailed Tree Plan.
3. The owner/subdivider shall dedicate or deed all necessary public right/of/way for the
improvements listed in Sections A& B and provide all public and private easements
necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the required
improvements identified in Sections A & B , above.
4. Prior to release of any construction bonds, the Department of Public Works must
approve As-Built Drainage Plans for the entire site prepared by a professional land
surveyor licensed by the State of Washington in conformance to the requirements of
Appendix "E" of the City of Kent Construction Standards.
5. The surface of the pedestrian access tract shall be improved to a width of 10 feet with
2"of asphalt over 4"of crushed base and the entry secured with protective bollards.
A minimum 6 foot high solid wood fence shall be installed along both sides of the
access tract and appropriate illumination shall be provided as approved by the Public
Works Department.
6. All private access tract roadways shall be improved with a minimum 20 foot width
of asphalt if servicing up to 4 lots.
7. Any lot which makes use of a private access tract roadway shall have a minimum 12'
width of continuous parallel lot frontage abutting such tract to allow for a standard
residential driveway connection.
8. The owner/subdivider shall submit and receive approval for a Wetland Delineation
Report and Mitigation Plan from the Public Works Department. Avoiding Wetland
Impacts shall be pursued to the maximum extent possible.
8
Hearing Examiner Findings and Recommendation
Erin Glade
#SU-98-6
9. The owner/subdivider shall dedicate five percent of the site area or pay a fee-in-lieu
of dedication for park and open space purposes;pursuant to KCC 12.04.490.
C. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT ON ANY LOT IN THE ERIN
GLADE SUBDIVISION (#SU 98-06) THE OWNER/SI IRDIVIDER SHALL:
1. Receive approval for the Wetland Delineation Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan
for this subdivision.
2. Execute all EMAs required by the conditions of approval for the DNS issued for this
project.
3. Construct all of the improvements required above.
4. Receive approval of the required As-built Drawings for Water, Sewer, Street, and
Stormwater Facilities.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 1998.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
9
14054' 68.34"1 '.3468 5 1'50'JJ'W 620.36•
20'I � � -� 68.54' 88.34' 68.31'
68.34• 68.54'
pIt)
01.11Y ? F Y w F V
I !' 68.54' 68.34' 6d.34' 22.71• ? ? \••"'
I CJ `q
N01'30'JTE 426_40' �7 � q Y 5t.J9'
�I
69.55' 22..00' \
9.00' 39.00'
61.00' 58.00• ' c••,J�
cc a
oRM Q 6" �Noa43'JYE BB.6r'
g� Y g• a g w gS .N N
G Vy
i 1 6$+ 61.12' ln.o• Noi• •J' 22,0• NO2' 6'w r
Y
ri � elr.i 'N00'45'J YE 83.00'
I I ♦ S ;IF N w u 50.00, 79.76' 53.00' 1 a
N00'43•J E 125.79' I ?=0 0
m ? y -ym�j n
? '? r�„a gr y !u 19 m 4s•JrE 6s
0.0'1 J7.00' 68.00' 70.00• 63.
y .r
501'39'31 W J08.31
S •�"6 140748'2.YE 118.19' �.
Y
m _ fie. NW48'2YE 103.22'
•-• i m ' 4' N L^
A3MT USE 01MIIAr IRAOT
e N I aS
1 1401'10'05E 105.70' a
v
rrI
atI ?;Ygag ?fie
I
m "1 1 Nx rTl y9, r4�,,, NO048'23'E /1J.60• NI '3
g I g Oro
" :to
N Z
3 �W
� I :I Noq � a ��11f !T'W.f ��?• �i 1 YO��� n
n YLA
I I N 4rT N
M�
W
41 I I r Y. a -!•v16 �+ "i s p� lI u
/o a
I L - - - - - - - - - - -
f as
I - - - - - - - - - - - y CIS K rr I
I I f-1"3W 3WI IN t`u
1'18'F N00•t58f W 1YE
1 sf:J9 . 1
O® y w 8 NOf17' E .1 '
I 1 ul1iii gall
I omNmY# 4Nr ..j .�.
all
Sim; Q NOt•17'34'E 86.85•
1 5 rn CJ >< nnnn nn�� A •ATAWT'or
0 4900•--
I 1 20 I
I � n Zi � orPf.Pu pawHf � a � .. ... k I �•...•'
c+j g
1- - - - - _ 'E sorn•J4'w 93.7 • SOt•TTJ4'w 72.78• S� �------� "
1 EAST LAW OF THE N W 1/4 OF S01•t7'J4'W 329.61• - -
THE N.E 1/4 OF 111E N.E 7/4 OF ASi1M1.T PAVEMENT
SEC. 32. T. 22 N.. R. 5 E, W.Y c I P
114TH AVFNUE S.E. u
........................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19 , 1999
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
CPA-98-2 (A-L) /CPZ-98- (1-9)
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: According to City of Kent procedures,
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are processed collectively
once every year. Applications for 12 plan amendments were
received by September 1 , 1998 . Ten of these applications were
plan map amendments with rezone requests; one application was
for a policy amendment, and one request was an amendment of the
City' s Capital Facilities Element . The Land Use and Planning
Board held public hearings and made recommendations on these
proposals on November 23 , November 30 , and December 14 , 1998 .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, staff report to Land Use & Planning
Board (11/23/98) , minutes of 11/23/98 LUPB meeting, minutes of
11/30/98 LUPB meeting, memo to LUPB dated 12/14/98 , and minutes
�l of 12/14/98 LUPB meeting
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Land Use & Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
S . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS :
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve/modify/deny the Land Use & Planning Board' s recom-
mendations on the proposed 1998 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Amendments, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary ordinances .
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 7C
CITY Ofsr. s�
White, Mavor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 1999
TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) / #CPZ-98-(1-9) - 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Attached is the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation relating to the proposed 1998
amendments to the Kent Comprehensive Plan (#CPA-98-2 (A-L)/#CPZ-98- (1-9). The Land Use and
Planning Board conducted public hearings on this item on November 23rd, November 30th, and
December 14, 1998, (see attached minutes).
�. As outlined in the attached staff report, the City received a total of twelve proposed amendments to the
comprehensive plan. Ten of these requests involve changes to the Land Use Plan Map. The proposed
comprehensive plan amendments have been reviewed concurrently with corresponding changes to the Kent
zoning map.
The Land Use and Planning Board considered the following applications at their public hearings. A
summary of each application is provided below, followed by the Planning Board's recommended action
on amending the Land Use Plan Map and zoning map (see attachments A and B).
Proposal A- A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre
to Commercial for the property located at the southwest corner of SE 256" Street and
132o' Avenue SE. (Brutsche #CPA-98-2(A)/#CPZ-98-1)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's request for a land use designation
of Commercial is denied, and the zoning remains SR-6.
Proposal B - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to Low Density Multifamily
Residential for the property located on the south side of Kent-Des Moines Road,
approximately 700 feet west of Pacific Highway South. (Shulman #CP-98-2(B)/#CPZ-
98-2)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's request for a land use designation
of Low Density Multifamily Residential be denied, and the zoning remain General
Commercial.
"041h,\\FNUE SOUTH / KENT.\\:\SHINGToN TFL.EPI1oNF (2$31 Sjo.3300
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) / #CPZ-98- (1-9) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
January 19, 1999
Page 2
Proposal C - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 3 units per acre
to Single Family Residential 6 units per acre for the property located at 13602 SE 282nd
Street. (Burridge#CPA-98-2(C)/#CPZ-98-3).
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's request for a land use designation
of SF-6 is denied, and the zoning remains SR-3.
Proposal D- A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre
to Commercial for the property located at 11715 and 11733 Kent-Kangley Road.
(Costanzo#CPA-98-2(D)/#CPZ-984)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicants' property be redesignated as
Commercial in the comprehensive plan and NCC, Neighborhood Convenience
Commercial, on the zoning map.
Proposal E - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Low Density Multifamily
Residential for the property located at 881h Avenue South and South 2181h Street.
(Mower/Tonelli #CPA-98-2(E)/#CPZ-98-5)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicants' property be redesignated as Low
Density Multifamily Residential in the comprehensive plan and MRG, Garden Density
Multifamily Residential, on the zoning map.
Proposal F- A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multifamily Residential to
Commercial for the property located at 12809 Kent-Kangley Road. (Mower/Nguyen
#CPA-98-2(F)/#CPZ-98-6)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicants' request for a land use designation
of Commercial be denied, and the zoning remain MRG.
Proposal G - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Mobile Home Park to Commercial for the
property located at 15386 SE 272°d Street. (Gusa #CPA-98-2(G)/#CPZ-98-7)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's property be redesignated
Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and Community Commercial, on the zoning map.
Proposal H - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre
to Single Family Residential 8 units per acre for the property located at 25840 135'
Lane SE. (Houle#CPA-98-2(H)/#CPZ-98-8)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicant's property be redesignated Single
Family Residential 8 units per acre in the comprehensive plan, and the zoning changed to
SR-8, Single Family Residential, 8.71 units per acre.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) / #CPZ-98- (1-9) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
January 19, 1999
Page 3
Proposal I - A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Restricted Mixed Use to Medium Density
Multifamily Residential for the property located at 108'h Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley
Road. (Mower/Hebert#CPA-98-2(I)/#CPZ-98-9)
The Planning Board is recommending that the applicants' request for a land use designation
of Medium Density Multifamily be denied, and the zoning remain Professional and
Office/Mixed Use.
Proposal J- A request to add the following policy in one of the Comprehensive Plan sections headed
by Goal LU-9 and Goal LU-10 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element: Allow
and encourage single family townhouse style attached condominiums in the single
family residential zones that permit residential densities of six units per acre or higher.
(Ruth #CPA-98-2(J) )
The Planning Board is recommending that a work program be set up for 1999 to study the
proposal to allow attached units in single family zones.
Proposal K- Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element. (Kent Finance Department#CPA-98-2
(K))
The Planning Board is recommending that the Capital Facilities Element be amended as
... outlined by the Finance Department.
Proposal L - A change to the Land Use Map from Single Family Residential 8 units per acre to
Mixed Use in order to implement an action contained in the Kent Downtown Strategic
Action Plan. (Kent Planning Department #CPA-98-2(L) )
The Planning Board is forwarding this request to the City Council without a
recommendation.
Staff will be available at the January 19, 1999, City Council meeting to discuss the Planning Boards'
recommendations on these proposals and answer any questions about these applications.
MJ: pm CPA982CC.MEM.doc
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Linda Phillips, Planner
Sarah Bradley, Plattner
May Miller, Finance Director
Barbara Engstrom, CFP Analyst
City of Kent - Planning Department
C
. 0 1:7,
; / (1 Q
\/ l..I
m
1 r
I ! -
(73
0 V
i I i I 1
1 •
I
_Qr —J h-
i .
I"
L ❑ -
G
T -iPRIV-1 � 1
97
1 r^ C
eta
�t I I L13 �:.
APPLICATION NAME: Brutsche
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (A) DATE: January 19, 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment — N --
MW Application boundary
��'� Land use boundary
Recommendation: No Change
rw City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
Li
Cl aIL
i d
p I
Ifs ,° f q
lr
Se jT
..77 _
APPLICATION NAME: Brutsche
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-1 DATE: January 19, 1999
FFQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning
® Applicad,a boundary
Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary
�� City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
Lj
Q! Cl
L o ✓
0,
-011
'! Ll
- s
Lr" ,
�7
71
� 1 1
r - a CD'
f p
u �
('L' j c
U U , `
_ f _
ell
APPLICATION NAME: Shulman
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (B) DATE: January 197 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N
® Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change Lana use bow
VrV"V . City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
3:. Q• Q L ^�..
o
CD
CD
. � •OIL. `��� �� �• i °��° `�,'� ; �'��1 `�
f y�
�.
a � !l'1 j�!
❑ - rti
G�
--
i
UR
7
^ �1r
' Lr J 1 \\
.C!
I plij,
APPLICATION NAME: Shulman
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-2 DATE: January 19, 1999
17VQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning
�� Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change Zoning bow'
City limits
..............
City of Kent - Planning Department
LEcL
SE 280 ST
l(ryyj � I
O V
_ I
�2,
C CD, C 0 p Q r T 7
l l
1 �!
APPLICATION NAME: Burridge
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (C) DATE: January 19, 1999
A
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N
Application bouadu9
Recommendation: No Change Lana» boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
I
O Q
.r
60
`r l
SE 280 ST fP
o
SS
...... ��
�.oCa r n U d � , a❑ �� _i
i
APPLICATION NAME: Burridge
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-3 DATE: January 19, 1999
QUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning AOL
Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary
City limits
r ,
- �(�, t� �s�ram, .•+.
J
�•.� ■�l�
, INS
lei Efild
\ - � � � ■ ; +� �► ®� is
• 1 # fir"`
i.
...............
City of Kent - Planning Department
Tit
14
_ l
_ 1 { n •jt{a
I
• I
N 11 11 I
1 I
1
1 IkIkI y F:
` J
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Tonelli
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (E) DATE: January 19, 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N
®Application boum1my
Recommendation: Industrial to Low Density Multifamily ��boas
erwWwwr City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
F7Ti......
i(p
1, �
I '
/ A
I I.N.
J,•
RH
it .:
1 J III, ..1'
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Tonelli
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-5 DATE: January 19, 1999
QUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning
Application boutuiary
Zecommendation: Commercial Manufacturing 1 to MRG =--- zoning boundary
City limits
...............
City of Kent - Planning Department
�. _ 1 Z ...
os_ , , 1
i
r
V .
v7
, z7 , o � _
IT\"10AJ \
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Nguyen
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (F) DATE: January 19, 1999
n r ti.E
n/
016,
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N
Application bou%LU7
Recommendation: No Change T'—'— Land we boundary
rrrr,,Tr City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
p
c c
07
r \\ {
c{� F1t v
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Nguyen
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-6 DATE: January 19, 1999
P7',QUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning A06
`"� ®Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change Zoning boundary .
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
Q
dQ o CIO
CD.
: Q Uc nr� ,
cc
CL
Ica
i
C Dom, �� r
27.2
1
APPLICATION NAME: Gusa
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (G) DATE: January 19, 1999
"REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment A
® Application botudary
Recommendation: Mobile Home Park to Commercial �'��'Land„�boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Department
r
-
o I
CIac� i
n--\
\� Q �` " C I
P -
t ❑
2-22-. -T
I
APPLICATION NAME: Gusa
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-7 DATE: January 19, 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning
`,, ® AppAboundary
Recommendation: MHP to Community Commercial Zoning boundary
rrrrrr.r Ciry limits
Will RE
_ - �Z
1• •
• ` ism Ig��
e 1°
' oils - t - t ' t of 16 T
.................
City of Kent - Planning Department
a c d� 0 -
d `J
lrl V
J L
S 260L ' W i
I
f �LDMF =�
1` a
n
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Hebert
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (n DATE: January 19, 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment AL
® Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change a+ L=d use boundary
..WW..,r City limits
City of Dent - Planning Department
a ❑ ❑ 1111 ❑ R
� a � r �
RRit ; �Lj
S 2 61��i i l
_ LJ0 4
APPLICATION NAME: Mower/Hebert
NUMBER: #CPZ-98-9_ . DATE: January 19, 1999
RFFQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Zoning
✓ Application boundary
Recommendation: No Change --- Zoning boundary
City limits
City of Kent - Planning Deparanent
Di kill
C
cuffG
r� ray
' I,/. a
% C
— ❑ p ^ CI
31
• !I
=
.� I -t
�.
I
-I
I Il I
i
I ,
_ I I
I , .
APPLICATION NAME: City of Kent
NUMBER: #CPA-98-2 (L) DATE: January 19, 1999
REQUEST: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ AlPPtication boundary
Recommendation: No Recommendation — Land use boundary
.r•+rrR City limits
CITY or 27LUJ
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 23, 1998
MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
FROM: MATTHEWS JACKSON, PLANNER/GIS COORDINATOR
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-2 (A-L)/#CPZ-98- (1-9) - 1998 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING
AMENDMENTS
INTRODUCTION
In April, 1995, the Kent City Council adopted the Kent Comprehensive Plan, which was prepared and adopted under the
provisions of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires that comprehensive plans
combine land use, transportation, capital facilities, and other elements in a way, which is both internally consistent and
consistent with plans from other jurisdictions in the region. The GMA also requires that a city's development regulations
implement and be consistent with the plan.
The GMA establishes procedures for the amendment of plans,and stipulates that plans can only be amended once a year
unless an emergency is declared which requires immediate action. Pursuant to the provisions in the GMA, the City
Council adopted an ordinance (Ordinance #3237) outlining procedures for the amendment of the City's plan. These
procedures are now outlined in Chapter 12.02 of the Kent City Code. The City's procedures ordinance established
September 1 of each calendar year as the deadline for applications to be submitted to the Planning Department for
proposed amendments to the plan.
1998 AMENDMENTS
As of September 1, 1998,the Planning Department received twelve applications for amendments to the comprehensive
plan. Ten of these applications were initiated by private property owners,and two applications were initiated by the City
of Kent. The proposed amendments are summarized below:
1. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre to Commercial for
the property located at the southwest comer of SE 256te Street and 132od Avenue SE. (Brutsche)
2. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Commercial to Low Density Multifamily Residential for the
property located on the south side of Kent-Des Moines Road, approximately 700 feet west of Pacific
Highway South. (Shulman)
3. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 3 units per acre to Single Family
Residential 6 units per acre for the property located at 13602 SE 2820d Street. (Burridge).
4. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre to Commercial for
the property located at 11715 and 11733 Kent-Kangiey Road. (Costanzo)
5. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Low Density Multifamily Residential for the
property located at 88'Avenue South and South 218t°Street. (Mower/Tonelli)
]_04th AVENGE SOUTH / DENT.WASHINGTON wo,4s,,5/ rFLEPHONE 115 tl s54-31IMI
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 2
6. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Low Density Multifamily Residential to Commercial for the
property located at 12809 Kent-Kangley Road. (Mower/Nguyen)
7. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Mobile Home Park to Commercial for the property located
at 15386 SE 2721A Street. (Gusa)
8. A change to the Land Use Plan Map from Single Family Residential 6 units per acre to Single Family
Residential 8 units per acre for the property located at 25840 135' Lane SE. (Houle)
9. A change to the Land Use Map from Restricted Mixed Use to Medium Density Multifamily Residential
for the property located at 108' Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. (Mower/Hebert)
10. Amendment to Goals LU-9 and LU-10 of the Land Use Element. (Ruth)
11. Amendments to the Capital Facilities Element. (Kent Finance Department)
12. Implementation of a portion of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. (City of Kent)
It should be noted that any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map will be reviewed concurrently with correspondir".
amendments to the zoning map.
This memorandum will present information about each proposed amendment. Maps have been prepared, and are
attached, for each area, which will be affected by the proposed changes to the Land Use Plan Map and zoning map
(Attachment A). Each proposed amendment will be analyzed and staff s recommendation will be noted.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Section 12.02.050 of the Kent City Code outlines the standards of review, which must be used by staff and the City
Council in analyzing any proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Proposed amendments are to be examined based
on the following criteria:
1. The amendment will not result in development that will adversely affect the public health,safety, and general
welfare;
2. The amendment is based upon new information that was not available at the time of adoption of the
comprehensive plan, or that circumstances have changed since the adoption of the plan that warrant an
amendment to the plan; and
3. The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the comprehensive plan,and that the amendment
will maintain concurrency between the land use,transportation,and capital facilities elements of the plan.
The proposed plan amendments have been analyzed based on these criteria.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 3
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Proposal A- Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning for property located at southwest corner of SE 256te
Street and 132"Avenue SE
Applicant: Leo C. and Norma J. Brutsche(Brutsche)
Existing Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Proposed Plan Designation:
6 units per acre Commercial
Existing Zoning: SR-6, Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning:
6.05 units per acre GC, General Commercial
Background
The subject property consists of one tax lot, which is approximately 41,861 square feet. The property is located at the
southwest corner of SE 256 h Street and 132nd Avenue SE and currently has a land use designation of SF-6, Single Family
Residential and a zoning designation of SR-6, Single Family Residential.
The property is currently vacant. The site is generally flat and appears to contain no wetlands. Properties to north, south,
�i east and west are single family residential.
Analysis
The applicant states that this proposal would promote the public health,safety and general welfare by providing a"comer
store" site for neighborhood oriented shops. While the Kent Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-13.5 discusses analyzing
the potential for development of"corner store', small scale,neighborhood-oriented shops adjacent to selected rights-of-
way in higher density neighborhoods, staff has not been directed to take up this issue at this time. Since the site is
surrounded by single family homes, this property would not be considered to be within a high density neighborhood.
A commercial use at this intersection would conflict with additional goals and policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan.
These include the following:
Goal LU-12—Promote orderly and efficient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order
to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with extension of facilities,
and to allow businesses to benefit from their proximity to one another.
Policy LU-123—Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas.
Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed use zoning and higher-density zones, planned unit
developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes.
The land use goals and policies make reference to encouraging commercial infill development in existing commercial
areas. The parcel in question is not in a commercial area;the nearest commercial districts are at SE 240*Street and 132"d
Avenue SE and SE 272ed Street and 132id Avenue SE. Furthermore, the Public Works Department finds that a
commercial use at this location would have a significant impact on neighboring properties in the amount of increased
peak hour trips. It should be noted that GC zoning allows uses, which typically generate a great deal of traffic, such as
food stores and gasoline service stations.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 4
Recommendation
The uses surrounding the proposed amendment are residential and any type of commercial use would be out of character.
In addition, the Public Works Department expressed concern with the amount of additional traffic that might be
generated by a potential use and the negative impact on neighboring properties. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
infill development in existing commercial areas; consequently, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for
a land use designation of Commercial and GC zoning.
Proposal B- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the properties located 700 feet west of Pacific
Highway South,on the south side of Kent-Des Moines Road
Applicant: Jack Lynch(Shulman)
Existing Plan Designation: Commercial Proposed Plan Designation:
Low Density Multifamily
Existing Zoning: GC, General Commercial Proposed Zoning:
MRG, Garden Density Multifamily
16/units per acre
Background
The subject site consists of five tax parcels and covers an area of approximately 7.5 acres. The site is currently zoned
General Commercial and the land use designation is Commercial. The City of Des Moines abuts the site on the north,
west,and south. The area east of the subject property is zoned General Commercial, and is developed with the Midway
Crossing shopping center. A residential subdivision is located to the south and southwest of the site, and approximately
five single family dwellings face the subject property. An apartment complex lies to the west of the site,and three single
family dwellings, a mobile home park and commercial uses lie to the north across Kent-Des Moines Road.
The site has had a previous environmental review for a possible commercial development,but the applicant states the
site is inappropriate for commercial activity. This site was one of the proposed 1997 comprehensive plan amendments.
Last year the applicant made a request for a land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and a
zoning of MRM in order to develop the site with apartments. This request was denied by the City Council.
Analysis
Significant slopes,an inventoried wetland,and the headwaters of Massey Creek are present on this site. The elevation
along Kent-Des Moines road, at the northwest corner of the property, is 335 feet.This elevation dips downward to an
elevation of 285 feet at the westerly boundary of the property. Slopes of ten percent are found on the eastern edge of the
property. The site is currently vacant,and the applicant states that the developable portion of the site is located in the
north/northeast part of the property. The northern portion of the site fronts on Kent-Des Moines Road. Due to the
location of sensitive areas on this lot, all development is likely to occur along the frontage of Kent-Des Moines Road.
Although this area has less slope than other non-wetland portions of the site, it is likely that substantial grade and fill
will be required to accommodate new development.
The Public Works Department has commented that development of this site with multifamily residences would likely
create less traffic than if it were developed with a commercial development,as allowed under existing zoning standards.
The amount of traffic generated by an apartment development would depend on the total number and type of units
constructed. The applicant has stated that they are considering some 70 to 80 two story condominium units. This is
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 5
substantially less than the 132 units considered under their previous application. The City of Des Moines includes this
site in its comprehensive plan,and they give the area a 10— 12 unit townhouse designation.
Recommendation
One of the criteria by which each proposed comprehensive plan amendment must be evaluated is new information,which
was not available at the time of development of the comprehensive plan. This site was evaluated for multifamily
development one year ago during the comprehensive plan amendment process. The applicant made a request for a land
use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential, and a zoning of MRM,Medium Density Multifamily, 23
units acre density. Staff recommended a land use designation of Low Density Multifamily Residential and a zoning of
MRG, Garden Density Multifamily Residential, 16 units per acre density. Staff's recommendation was based on a more
realistic expectation of density on the subject property. The Land Use and Planning Board and City Council still voted
to allow no new multifamily on the site.The new information provided by the applicant includes a tentative site plan and
a new topographic survey.During the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the city council, through its land use decisions,
voted to eliminate the potential for new multifamily areas on west hill. Although the impacts of commercial development
may be as great or greater on the environment than those of the proposed multifamily project, the city council made it
clear last year that they were not ready for new multifamily zoning on west hill. Therefore, staff is recommending denial
of this proposed comprehensive plan amendment.
Proposal C - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at 13602 SE 282ad Street
Applicant: Charles Burridge (Burridge)
Existing Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Proposed Plan Designation:
3 units per acre Single Family Residential
6 units per acre
Existing Zoning: Single Family Residential Proposed Zoning:
3.71 units per acre Single Family Residential
6.05 units per acre
Background
The subject site consists of 2 tax parcels and covers an area of approximately 11.21 acres. The site has a land use
designation of SF-3, Single Family Residential, 3 units per acre maximum density, and is zoned SR-3, Single Family
Residential, 3.71 units per acre. The site is located in the Meridian annexation area,which became a part of the city on
January 1, 19%. The initial zoning placed on the property at that time was largely a reflection of existing King County
zoning. The applicant is requesting a change to a land use designation of SF-6, Single Family Residential, 6 units per
acre, and a zoning of SR-6, Single Family Residential, 6.05 units per acre in order to subdivide and construct single
family detached residences.
The site is currently occupied by a single family residence and accessory buildings. The site contains areas,which have
been identified as wetlands in the City's wetland inventory. Properties to the north and east are zoned SR-6 and have a
land use designation of SF-6. Properties to the west are zoned SR-3 and have a land use designation of SF-3. Properties
to the south are zoned SR-1 and have a land use designation of SF-1.
Analvsis
This site is adjacent to an area,which was part of the 1997 comprehensive plan amendment process.The Clasen/Dinsdale
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 6
amendment made the same request as the current applicants,and their proposal was approved by the city council. That
site was significantly encumbered with wetlands. The subject property also contains inventoried wetland areas,which
will limit the developable area of the property. The site is located in an area which is quickly transitioning from large
lot homesteads exceeding one acre to typical suburban residential development on lots of 5,000 to 8,000 square feet.
There are several plats, which have recently been approved in the immediate area and others which are still in the
approval process. Most of the plat activity has occurred in the area designated SF-6 on the land use map and with a
zoning of SR-6.
Recommendation
The applicant and other developers in the area have stated that in order for residential projects to be feasible, a certain
minimum yield of lots is necessary based on the cost of the property and the cost of providing the urban infrastructure
and services required by the city's construction standards. SR-3 zoning allows a density of 3.71 units per acre and a
minimum lots size of 12,000 square feet. Properties with few environmental constraints and of uniform size can usually
achieve the maximum density of 3.71 units per acre. However, those properties with irregular shape, landlocked
locations,or environmental constraints will be very difficult to develop at a similar density. The adopted King County
planning policies established four units per acre as a minimum, which is efficient to provide urban services. Therefore,
even under ideal circumstances, and a maximum density of 3.71 units per acre, the SR-3 zone probably provides a
minimum acceptable yield of lots for typical suburban residential development.
The wetlands located on the subject property will limit the amount of developable area. The fact that these
environmentally constrained areas appear to be located in the middle of the subject property will also impact the type,,,.,,
and shape of development possible on the site. The wetlands and a typical buffer of 50 feet is likely to be protected as
a permanent sensitive areas tract on the property. In order to yield an acceptable number of lots on this property staff
feels that a zoning of SR-6 is more appropriate for this property. This is consistent with the action taken on the adjacent
property during the 1997 comprehensive plan amendments. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for
a land use designation of SF-6 and a zoning of SR-6.
Proposal D - Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for property located at the southeast corner of
116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road
Applicant: Richard Costanzo (Costanzo)
Existing Plan Designation: Single Family 6 Proposed Plan Designation:
6 units per acre Commercial
Existing Zoning: SR-6, Single Family Proposed Zoning:
6.05 units per acre NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
Backuound
The subject property consists of two parcels located at 11715 and 11733 Kent Kangley Road, respectively. The two
parcels combined are 2.62 acres. The parcels were brought into the City as part of the Ramstead/East Hill annexation
area in 1994. In January, 1995, the City Council designated the property as R1-7.2(now SR-6) on the zoning map,
as part of the Ramstead/East Hill annexation area initial zoning. In April of 1995, when the City Council adopted the
Kent Comprehensive Plan, the property was designated as SF-6, single family residential. r,
Both parcels currently contain a single-family residence. The parcel to the west is developed with a small convenience
store which was zoned NCC (Neighborhood Convenience Commercial) by the City Council as part of the
Ramstead/East Hill initial annexation zoning. The parcel immediately to the west of this parcel, which is located at
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 7
the southeast corner of 116' Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road, was approved for a plan and zoning change from
single-family residential to neighborhood commercial in early 1998 as part of the 1997 comprehensive plan amendment
cycle. However, the approval was conditioned on a requirement to dedicate property for the improvement of the
intersection of I I and Kent Kangley as part of the 277' Corridor project. To date, this condition has not been met,
and therefore no ordinance has been adopted approving the amendment, meaning that the parcel is still designated on
the plan and zoning maps as single-family residential.
Property to the west on the west side of 116th Avenue South is zoned MRG (Multi-family residential, 16 units per acre)
and is developed with an apartment project and three single-family residences. Property to the south, east and north
of the subject property is designated SF-6 in the comprehensive plan and zoned SR-6. The property to the south is the
Lindental subdivision, which was recorded in 1991 and where homes are currently being constructed. The property
to the north is developed with low density single-family residential uses, as well as a City of Kent well site and a storm
detention area for the Seven Oaks subdivision located to the northwest.
The intersection of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road is the northern terminus of the City's planned route for
the 272nd/277th corridor, which then will proceed south along 116th Avenue SE. The corridor project will likely
result in expanded traffic volumes at the intersection of 116' and Kent Kangley. The applicant states that the property
proposed for amendment is not suited for residential development due to high traffic volume associated at the
intersection of 116th Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. The applicant argues that the proposed amendment is
appropriate due to the fact that the two contiguous properties are zoned commercial, and states that if the proposed plan
and zoning amendments were approved that all four parcels could be joined together to provide for an integrated
development. It should be noted however, that at this writing the plan and zoning amendments for the parcel
on the southeast corner of 116" and Kent Kangley have not been adopted by ordinance. The applicants argues
that the proposal meets the criteria for comprehensive plan amendments, and cites plan policies LU-12.3, LU-13.5,
LU-13.6, ED-3.1, TR-1.1, and TR-1.5. These policies relate to providing infill opportunities for commercial
development and providing consistency between land use and transportation plans.
The City's 272nd/277th corridor project is intended to provide convenient access from East Hill to the major north-
south routes (Interstate 5 and State Route 167) which are located to the west. The Public Works Department has
expressed strong concerns about locating commercial land uses anywhere along this corridor, since commercial land
uses generate significantly higher traffic volumes than the existing single-family designation would. When the corridor
project was in the planning phase, the City negotiated a road establishment agreement with King County that stated,
among other things, that the construction of the corridor would not be used as a justification for redesignadon of any
abutting/adjoining property to a commercial use. In December, 1993, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1379
(attached) stating that the Council anticipates that it would designate lands adjacent to the corridor as single-family
zoning, in accordance with previous City and King County plans. The intersection of 116th Avenue SE and Kent
Kangley will be a key intersection on the corridor; the intersection is scheduled to have two left-turn lanes proceeding
southbound from Kent Kangley Road to 116th Avenue, and two right-tum lanes proceeding eastbound from 116th
Avenue SE to Kent Kangley Road. The net effect will be that access to the site will be extremely limited, and it is
anticipated that no left turns would be permitted into the site from either street.
From a land use perspective, it is apparent why the applicant seeks a change to the existing designations. The subject
parcels are adjacent to a commercial site, and the parcel to the west of the existing commercial site may also become
commercial in the near future should the owner of that parcel come to an agreement with the City for dedication of
right-of-way. If the subject parcels were redesignated to commercial, it might provide the opportunity for all four
parcels to be redeveloped in a manner that would be more integrated. This is particularly important given that the
properties adjoin residential uses to the east and the south; any subsequent commercial development would have to be
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments W
November 23, 1998
Page 8
designed in a way to protect and buffer the impacts of the development from adjacent residential uses.
Any opportunities to redevelop the subject parcels with the other parcels to the west are partially contingent on the
status of the parcel at the southeast comer of 116'" Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road. If the rezone of this parcel
is not executed, than this parcel would retrain designated as single-family residential. This would provide less of an
opportunity to provide for an integrated commercial development at this location. Also, the uncertain status of the
parcel at the intersection makes it difficult for the applicants at this point to propose any way to develop the site in a
way which could demonstrate how the property could be developed in a way in which transportation ingress and egress
could be managed in a safe way, or also buffer the site from adjacent residential uses.
Recommendation
As noted, one of the standards of review for reviewing changes to the plan is that a proposed amendment will maintain
concurrency between the land use, transportation, and capital facilities elements of the plan. The Public Works
Department has raised concerns as to whether the proposed amendment could maintain concurrency between the land
use and transportation element, and has also expressed concern about the impacts on the intersection resulting from
a potential use which would generate a high volume of trips in and out of the site. In addition, the criteria for review
also state that any amendment not result in development that will adversely affect the public health, safety, and general
welfare. As mentioned, the lack of resolution regarding the status of the parcel at the intersection of 116' and Ken;
Kangley Road makes any discussion of integrating development at the site and designing a project to protect ad.otrung
single-family uses speculative at best. Therefore, at this time staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for
a designation of commercial and NCC zoning.
Proposal E- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at W Avenue South and
South 218th Street South
Applicant: Dana Mower—DBM Consulting(Mower/Tonelli)
Existing Plan Designation: Industrial Proposed Plan Designation:
LDMF, Low Density Multifamily
Existing Zoning: CM-I Proposed Zoning:
Commercial Manufacturing MRG,Garden Density Multifamily
16 units per acre
Background
The subject property consists of two tax parcels and is approximately 6.9 acres in area. The site is currently zoned CM-1,
Commercial Manufacturing, and has a land use designation of Industrial. The applicant is requesting a land use
designation of Low Density Multifamily and a zoning of MRG in order to aggregate a total of 20 acres to develop an
apartment complex.
The property is currently occupied by a single family residence. Properties to the north,west,and south are zoned CM-1,,,Y
and have a land use designation of Industrial. The property to the east is zoned MRG and has a land use designation of
Low Density Multifamily Residential. Several large scale multifamily projects are located in the vicinity of this proposal
to the south. Light industrial and commercial land uses are located to the west of the subject property. The City of Kent
Wetland Inventory indicates the possible presence of wetlands and/or a stream on the property. The applicant states that
property has been for sale for three years and has not sold due to its size and location.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 9
Analysis
As part of the Growth Management Act, counties and cities are required to monitor the amount of land available for
further development. This potential capacity is measured against projected growth in order to establish appropriate
growth targets and boundaries. The City of Kent is a key player when it comes to future development in the region. The
Kent Valley is a focal point for industrial uses because of its proximity to the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, the airport,
and transportation facilities. In recent years, the amount of available vacant industrial land has diminished. Since it is
unlikely that much, if any new industrial land will be created, it is important to protect what is still available.
The subject property is located directly across from the Valley Freeway. There is no sound buffer in this area, and noise
impacts.on residential development are obvious. Primary access to the site is provided by an underimproved right of way.
This narrow and winding road is not built to current City of Kent Construction Standards. Although it can be argued
that the uses allowed on this site under the existing CM-I zoning would generate as much traffic as multifamily, the flow
and direction are likely different.
Recommendation
Staff feels that it is of regional interest to preserve available vacant industrial land for industrial uses. The CM-1 zone
allows for the type of light manufacturing jobs that the area is losing. The subject property is located adjacent to property
with existing MRG, which will have to be properly buffered when the two lots are developed. Noise impacts also limit
the use of the subject property for residential use. Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for Low Density
Multifamily Residential and MRG zoning.
Proposal F— Change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning for property located at 12809 Kent-Kangley Road
Applicant: Dana Mower(Mower/Nguyen)
Existing-Plan Designation: Low Density Multifamily Proposed Plan Designation:
Commercial
Existing Zoning: MRG Proposed Zoning:
Garden Density Multifamily CC, Community Commercial
Backrround
The subject property consists of one tax lot,which is approximately 15,246 square feet. The property is located at 12809
Kent-Kangley Road on the south side of Kent-Kangley and currently.has a land use designation of Low Density
Multifamily Residential and a zoning designation of MRG, Garden Density Multifamily.
The property currently contains a single-family residence. The vacant property to the west is zoned Professional Office
and SR-6,and is encumbered by a wetland. The wetland is of unknown size and is classified as a Category 1,requiring
a 100-foot buffer. The boundary of the wetland has not been determined at this time; consequently,the applicant of this
amendment may be required to complete a wetland analysis. The property to the east is zoned Community Commercial
and contains a single family residence. The houses to the east of this residence are mostly office uses such as a
chiropractic and realty office.
Analvsis
Kent-Kangley Road between 128`°Avenue SE and 132e°Avenue SE is under study presently by the Washington State
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 10
Department of Transportation due to the large number of vehicular accidents. Also known as state Highway 516,Kent-
Kangley Road had over 100 accidents in this stretch between 1994 and 1996. There were 14 accidents at the intersection
of 128' Avenue SE and Kent-Kangley Road. Most of the accidents involved turning vehicles. The Public Works
Department has expressed strong concerns about locating a commercial use at this comer. Due to the unusual
configuration of the site, there would be no other alternative but to enter onto Kent-Kangley Road, which is not a viable
option due to it being a high accident location.
With regard to the City's comprehensive plan, the plan has several goals and policies with regard to commercial land
uses. These include the following:
Goal LU-12—Promote orderly and effitcient commercial growth within the existing commercial districts in order
to maintain and strengthen existing commercial districts, to minimize costs associated with extension of facilities,
and to allow businesses to benef t from their proximity to one another.
Policy LU-12.3—Develop regulatory incentives to encourage infill development in existing commercial areas.
Regulatory incentives may include urban, mixed use zoning and higher-density :ones, planned unit
developments, transfer of density credits, and streamlined permit processes.
The plan also contains goals and policies with regard to the coordination of land use and transportation, including:
Goal TR-1—Coordinate land use and transportation planning to meet the needs of the City and the requirement
of the Growth Management Act. Alternative flexible and creative transportation options that minimize these
requirements should also be allowed in the planning process.
Policy TR-1.5-Ensure consistency between land use and transportation plans so that land use and adjacent
transportation facilities are compatible.
Goal TR4 — Eliminate disruptions which reduce the safety and reasonable functioning of the local
transportation system.
The land use goals and policies make reference to encouraging commercial infill development in existing commercial
areas. This parcel in question is adjacent to a gommercial area on the east, but subsequent development of commercial
land uses may result in an increase in access issues to Kent-Kangley Road that could not be mitigated. A commercial
use will significantly increase traffic,especially if the use is a convenience store/gasoline station, which is a specially
permitted use in a CC zoning district. More traffic has the potential for an increased number of accidents in this already
dangerous portion of state Highway 516.
Recommendation
As noted,one of the standards of review for reviewing changes to the plan is that a proposed amendment will maintain
concurrency between the land use and transportation elements. The Public Works Department has raised serious concerns
as to whether the proposed amendment could maintain concutrency between the land use and transportation element,and
has expressed concern about the impacts the additional traffic will have on an already dangerous stretch of state Highway
516. Although the site is adjacent to CC zoning to the east and Office zoning to the west, any subsequent development
on the parcel will have access to the site that is severely restricted. Therefore,staff recommends denial of the applicant's
request for a designation of commercial and CC zoning
Proposal G- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 15386 South 272ad
Street
Applicant: Byron Gusa(Gusa)
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
ti`•' Page 11
Existing Plan Designation: MHP, Mobile Home Park Proposed Plan Designation:
Commercial
Existing Zoning: MHP, Mobile Home Park Proposed Zoning:
GC, General Commercial
Backeround
The subject property consists of one tax parcel and is approximately 3.82 acres in size. The site is occupied by several
buildings and has a land use designation and zoning of MHP, Mobile Home Park. The property to the west is developed
with a mobile home park and has a land use designation and zoning of MHP. The property to the east is developed with
a mobile home park and has a land use designation and zoning of MHP. The property to the south is zoned Community
Commercial and has a land use designation of Commercial. Property to the north is part of the Soos Creek Trail Park.
The subject property is located between two existing mobile home parks. This area was annexed to the City of Kent on
January 1, 1996 as part of the Meridian Annexation Area. At that time the property was given its initial land use
designation and zoning of MHP, During the initial public hearing process, no public testimony was taken regarding this
property.
Analvsis
When this area was annexed to the City of Kent it was the intent of staff to only designate those properties with existing
�✓ mobile home park uses as Mobile Home Park. The proximity of the subject parcel to both existing mobile home parks
led to its inclusion with the neighboring properties. The Mobile Home Park zone is a special zone, which can only be
created out of existing multifamily zoned land. It has not been the policy of the staff to designate areas of the city as
possible sites for future mobile home parks. Since mobile homes make up such a small portion of the total housing stock
of the City of Kent, to require such as the only principally permitted use on vacant properties would be very restrictive
to property owners. No new mobile home parks have been established in the city in many years and the only new Mobile
Home Park land use and zoning designations have been placed on parks, which have been annexed into the city. The
applicant states that the market for new mobile home parks is nonexistent at this time.
Recommendation
Potential uses for the subject property are limited. The fact that the site does not have a frontage on Kent-Kangley Road
(SE 2720d Street) limits its potential commercial uses. Its narrow shape and location between two existing mobile home
parks further restricts the potential uses of the property.
The applicant states that he wants to develop the site with a mini storage facility. These uses do not require a lot of
commercial signage or street frontage to be successful. A mini storage facility in this location between two existing
mobile home parks would provide a much needed service to many of the existing mobile home tenants.
The applicant states in his application that the commercial properties abutting the site are zoned GC, General
Commercial. The applicant's request for General Commercial zoning was made in order to"maintain compatibility with
surrounding land uses..."However,abutting commercial uses are zoned CC, Community Commercial. There is cuurerttly
no General Commercial zoning located on the East Hill. Recommending General Commercial use on East Hill would
be a new policy direction. Staff feels a more suitable zoning for this property would be CC, Community Commercial.
�J This is consistent with existing zoning and existing policy. Mini storage facilities are a conditional use in the
Community Commercial zone. These are uses, which are permitted but may have unique impacts, which may need
unique conditioning. Conditional uses are approved through a public hearing process. Staff recommends that the land
use designation of the subject property be changed to Commercial and the zoning changed to CC, Community
Commercial.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments r,
November 23, 1998
Page 12
Proposal H- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 25840 135"Lane SE.
Applicant: Les Houle—Kensington Development(Houle)
Existing Plan Designation: SF-6, Single Family Proposed Plan Designation:
6 units per acre SF-8, Single Family
8 units per acre
Existing Zoning: SR-4.5, Single Family Proposed Zoning:
4.51 units per acre SR-8, Single Family
8.71 units per acre
Background
The subject property consists of one tax parcel and is approximately 6.32 acres in size. The property became a part of
the city on January 1, 1996 as part of the Meridian annexation area. When the property was annexed to the city, the
property owners were unsuccessful in getting a multifamily zoning designation for their property. The site has a land
use designation of SF-8 and is zoned SR-4.5. Property to the west has a land use and zoning designation of Mobile Home
Park. The properties to the north and east are zoned SR-4.5 and have a land use designation of SF-6. Lake Meridian
abuts the property on the south. The site is currently developed with a single family residence and 18 small detached
rental suites. The applicant is proposing a change in land use designation to SF-8 and a change in zoning to SR-8 in order
to subdivide and construct a single family detached development. Neighboring land uses to the north and east are
predominantly single family residential. There are some duplexes and triplexes in the vicinity. The property to the west
is the Pink Thunderbird Mobile Home Park.
Analvsis
This property is owned by George Lewis and was denied for a Low Density Multifamily Residential land use designation
and MRD,Duplex Multifamily Residential zoning under a previous comprehensive plan amendment. Staff has reviewed
this site for a tentative plat under existing zoning. The applicants were going to be required to do substantial offsite
improvements to 135"Avenue SE from SE 256'"Street in order to develop their property.This and other improvements
come at a cost,which the owners felt were unfeasible under existing zoning limitations. This is a unique property,which
has frontage on Lake Meridian. Its previous use as a summer vacation property dates back many years. The existing
rental suites provide a unique living opportunity for residents. To the west of the site is an existing mobile home park.
To the north of the subject property are two attached unit projects, which were developed with duplexes and triplexes.
Springwood Townhomes and Lake Meridian Village total some 104 units. The remaining uses are detached single family
residential. All these different residential land uses were developed under previous King County zoning regulations for
the R4 and RS%W zones. Once this property was annexed into the City of Kent, some of development flexibility,which
was available under King County regulations,went away.
Recommendation
Allowing smaller lot sizes and up to 8.71 units per acre would provide some 40 to 50 new homeowner opportunities on
or near Lake Meridian. Most of the lakefront property is already developed and very few new opportunities for
preliminary plats exist. When the owners of this property petitioned the City Council for multifamily and duplex zoning,
their requests were denied largely because of the council's current policy to not convert existing single family areas to
multifamily.
............ ..
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 13
As stated by the applicants in their application,developing the site under current zoning regulations would result in large
lots with very expensive homes. The construction costs and costs to provide infrastructure would be spread out to only
a few lots. This adds cost to the homes when sold. Allowing a smaller lot development would provide more
homeownership opportunities while protecting single family neighborhoods and providing access to recreation areas(the
lakeshore),Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a land use designation of SF-8 and a zoning of SR-
8.
Proposal I- A change in Land Use Plan Map and zoning map for the property located at 108t'Avenue SE and
Kent-Kangley Road.
Applicant: Dana Mower—DBM Consulting Engineers
Existing Plan Designation: MU-R, Mixed Use Proposed Plan Designation:
Limited Multifamily Medium Density Multifamily
Existing Zoning: O-MU Proposed Zoning:
Professional and Office MRM, Medium Density Multifamily
and Mixed Use 23 units per acre
Background
The subject property consists of three tax parcels, which are approximately 4.8 acres in area. The site is an L-shaped
piece of property, with a long, narrow parcel, which stretches from Kent-Kangley Road to SE 264 Street, and two
smaller parcels located at the northwest comer of SE 264" Street and 108' Avenue SE. The property is currently
developed with two single-family residential dwellings.
The property is surrounded by a variety of plan and zoning designations and types of development. The parcel to the
east and north of the subject property, located at the southwest comer of 108' Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road,
is zoned Office and is the site of a bank. The parcels located to the east and southeast of the subject property are zoned
Office-Mixed Use, and are currently developed as single-family residential uses. The properties to the west of the
subject property are zoned MRM and are developed with multi-family residential uses and a vacant parcel. The parcels
to the south are zoned SR-8 and MRG, and are developed with a single-family residential use and a multifamily
residential use, respectively. The properties to the north on the north side of Kent Kangley Road are developed as
commercial. The comprehensive plan designates the parcels to the north and east as Mixed Use—Limited Multi-
Family, the parcels to the west as Medium Density Multifamily, and the parcels to the south as SF-8 and Low Density
Multifamily.
Analysis
As mentioned, the area adjacent to the subject property is surrounded by both commercial and residential uses. The
applicant states that the property is not appropriate for commercial development, given its unusual configuration and
its relatively small amount of frontage along Kent Kangley Road (approximately 200 feet). The applicant also
maintains that the general area in question already contains an effective mix of commercial and residential uses, and
that therefore it is not necessary to require a mixture of uses on the site itself. The applicant argues that the site is too
small to contain an effective mix of commercial and residential uses, and that the type of development, which the City
requires, is residential. The applicant cites several goals and policies in the comprehensive plan to support the
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 14
proposed amendment, including LU-8.3, CD-1.1, H-1.1, and Goal H-2. These goals and policies all speak to
supporting the location of housing in areas with adequate urban infrastructure and services, placing housing in close
proximity to other uses, and the provision of adequate and diverse housing opportunities for Kent citizens.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1995, the plan contained goals and policies supporting mixed use
development, and also designated areas both on the valley floor and east hill for mixed use development to occur.The
plan states that in the mixed use areas in the valley, stand-alone multifamily residential uses be permitted,while on East
Hill, residential uses be allowed only in conjunction with a mixed use development. Zoning amendments adopted by
the City Council in 1997 therefore distinguished between the mixed use areas in the valley, which are zoned
predominantly GC, with the mixed use areas on east hill, which are predominantly zoned CC or O. In the GC zone,
multi-family residential uses are allowed as a principally permitted use in the mixed use overlay; in the CC and O zones,
multi-family residential is only allowed in conjunction with a mixed use development. The adopted code amendments
specified that in the CC and O zones that at least 25 percent of the gross floor area of a mixed use development with
residential uses must be commercial.
The applicants are claiming that the subject property is not appropriate for mixed use/commercial development, and
would be more appropriately used as residential only. However, as earlier discussed, there is already a mixture of
commercial and residential uses in proximity of the site. The site does have frontage along Kent Kangley road, and there
are commercial uses adjacent to the site to the north and east. Therefore, it appears that the site would be a good
candidate for mixed use development, which is why it was included in the mixed use overlay. Furthermore, th
comprehensive plan and zoning code are very clear about residential development in the mixed use areas on east hill
being combined with commercial uses. To change the site to stand-alone multifamily zoning would appear to be
inconsistent with the intent of the City Council.
Staff agrees with the applicant that this site is an appropriate place for residential development, but it should be noted
that under the current comprehensive plan and zoning designation 75 percent of the gross floor area of any development
could be used for housing. Therefore,under the current designation,the site meets the criteria for providing opportunities
for housing in close proximity to other services,as provided for in the policies in the comprehensive plan.
Recommendation
This proposed amendment does not appear to be consistent with the existing policy decisions made by the City Council
with regard to the mixed-use overlay on East Hill. The 1995 comprehensive plan indicated that new residential
development in commercial areas should be combined with commercial development, and this was confirmed by the
Council in adopting the mixed use overlay zoning amendments in 1997. Therefore, staff recommends that the proposed
amendment be denied.
Proposal J— A request to add the following policy in one of the Comprehensive Plan sections headed by Goal
LU-9 and Goal LU-10 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element:Allow and encourage single
family townhouse-style attached condominiums to the single family residential zones that permit
residential densities of six units per acre or higher.
Applicant: William E. Ruth(Ruth) '
Existing Plan Designation: Request policy to be added to Goal LU-9 and/or
Goal LU-10 sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 15
Existing Zoning: The policy is proposed to address single family zones, specifically the
Existing SR-6 and SR-8 Single Family Residential zoning districts.
Back round
The applicant states that many proposed detached single family plats are unable to obtain an economic density because
of the inherent restrictions of the zone. More efficient use of residential land would result in a more affordable and
desirable consumer product. He believes that the ability to attach single family condominiums also supports an
affordable housing element in the Kent area—an element that is now quickly disappearing with the rapidly escalating
pricing of single family attached lots.
The purpose of this request, as stated by the applicant, is to provide unique and innovative land use and housing designs
to more properly use a variety of lots. The applicant states that attachment will provide many opportunities to cluster
units in order to take advantage of topographic features, views, and provide a more economical use of each site. The
request is for attachment of as many as five units in each condominium townhouse structure. This pattern would occur
in combination with traditional individually-sited homes.
An additional goal of this proposed policy change, according to the applicant, is to create considerably more open space
within a proposed subdivision than would be found in the traditional detached configuration. In addition, smaller
properties that have been bypassed because of size, shape and topographical restrictions could be used as desirable in-fill
development.
Analvsis
The major issue in review of this application is the ability to address the individual property owner/developer concerns
about developing difficult properties, and also assure the City and the single family community-at-large that the result
of permitting diverse housing types in single family zones will not disrupt the single-family character of the
neighborhoods. Existing Land Use and Housing Element goals and policies clearly support diverse housing types,
options, innovation, and flexibility, but the City also seeks to protect neighborhood character.
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element contains the following goals referenced in this application:
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—Revise development regulations to encourage more single-family development and more flexibility and
innovation in terms of building and site design.
In the last five years,the City has received numerous requests for flexibility of housing type in single family residential
projects. In most cases,the sites in question contained environmental constraints or greenbelts. Properties that contain
slopes, wetlands, or creek setback areas often cannot be developed economically, and it is true that often the site is
degraded by traditional lot and street patterns.
The Policies that follow the above Comprehensive Plan goals address various ways to create diverse housing
opportunities, in several different zones in the City, One policy,LU-10.2 addresses the intent of this application in single
`•� family zones by recommending clustering of housing units in subdivisions to maximize potential build-out of single-
family homes and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. It appears that the existing goals and
policies are broad enough to not exclude attaching of units if the City decides to approve a process to do so.
................ .
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998 ..s
Page 16
In addition to appropriate policy and regulations,successful combining of housing types depends on good design. There
are many good examples of the proposed housing type in this area, but there are also poorly designed examples.
Although the Comprehensive Plan recommends good design in all housing(Goal CD-16—Encourage creativity and high
quality in the design of residential buildings.),neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the zoning code contain provisions
for design review in single family zones.
This issue is related to the larger issue of diverse site plans and housing types in single family zones. There may be
appropriate applications for attaching part of the units in single family developments in Kent under certain criteria and
conditions, but considerable study and research is needed to identify the appropriate types of attached housing and
determine what the criteria and conditions should be.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that a work program be set up for 1999 to study the proposal to allow attached units in single
family zones.The result of the study should be a recommendation to include or not include attached units as part of the
implementation measures for Comprehensive Plan Goals LU-9 and LU-10. If the recommendation is to include attached
units, it should include recommended processes, criteria and conditions.
Proposal K- Update of Capital Facilities Element
Applicant: City of Kent Finance Department
The Capital Facilities Element in the comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1995 contains a great deal of information
relating to inventories of existing capital facilities,estimated costs of anticipated future facilities, and projected revenues
to fund these facilities. These components of the Capital Facilities Element are all required under the Growth
Management Act (GMA). Due to the fact that the City Council has approved a large-scale revision to the Capital
Facilities Element in 1999, at this time there are only tables 8.1 and 8.2 will require an update.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Land Use Board recommend approval to the City Council of the updates to the Capital
Facilities Element as prepared by the Finance Department, and as shown in Attachment B.
Proposal— The request is to modify the Land Use map, figure 4.7 in the Kent Comprehensive Plan to revise
the land use designation of the subject property to Mixed Use. The purpose of the proposal is to
implement an action contained in the Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan(DSAP)
Applicant: City of Kent Planning Department
Existing Plan Designation: SF-8, Single Family Proposed Plan Designation:
8 units per acre Mixed Use
Existing Zoning: SR-8, Single Family Proposed Zoning:
8.71 units per acre Future Zoning Amendment
Background:
This Comprehensive Plan amendment request addresses the following action in the DSAP:
"Revise the Comprehensive Plan Map and adopt a new zoning designation for the area between Fourth and Fifthti..
Avenues North,north of James Street. Revise the existing Comprehensive Map designation,SF8(single Family
Residential,8 dwelling units maximum per acre)to commercial. The zoning code designation shall allow limited
office development, and include residential development combined with office development as a conditional
use.,
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 17
The action above specifies a Commercial designation, followed by approval of limited Office zoning with a conditional
use permit to allow housing. After the DSAP was drafted, the Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan Map designation was
approved. Staff recommends that the designation be changed to Mixed Use and followed by limited Office zoning with
a Mixed Use overlay,which would provide development standards and guidelines for mixing office and residential uses
that are not provided by the Commercial designation. A conditional-use permit would not be required for housing
development proposals that meet the development standards of the Mixed Use overlay.
A al sis
This proposed Comprehensive Plan map revision is a Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan implementation action. The
purpose of the action is to create a zone that is more compatible with the Commons Park, located directly west of the
subject property, and to provide opportunities to develop housing close to work and recreation.
Residents of the single family neighborhood north of James Street between Wh and 5" Avenues testified at public
meetings and hearings that visitors to the Park in the evenings and weekends park on neighborhood streets and produce
traffic levels that are not compatible with a single family neighborhood. By allowing mixed-use development that would
include office and urban-style housing such as town houses, condominiums, and housing over office uses, a larger
number of office workers and residents will have pedestrian access to the park. Parking facilities in the area could be
increased through joint parking agreements for housing and office uses. The proposed revision is also consistent with
Comprehensive goals and policies that direct housing and employment Growth into the downtown area, designated a
regional Urban Center. The revision would allow more housing to be developed close to jobs, recreation, public
transportation, and government and medical services than is possible with the present designation.
If the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map revision is approved, a new zoning district will be proposed, subject to Land
Use and Planning Board recommendation and City Council approval, to permit limited office zone uses together with
a mixed use overlay to permit housing to develop in a compatible land use pattern with new offices.
The proposal is generally consistent with the criteria used to evaluate any proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan . It will not result in development that will adversely effect the Public Health, safety, and general welfare. The
amendment proposal is based new information generated by the DSAP process and not available at the time that the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted.The amendment is consistent with other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
and the amendment will maintain concurrency between the land use, transportation, and Capital Facilities elements of
the Plan.
The proposal is supported by the following Comprehensive Plan goals and Policies:
Goal LU-3—Designate the downtown Planning area as a City Center Focus both the City and regional household
and employment growth on the downtown area.
Policy LU-3.3 —Encourage medium and high density residential development in the downtown area.......
Goal H-2—Provide sufficient,diverse,and affordable housing for the existing and projected population of Kent.
RECOMN[ENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the above proposal to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to revise the land
use designation of the subject property from SF 8 to Mixed Use. In addition,the staff is directed to develop a new zoning
district in order to implement the Mixed Use land use plan designation.
Subject: #CPA-98-2 (A-L) Comprehensive Plan Amendments
November 23, 1998
Page 18
CONCLUSION
In summary, the staff recommendations for the twelve proposed plan amendments are as follows:
Proposal A- Recommend that applicant's request for Commercial and General Commercial zoning be denied.
Proposal B - Recommend that the applicant's request for Low Density Multifamily Residential and MRG zoning be
denied.
Proposal C - Recommend that the applicant's property be redesignated Single Family Residential 6 in the
comprehensive plan and SR-6 on the zoning map
Proposal D - Recommend that the applicant's request for Commercial and NCC zoning be denied.
Proposal E - Recommend that the applicant's request for Low Density Multifamily and MRG zoning be denied.
Proposal F - Recommend that the applicant's request for Commercial and CC zoning be denied.
Proposal G - Recommend that the applicant's property be redesignated Commercial in the comprehensive plan and
CC,Community Commercial on the zoning map.
Proposal H- Recommend that the applicant's property be redesignated Single Family 8 in the comprehensive plan
and SR-8 on the zoning map.
Proposal I - Recommend that the applicants' request for Medium Density Multifamily Residential and MRM zoning
be denied.
Proposal J- Recommend that a work program be set up for 1999 to study the proposal to allow attached units in
single family zones under certain conditions.
Proposal K- Recommend the update of the Capital Facilities Element per the suggestions of the City of Kent Finance
Department is approved.
Proposal L- Recommend that the properties be redesignated Mixed Use in the comprehensive plan and direct staff
to develop a new zoning district to implement this amendment.
If you have any questions prior to the November 23rd public hearing, please contact me at(253) 859-4152.
mj/p/public/cpa98-2.mm3
Attachments
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Kevin O Neill,Senior Planner
Sarah Bradley,Planner
Linda Phillips,Planner
Mayene Miller,Finance Director
Barbara Engstrom,CFP Analyst
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 3
Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to endorse the proposed regulatory
review request and recommend to the City Council that the M-2 zoning district be amended to allow
dart playing as a principally permitted use. Motion carried.
1"S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Planner Matthews Jackson explained the process used in the evaluation and recommendation of
comprehensive plan amendments. He outlined the specific criteria staff is required to follow in
reviewing and analyzing each proposed amendment. Two of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are proposed text changes only to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Jackson explained that amendments are not allowed to result in development that would
adversely effect public health, safety and general welfare. The amendments are considered based
on consistency with goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and concurrency between the land
use, transportation and capital facilities elements.
CPA-98-2(C)/CPZ-98-3 BURRIDGE AMENDMENT
Mr. Jackson said this proposal is submitted by Charles Burridge to request a change in the land use
designation from SF-3 Single Family/3 units per acre to SF-6 Single Family/6 units per acre and
an amendment to the zoning from SR-3/3.71 units per acre to SR-6/6.05 units per acre single family
residential. The property is located at 13602 Southeast 282nd Street and is approximately 11.21
acres in size.
Mr. Jackson said this site is located adjacent to last years Clasen/Dinsdale amendment site proposal,
which included the same change requests as, is being requested on the Burridge amendment. Mr.
Jackson stated that the Board and Council approved the Clasen/Dinsdale amendment, allowing for
a precedence of this request.
Mr. Jackson said the property is encumbered slightly by wetlands that will limit development
through the central portion of the site. He indicated that a 50-foot buffer is typically required
surrounding wetlands as a protection from development.
Mr. Jackson explained that staff has considered that the City of Kent is within the urban growth area
in considering this recommendation. He stated that City Council supports single family
development and that development is executed with cost effectiveness in providing urban services.
Staff feels this recommendation is consistent with action taken last year and that that this amendment
would provide for more single family ownership opportunities. Staff recommends approval of this
application.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Mr. Curt Newell, 28110 134th Pace SE, Kent, WA said that he lives on a low portion of land
adjacent to the proposed property. He expressed concern over the drainage problems within this
area. Mr. Newell explained that a drainage ditch running through the proposed property has been
cleared out and reinforced with rocks and drainage pipes.
Mr. Newell said that a water retention pond (approximately 40x40 feet and four feet deep) at the
back of his property continually exceeds its banks with water backing up within 100 feet of his
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 4
home. He reiterated concern that if drainage is not adequate, water will back up further on his
property.
Mr. Newell said that he believes a SF-6 designation to be excessive for the area under consideration.
He said that the land is extremely soggy. He expressed concern that development could effect the
water quality of the community well located on one of the adjacent properties.
Mr. Newell expressed concern over increased traffic generation in the area in addition to his
concerns over the use of appropriate buffering from the corridor. Mr. Newell said that he desires to
have the property remain as currently zoned.
Jon A. Gentry, 28148 134th Place Southeast, Kent, WA said that his 1.5-acre property borders
282nd and 134th Place. He said his home was one of the original houses built in the tract 20 years
ago. Mr. Gentry said the decision to build his home was based on the quietness of locating on a dead
end road with no traffic as well as being located close to Kent and Auburn. Mr. Gentry expressed
concern that more than 3 homes per acre would generate additional traffic on the road as well as
effect the quality of life and disturb the water quality of the community well which he helps to
maintain.
Alan Stuckey, 13456 SE 282nd Street, Kent, WA said that his property lies to the southwest side
of the proposed property. He stated that his primary concern with the rezoning of this property is
the issue of ground water drainage from adjacent and other nearby properties. Mr. Stuckey
submitted a letter for the record as Exhibit#3.
Mr. Stuckey spoke at length on the need for appropriate drainage systems to handle both rainwater
runoff as well as water from underground streams located in the area. He stated that his property has
a manmade pond that captures drainage from the pasture area as well as water runoff from the uphill
properties immediately to the west. Mr. Stuckey explained that the water is than funneled to the
edge of the property proposed for rezoning where it works its way along southeast 282nd to the
wetlands directly east of the application boundary site.
Mr. Stuckey stated that the proposed Burridge amendment property is chiefly located on the
downhill area of the entire water drainage system. He expressed concern that development of this
property could jeopardize the quality of the clean drinking water provided by the well system that
has been in service for 20 years. Mr. Stuckey stated that placing a large development in this area
would be inconsistent with the character and use of adjacent and nearby properties.
Charles Burridge, 27001 114th Avenue SE, Kent, WA addressed citizen concerns about the
quality of the well water being compromised. Mr. Burridge stated that to maintain water quality in
the area, a 12-inch line was being placed from 132nd Street to 144th Street as part of the Southridge
project for which he is the developer. He said that water runoff from the property was being
maintained with retention ponds as well as improving 132nd Street to the large wetland areas. Mr.
Burridge said water runoff for the new development would run along 282nd to the wetland water
�a
retention area.
Communication ensued between Mr. Dowell and Mr. Burridge regarding similar developments
located close to the proposed development site.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 5
Ms. Zimmerman questioned Mr. Burridge on how many homes could realistically be built on the
proposed site. Mr. Burridge estimated 40 to 45 homes could be built on the site with consideration
taken for the required 100 foot buffering requirements for the wetland areas.
Chair Bell asked Mr. Burridge if he believed the drainage for his neighbors would improve as a
result of the retention ponds. Mr. Burridge responded affirmatively.
Ron Harmon asked Matt Jackson where public water was located in proximity to the subject
property. Mr. Jackson deferred to City Engineer, Gary Gill who stated that Water District 101 serves
the area.
City Engineer, Gary Gill stated that the proposed area is part of a very sensitive and highly regarded
wetland system that is a salmon-bearing tributary to Soos Creek. The setbacks required from the
parameters of the wetland system and the stream are 100 feet.
Mr. Gill spoke at length in regards to how development density relates to trip generation on the
arterial roadway system. He stated that based on the development constraints on this site, the impact
to the road system will not be increased substantially.
Mr. Gill assuaged Mr. Dowell's concerns in regards to the density of development that could be
developed on this site. Mr. Gill stated that the wetland areas on this site would severely restrict
development of six units per acre and that the underlying County's original zoning allows for 3.71
units per acre.
#CPA 98 2(D)/#CPZ-98-4 COSTANZO AMENDMENT
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that this is a proposal to change the comprehensive plan and the
zoning map designation for two properties from Single Family/6 units per acre to Neighborhood
Commercial. The property is located east of the intersection of 116d,Avenue Southeast and Kent
Kangley Road at 11715 and 11733 Kent Kangley Road.
Mr. O'Neill said that last year a similar request was considered for the lot located at the southeast
corner of 116th Avenue Southeast and Kent Kangley Road He stated that the lot immediately to
the west of these two lots is designated commercial and the lot on the southeast corner of Kent
Kangley was approved for commercial with a condition that right-of-way be dedicated at the
intersection of 116th and Kent Kangley. Mr. O'Neill explained that that intersection is the northern
terminus of the 277th Corridor, which will become a major intersection with extensive
improvements associated with it.
Mr. O'Neill said that two issues were considered in analyzing this proposal: potential impacts to the
transportation system, specifically at the intersection of Kent Kangley and 116' , and impacts to
adjoining single family residences. Mr. O'Neill defined the property designations of the properties
surrounding the subject property.
Mr. O'Neill said that this proposed rezone would move existing commercial zoning two parcels
..� further east,bringing it closer to existing single family residences. Mr. O'Neill stated that since the
properties are fairly large a method could be potentially developed to buffer potential commercial
development from the residential properties.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 6
Mr. O'Neill stated that the applicant discussed potentially consolidating all four properties to allow
for one consolidated development, assuming that the property on the comer is effectuated as a
commercial parcel. Mr. O'Neill said that property consolidation could minimize impacts to the
property as it would allow for better ingress and egress to the site and allow for better buffering as
there would be more flexibility in siting the development on the site so as not to impact property
owners.
Mr. O'Neill said the possibility exists that the property could be developed as four distinctive stand
alone commercial developments. Mr. O'Neill stated that the status of the comer parcel is uncertain
and by moving the commercial area further east, this could pose a negative impact on the adjoining
single family residents. Mr. O'Neill stated that the inability to determine how the ingress and egress
from the property would be accomplished could impact the intersection. Staff recommends denial
of this proposal.
Mr. Gill referred to the ITE (Institute for Traffic Engineers) Trip Generation Manual while speaking
at length on potential peak hour trips that could develop as a result of development of the site.
Mr. Gill stated that Public Works objective in building the 277' and 196' corridors is to move
commuters through the city and into the outlying areas in a safe and efficient manner. Mr. Gill stated
that when you introduce commercial sites at major intersections, trips in and out of those sites
increase substantially creating the serious potential for vehicular accidents and creating gridlock at
those intersections, reducing the level of service that those arterials can provide.
Chair Bell said that if the market demands commercial development, than that type of development
should take place.
Karen Rehkop, 24633 156`' Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that she is the owner of the two
middle properties situated in the center of the four properties under proposal. She stated that the
conditions for the corner property have been resolved and that the convenience store on that property
had been rezoned to neighborhood commercial four years ago.
Ms. Rehkop stated that her property located at 11715 Kent Kangley Road is under consideration as
part of this proposal. Ms. Rehkop said that she has owned this property for 20 years and purchased
the adjoining property with anticipation of growth in that direction. She stated that she anticipates
this property could accommodate a development that would care for the needs of the surrounding
property owners as well as compliment the community with an aesthetically pleasing landscape plan.
Ms. Rehkop stated that at the present time,the four properties can be entered at road grade level. She
stated that the residential development abutting up to the proposed property sets below the level of
the properties and is separated from the properties by a high fence. Ms. Rehkop said that a plan is
in place for the four properties to share ingress and egress to the properties, lessening the impact on
Kent Kangley Road.
Mr. Harmon noted that the south end of the property is below street grade facing the single-family
residences. He asked Ms. Rehkop if she planned to cut and fill that area. Ms. Rehkop stated that
she felt it would be necessary to cut and fill that area to create a uniform look. In response to Mr.
Malik's question,Ms.Rehkop said that four driveways entered onto Kent Kangley from her property
with a two-way left turn lane provided on Kent Kangley.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 7
Donna Remmer, 11733 Southeast Kent Kangley, Kent, WA said her family owns the property
located next to Karen Rehkop's and she would like to see the property converted to commercial as
it does not lend itself to single family development. She stated that traffic from the road generates
a high volume of noise. Ms. Remmer said that Kent Kangley Road is dark and it would be beneficial
to have more lighting installed.
Martin Durkan,Jr.,330 Southwest 43n0 Street, Renton, WA stated that he represented property
owner Mr. John Titus last year when he was granted a conditional rezone on his comer property. The
conditional rezone was based on Mr. Titus dedicating a portion of property for a street right-of-way
for the new corridor running along the property. Mr. Durkan stated that after negotiations were
completed with the city regarding right-of-way easements, it was determined that a larger portion
of property would have to be dedicated than originally anticipated decreasing the size of the
developable property.
Mr. Durkan stated that he consulted with the adjoining property owners to formulate a site plan that
would benefit all property owners by integrating development of the separate properties. This would
create property that would be more suitable for development. Mr. Durkan said that he has executed
an agreement with the adjoining property owners to consolidate usage of the current driveways,
decreasing the number of access points from 6 or 7 down to 2 driveways. This should have a
positive impact on the transportation infrastructure that currently exists.
v
Tent' Zimmerman asked Mr. Durkin how the residential properties would be buffered from the
development. Mr. Durkin explained that the buildings are designed with tiles which absorb sound,
acting as acoustical buffers from the noise. He said that sidewalks, landscaping, as well as the
building design would act as a visual screen buffer.
Mr. Richard Constanzo, 24310 Crystal Lake Place, Woodinville, WA said that he was the
applicant for this project. He stated that the properties should be looked at as an island of
commercial property versus a fragmented development. He spoke at length about proposed
methodology to divert traffic as well as deal with traffic generation as a result of new development.
Mr. Constanzo stated that there is a cross access and parking agreement with the contiguous corner
property owners. He concurred that buffering is of paramount importance with 30,000 cars traveling
on Kent Kangley Road daily. Mr. Constanzo stated that any commercial buildings erected would
mitigate noise for the properties located to the south.
Mr. Constanzo stated that development of the property would take place on the 2.62-acre parcel
fronting Kent Kangley Road as well as at the intersection of 116th. He stated that development
might be considered close to 264th.
CPA-98-2(H)/CPZ-98-8 HOULE AMENDMENT
Planner Matt Jackson explained that this application is submitted by Mr. Les Houle. He stated that
the parcel of land consists of 6.32 acres. The property is located at 25840 135 Lane Southeast at the
�./ head of Lake Meridian next to the Pink Thunderbird Mobile Home Park.
Mr. Jackson stated that a prior proposal request was submitted for the Lewis property to change the
land use designation from multifamily to a duplex designation. He said that the current request is
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 8
for a land use designation change from SF-6 single family/6 units per acre to SF-8 single family/8
units per acre and a change in zoning from SR-4.5 to SR-8. Mr. Jackson stated that this change
would increase the single-family residential density.
Mr. Jackson stated that two houses as well as 16-18 rental suites are on this property with public
access to a community beach. He stated that under the current zoning of SR 4.5, a tentative plat
meeting was held with the applicant as a means to determine how the property could be developed
as well as look at the expense involved in developing the property.
Mr. Jackson stated that as a result of the meeting, the applicant was required to improve 135'
Avenue South, from 256'to their property. Mr. Jackson stated that the cost of development would
be unfeasible considering the property density. He said the applicant is requesting higher density
to offset the cost of development.
Mr. Jackson stated that staff reviewed the property and determined that improvements were
necessary for the street system as well as on site retention for water drainage. Mr. Jackson said that
Lake Meridian is a shoreline of statewide significance and a permit is required for development
within 200 feet of the shoreline. He said that the site offers unique opportunities for additional home
ownership near the lake.
Mr. Jackson said that Kent's Comprehensive Plan has several goals and policies supporting the
establishment of new single family residential neighborhoods and public access to amenities such
as the lake. Mr. Jackson stated that within a SR-8 zoning designation; the land can be developed
with lot sizes of 7600 square feet or 4.5 units per acre as well as developed with lot sizes of 4000
square feet or 8 units per acre.
Mr. Jackson stated that staff believes that it is in the best interest of the city to allow for smaller lot
development to encourage the affordability of home ownership near the lake. Mr. Jackson stated that
it is likely that the developer would provide for community beach access. Staff recommends
approval of this application.
Chair Bell submitted a letter from Mr. Dick Lamb for the record as Exhibit#4, voicing opposition
of development to the property at 25840 135" Lane SE.
In response to Sharon Woodford, Mr. Jackson stated that the only access road to the property and
neighboring properties is 135th Lane SE with no plans in place for an additional roadway.. Mr.
Jackson stated that prior to the Meridian annexation, this property was under the jurisdiction of the
county. Under county regulations,Planned Unit Developments (PUD's)were allowed with attached
or clustered housing while maintaining open areas within the underlying density. Mr. Jackson said
that this area is not developed exclusively for single family detached housing, as there are attached
duplexes and triplexes located near this project
In response to Mr. Dowell,Mr. Jackson stated that no building codes were enforced regarding single
family attached units other than a planned unit development must be developed as condominiums '
on a minimum of 100 acres.
Mr. Malik voiced his concern that roadway improvements should be completed prior to any
development of property. Mr. Jackson stated that developers are required to put up a bond exceeding
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
�r November 23, 1998
Page 9
the proposed cost for necessary improvements such as roadways and complete construction prior to
any building permits being issued.
Mr. Jon Nelson,320 28' Avenue South, Kirkland, WA stated that he is employed with Peterson
Consulting and along with Cam West represents Les Houle. He stated that a new residential
development with a single-family density of 8 units per acre would provide a density transition
between the mobile home park on the west and the larger lot residential neighborhoods to the east.
Mr. Nelson stated that this development would provide affordable single family housing and provide
a visual buffer for the adjoining properties.
Mr. Charlie Denny, 25702 135' Place Southeast, Kent, WA said that he has resided in the Lake
Meridian area for 26 years. Mr. Denny voiced his opposition to a residential development that
would increase the housing density by 40 or 50 additional homes. He stated that 135th Place is the
only street to and from the proposed site. The additional homes would impact a street that already
accommodates 100 trailers, 21 homes and 18 cabins.
Mr. Eric Clarke, 924 Bellevue Way NE, Suite 101, Bellevue, WA is employed with Cam West
Development. Mr. Clarke submitted a packet of aerial photographs illustrating the two successful
in-fill communities of Lakeview Park in Kirkland and Kelsey Creek in Bellevue. These photographs
were submitted for the record as Exhibit #5. Mr. Clarke stated that his company is working in
conjunction with Mr. Les Houle and Mr. Jon Nelson of Peterson Consulting in designing a
traditional neighborhood for the Lewis property. Mr. Clark stated that developing detached homes
at 8 units per acre(approximately 40-45 units) will provide a superior in-fill community, quality and
affordability as well as a neighborhood with a sense of community.
Mr. Clarke stated that he would be glad to coordinate a tour of the Kelsey Creek and Lakeview Park
projects if planning staff and the Board was interested.
City Engineer Gary Gill spoke at length about density impacts to the area. Mr. Gill stated that he
felt a 36-foot wide neighborhood collector street would be adequate. He said that the city would
require the developer to complete off site improvements to 256' Street. Mr. Gill said that the
developer would have to provide a minimum 24 foot wide, two-lane roadway with widened and
paved shoulders, and full curb gutters.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Gill if egress and ingress for the existing neighbors would improve as a result
of the new development. Mr. Gill responded in the negative as trip generation would increase. He
explained that safety within the area would improve as a result of widening the lanes and providing
adequate shoulders with walkways.
Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Gill if the Fire Department has been involved with this proposal. Mr. Gill
stated that staff works closely with the Fire Department in establishing minimum lane widths of 28
feet on local access streets allowing room for an emergency vehicle to navigate.
Conversation ensued between Mr. Harmon and Mr. Jackson regarding allowable density for the
�✓ proposed development. Mr. Jackson stated that the developers would have to provide for a right-of-
way as it is currently nonexistent.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 10
Mr. Malik asked Mr. Jackson how much of the property would be set aside for beachfront usage. Mr.
Jackson stated that the City has provisions in place for plats of 5 lots or more where the developer
would dedicate either 5% of the total plat area or pays a fee to provide parks in the area.
r-ns-98_2revrv7_98-1 RRUISCHF. AMENDMENT
Mr. Jackson stated that this application is submitted by Leo and Norma Brutsche. Mr. Jackson said
the property is located at the southwest comer of 132"d Avenue Southeast and Southeast 256d' Street
and is approximately .98 acres in size. Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant is requesting a change
to the land use designation from SF-6/Single Family 6 units per acre to Commercial and the zoning
designation from SR-6/Single Family Residential/ 6 units per acre to General Commercial. The
applicant would like to provide a comer grocery store. Mr. Jackson stated that the neighboring land
use designations are residential and this development would create a new commercial node on 132"d
and 256°.
Mr. Jackson stated that the main issue is if merit exists in creating a commercial development at this
site. He stated that existing commercial nodes at 240' and 132"d are developed with offices and an
QFC shopping center. Mr. Jackson stated that the Lake Meridian Plaza is located south of the
proposed site at Kent Kangley and 132nd with a Fred Meyers and several restaurants. Both shopping
centers are located less than one mile from the proposed site and still have room for expansion.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Public Works department is concerned with the high volume of traffic
in the area of 256th and that this area is slated for improvement within the next two years under the
single family residential zoning currently in effect. Mr. Jackson stated that staff recommends denial
of this request.
Beverly Riedler, 13110 SE 258" Street,Kent,WA stated that she resides adjacent to the proposed
property and supports staff s recommendation for denial. Ms. Riedler submitted a letter for the
record as Exhibit#6. She voiced her concern over the impact that this development would generate
in terms of increased noise volume as well as flooding the residential area with light. Ms. Riedler
stated a commercial development in this area would generate the potential for pedestrian as well as
vehicular accidents as both arterials are heavily traveled. Ms. Riedler stated that in 1997, 21,400
cars traveled through the intersection at 132nd and 12,000 cars traveled through 256th.
Mr. Jackson submitted letters from Paula Egbert for the record as Exhibit #7, from Mr. and Mrs.
Roland Darling as Exhibit #8, and from Mr. Bill Eastman as Exhibit #9 voicing concern over
development of this project.
Mr. Dave DeHaM 13121 Southeast 2581° Street, Kent,WA stated that he resides in an adjoining
neighborhood with the youngest children. Mr. DeHart said that he supports staffs recommendation
for denial. He stated that this proposed development would increase traffic density, creating a safety
risk to the children in the neighborhood. He stated that he does not wish to view a commercial
business from his residence.
Mr. Lee Robertson, 13104 SE 258'"Street, Kent,WA stated that his property is adjacent to Mr.
Brutsche's property and he supports staff s recommendation for denial. He voiced concerned about
the increased traffic generation'as a result of this development. Mr. Robertson stated that Ms.
Claudia Odie,Head of the Kent School District's Transportation Department, will not allow a bus
stop at the end of their street due to the high volume of traffic already occurring.
....... ..........
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 11
Ms. Pam Robertson, 13104 SE 258" Street, Kent,WA stated that she concurs with her neighbors
in supporting denial of this proposal. She stated that she is opposed to increasing the volume of
traffic and noise levels. Ms. Robertson stated that existing commercial is adequate. She said that
this proposed section of land is a small section of Mr. Brutsche's property. Ms. Robertson said if
this property is zoned commercial, the remainder of his property could potentially become zoned as
commercial, creating a highly congested intersection.
Mr. Jerald Cline, 823 Joshua Green Building, Seattle, WA represents Mr. Brutsche. Mr. Cline
submitted material in support of a Soos Creek County convenience store for the record as Exhibit
#10. Mr. Cline explained that convenience stores are typically located in residential areas. Mr.
Cline stated that a convenience store is a mixed-use enterprise. He said that it meets the land use
goals of the comprehensive plan to encourage corner stores and establish a quality of life that
encourages pedestrian access for commercial establishments or retail use. Mr. Cline stated that the
proposed area currently does not offer adequate retail areas. He stated that people are driving from
Soos Creek and the Meridian Lake area to the East Hill commercial area, increasing traffic density.
The market suggests locating small convenience stores within residential areas to serve the
community.
Mr. Cline explained that since the adoption of Kent's Comprehensive Plan in April 1995, several
changes have occurred in Kent. He stated that the most important change was the annexation of the
Meridian area formerly under the county's zoning regulations. Mr. Cline stated that this is the first
review request for this area under the City of Kent's regulations.
Mr. Cline addressed the concerns of the neighbors. He explained that there is a natural buffer on the
property the Brutsches will use to develop their convenience store. The buffer will screen Brutsche's
property from the Robertson's subdivision and from the property of the other folks. Mr. Cline stated
that Mr. Brutsche owns the property to the west of the proposed site. He said that Mr. Brutsche
would dedicate a right-hand turning lane that so that vehicular traffic traveling east on 256th will be
able to enter and leave the proposed store's property safely.
Mr. John Casey, 12719 Southeast 254`" Place, Kent, WA stated that he opposes rezoning this
property and is recommending that this proposal be denied. Mr. Casey said that numerous
convenience stores, grocery establishments and gas stations are located within one mile of Mr.
Brutsche's property. He stated that a general commercial designation would be a drastic change
from the current single family designation.
#CPA-98-2B1/CPZ-98-2 SHULMAN AMENDMENT
Mr. Jackson stated that this proposal submitted by Jack Lynch requests a land use change from
Commercial to Low Density Multifamily and the zoning from General Commercial to MR-G Garden
Density Multifamily/16 units per acre. The property is 7.5 acres in size and is located 700 feet west
of Pacific Highway South on the south side of Kent-Des Moines Road. Mr. Jackson stated that Mr.
Lynch submitted a similar proposal last year for a medium density multifamily designation with a
zoning of MRM/23 units per acre. Mr. Jackson stated that staff revised that request and
..• recommended approval at 16 units per acre under MRG zoning. Mr. Jackson said that both the
Board and Council denied the proposal.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 12
Mr. Jackson stated that the City of Des-Moines surrounds the property on three sides. There are
significant environmental constraints connected with any development on this property. The
headwaters of Massey Creek are located on this property.
Mr. Jackson stated that the City of Des-Moines has incorporated this area in their comprehensive
plan with a townhouse designation of 10-12 units per acre.
Mr. Jackson stated that staff believes that the information received this year was not significantly
different from last year's request. Mr. Jackson stated that staff recommends denial of this request.
Mr. Robert Ruth, 805 South 219'h Street, Des Moines, WA is a Senior Planner with the City of
Des Moines. He states that the City of Des Moines bound the proposed property on three sides. Mr.
Ruth stated that he concurs with the City of Kent Planning staff that this proposal be denied and that
the MR-G density designation would overwhelm the site's carrying capacity.
Mr. Ruth stated that City of Des Moines staff believes that 50%of the site consists of sensitive areas
comprised of steep slopes, wetlands, streams and the headwaters of Massey Creek(a critical drainage
basin which experiences frequent flooding). Mr. Ruth said that density should not be increased in
an area that is enamoured by sensitive areas. He stated that although an effort has been made to
protect the wetlands and buffers, slopes would be recontoured, cut and filled. Mr. Ruth said that if
development occurs the disturbance to the land would affect drainage patterns throughout the site
and down through the basin.
Mr. Ruth spoke at length about the increase in traffic generation that would occur. He stated that
the Des-Moines intersection of Pacific Highway South and the Kent Des Moines Road is a failing
intersection located just a few hundred feet from the site. Mr. Ruth stated that no improvements
have been made to the frontage road adjacent to the proposed site to accommodate this type of
development. Mr. Ruth stated that the Kent Des-Moines Road arcs so that site distance to and from
the site is impaired.
Mr.Jack Lynch, 1001 Northeast Boat Street,Seattle,WA stated that he represents the applicant.
He stated that the site is west of Pacific Highway south and consists of 8.5 acres. Mr. Lynch said
that one acre located west of the proposed site is zoned commercial and is located within the City
of Des-Moines. He stated that a deed restriction would be placed on that parcel of land to inhibit
development.
Mr. Lynch stated that site conditions dictate what type of development will take place. He stated
that a wetlands and topographic study has been completed as well as a traffic analysis. Mr. Lynch
said that the site is heavily wooded. Development would be concentrated on 35 to 40 percent of the
site located on the north side of the property.
Mr. Lynch stated that the proposed development would allow for a maximum of 78 two-story high
townhouse units,consisting of nine two stories buildings. W. Lynch said that the building density
would equate to 10.5 units per acre. He stated that sixty percent of the site would be retained in its
natural state with approximately 3.5 acres of developable land.
Mr. Lynch stated that a townhouse concept would be a good transition in this area. Mr. Lynch said
there is commercial development to the east and north with existing multifamily and single family
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
�,. November 23, 1998
Page 13
housing to the southwest. Mr. Lynch stated that clustered development is conducive to this site with
the environmental constraints associated with this land.
Martin Durkin, Jr.,330 Southwest Ord Street, Renton, WA stated that he worked with Mr.
Shulman on last year's project. He said that the City of Kent recommended approval of a 140 unit
multifamily project last year. Mr. Durkin stated that the outcome from the Council's deliberations
indicated that they did not want further multifamily development in Kent. Mr. Durkin stated that
he worked with City Attorney, Mr. Lubovich to prepare a townhouse ordinance. He stated that the
ordinance was not completed and the only ordinance currently in effect allows for 110 unit Planned
Unit Development.
Mr. Durkin disagreed with the City of Des-Moines assumptions that the steep slopes will be cut
down and wetlands disturbed. He stated that the City of Des-Moines has submitted a proposal to
widen Des-Moines Way. Mr. Durkin stated that the City of Des Moines would be cutting down the
slopes and that the city has plans to turn the wetlands into a regional detention area that would create
a tremendous disturbance within this sensitive area. Mr. Durkin said that the representative with the
City of Des-Moines failed to explain that this property is under possibility of future condemnation.
Mr. Durkin stated that he asked Mr. Shulman to submit a substantially different request this year
committing to development of townhouse condominiums and reducing the number of units from 140
to 70, substantially less than the property can carry. Mr. Durkin said that the market dictates a need
for affordable townhouse condominiums and that this development would act as a buffer from the
commercial development and multifamily housing. He would appreciate the City's support in favor
of this proposal.
Chair Bell announced that the Board should consider the Mower/Tonelli Amendment then close the
public hearing,continue with deliberations and voting and hold a continuance of the public hearing
on Monday, November 30 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the remainder of the code amendments.
Mr. Dowell was in favor of continuing the hearing until all the amendments had been heard. Mr.
Dowell moved to continue the hearing process until completion. Motion died for lack of a second.
Chair Bell apologized to the public for having to set through the hearing on amendments that did not
pertain to them and for their patience in having to return on November 30.
#CPA-98-2(E)/#CPz-98-5 MOWER/TONELLI AMENDMENT
Matt Jackson submitted a letter from the City of Des-Moines for the record as Exhibit #11. Mr.
Jackson stated that Mr. Dana Mower on behalf of Mr. Tonelli submits this proposal. The property
is located on 88' Avenue South and South 218' Street and is 6.9 acres in size. The applicant is
requesting a change in land use from Industrial to Low Density Multifamily and a change in the
zoning from Commercial Manufacturing 1 to (MRG) Garden Density Multifamily.
Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Tonelli owns an adjacent piece of property zoned MR-G and is
requesting that the two properties be joined together to build a multifamily project. Mr. Jackson
stated that the neighboring land use is (CM) Commercial Manufacturing which allows for a wide
range of light manufacturing and heavy commercial uses. Mr. Jackson said that there is a range of
industrial uses of similar nature in the vicinity as well as large-scale multifamily projects located
south of this proposed site.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 14
Mr. Jackson stated that the site is located on a substandard road fronted by SR-167 and encounters
high noise levels. He said that the applicant has not been able to market the proposal for commercial
manufacturing because of its size and because it is located next to multifamily zoning. Mr. Jackson
said that there would be difficulty in developing this site for multifamily residential use as the site
is located up slope from the freeway and experiences high noise impacts. He stated that staff would
need to consider converting existing industrial land to residential.
Mr. Jackson stated that the City of Kent serves as a focal point for regional and industrial land and
serves as the core for warehouse distribution and industrial uses in the region. Mr. Jackson said that
each year the Growth Management Act requires Kent to complete a capacity analysis on residential
carrying capacity and the city's potential for industrial growth. Mr. Jackson stated that there is a lack
of available commercial manufacturing land in Kent and the region. Mr. Jackson said that it is in
the best interests of the city to protect available commercial property. Mr. Jackson stated that staff
recommends denial of this proposal.
Mr. Rich Tonelli,22440 881h Avenue South, Kent, WA stated that he is the applicant and resides
on the last 20 acres of the farm of which 6.9 acres is part of the proposed rezone area. He said that
his family has been a part of the Kent Valley since 1910 and his property was originally part of a
working farm until the 1960's when SR-167 divided the property into three parcels.
Mr. Tonelli stated that development of the property should be in the best interests of the city as well
as suit their own interests. He stated that a multifamily (PUD) Planned Unit Development was
approved in the 1980's and expired as no one was interested in buying the property. Mr. Tonelli
stated that split zoning on the 20-acre parcel has made it difficult to develop the land and stated that
two offers have been received for the 20 acres to develop multifamily housing.
Mr. Tonelli said that if multifamily housing were developed under the current zoning, residents
would have to travel through existing industrial property to enter the residential development. Mr.
Tonelli stated that the portion of the property zoned for multifamily development is located at the
back portion of the 20 acres with a steep slope and is difficult to develop. He voiced his believe that
if the entire 20 acres were developed as multifamily, this would be advantageous in that 5 to 7 acres
of the slope can be left as undeveloped land.
Roberta Marta, 502 16'Street Northeast,Suite 312,Auburn,WA represents Dana Mower and
DBM Consulting Engineers. She stated that their client,Rich Tonelli has been a long time member
of the community and would like this project to be in the best interest of the community. Ms. Marta
explained that DBM Consulting respects staff s decision to recommend denial. She stated that the
proposal is requesting rezoning Lot 1 and Lot 2 to MR-G Garden Density Multifamily Residential
District from Commercial in order to maintain consistent zoning throughout the property and
eliminate safety issues associated with leaving the property to the west commercial.
Ms. Marta submitted preliminary site plans for the record as Exhibit#12. Ms. Marta referred to the
site plans in speaking at length on what they were proposing for the area. ..
Ms. Marta said that a traffic analysis was completed comparing commercial and residential traffic
impacts to the area. Ms. Marta stated that the report indicated that a residential development would
alleviate traffic locally and regionally.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 15
Ms. Marta submitted an article from the South County Journal as Exhibit# which addressed the
demand for multifamily housing in the community. Ms. Marta said that this project would provide
affordable housing, with easy access located immediately adjacent to employment centers in the
valley.
Gary Volchok, 1420 5"Avenue, Suite 1700, Seattle,WA stated that he has served the Kent Valley
as a real estate agent with CB Commercial for 30 years. Mr. Volchok stated that he has worked with
Mr. Tonelli over the years to sell his property. Mr. Volchok said that selling this property has
proved difficult due to the split zoning and the way in which the property would need to be
developed with the CM-1 zoning located at the bottom portion and residential development at the
top of the property. Mr. Volchok stated that portions of the top 8 acres of the property are can not
be developed due to sensitive areas. He stated that approximately 12 acres are developable due to
financial constraints.
Mr. Volchok spoke on the access and safety issues that would be encountered by the need to enter
the multifamily development through the Commercial Manufacturing zoned property.
Mr. Volchok stated that he has inventoried the industrial properties in Kent and Auburn and concurs
with staff that industrial zoning is at a critical mass within the Kent Valley. He spoke at length on
defining commercial zoning and stated that he felt that this property should not be used for
Nlo� commercial development.
Mr. Volchok stated that he has checked with other multifamily realtors in the valley and has been
informed that there is a shortage of available MR-G land in the Kent Valley for building affordable
multifamily housing. Mr. Volchok stated that he favors multifamily development for this property.
He stated that this property is located in close proximity to the freeway interchange as well as being
close to employment centers decreasing commute time.
Communication ensued between the Board and Mr. Volchok for clarification on where ingress and
egress is located for the multifamily project abutting up to the proposed property as well as where
access would be for the proposed property.
Mr. Malik asked Mr. Volchok how new development would affect the intersection at 228'and north
Central. 'Mr. Volchok stated that more vehicular traffic would be generated no matter how the
property is developed. He stated that a tentative traffic analysis of the area indicated if the property
was developed with multifamily, there would be less trips generated then if the property was
developed with a combination of industrial and multifamily.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing.
Motion carried.
Brad Bell voiced his intent to allow the Board to deliberate and vote on the six individual code
amendments with continuance of the public hearing to November 30 to hear the remainder of the
amendments. Mr. Bell asked Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich if this would be acceptable.
Ms. Evezich concurred.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 16
CpA 98 2(C)/CPZ-98-2 BURRIDGE AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said this is a request to change the land use map designation from SF-3 Single Family
Residential/3 units per acre to SF-6 Single Family Residential/6 units per acre and the zoning map
designation from SR-3 Single Family Residential/3 units per acre to SR-6 Single Family
Residential/6 units per acre. The property is located east of 13511 Avenue Southeast and north of
282nd. Staff recommends approval of this amendment.
Ron Harmon expressed his desire for the property to remain zoned as SF-3. The Board members
with the exception of Mr. Dowell ccncurred.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Tent' Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend denial of this
amendment. Motion carried.
CPA-98-2(D)/CPZ-98-4 COSTANZO AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said that this is a request to change the land use map designation from SF-6 Single Family
Residential/6 units per acre to Commercial and the zoning map designation from SR-6 Single Family
Residential/6 units per acre to NCC Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District. The property
is located along 116' and Kent Kangley Highway. Staff recommends denial of this amendment.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom announced that regrettably an erroneous public notification may
have occurred and that the surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius had not been
properly notified as required by law. Mr. Satterstrom extended apologies to the Board, the applicant
as well as all others in attendance concerning this amendment. He stated that although the site was
properly posted, surrounding property owners will need to be renoticed and the amendment reheard
by the Board. Mr. Satterstrom respectfully requested that this amendment not be acted upon until
staff has ascertained the exact facts.
Laurie Evezich recommended that proper notification should be given if it was not initiated
correctly. She stated proper notification involves questions of fundamental fairness under the Due
Process Clause of both constitutions. Ms. Evezich recommended that the Board should move to
remove this item from the six amendments to be deliberated upon this evening.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that a 10-day notification period is necessary prior to a hearing. He said
when this hearing reconvenes on November 30, the Board will be informed at that time if this item
will be rescheduled for the public hearing scheduled on December 14.
2(H)/#CPZ-98-8 HOULE AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said that this is a request to change the land use map designation from SF-6 Single Family
Residential/6 units per acre to SF-8 Single Family Residential/8 units per acre and the zoning map
designation from SR-5 Single Family Residential/5 units per acre to SR-8 Single Family
ResidentialJ8 units per acre. The property is located at 25840 135' Lane Southeast by Lake
Meridian. Staff recommends approval.
Chair Bell stated that he concurs with staffs recommendation and believes that the developer has
proposed a unique development. Chair Bell said that he believes the developer will comply with the
requirements for sidewalks and address safety concerns as well as provides additional housing in the
community.
INi.11i.....
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 17
Mr. Harmon voiced his concern in reference to safety issues and traffic generation due to
accessibility being limited to one way in and out of the property. Mr. Harmon stated that he would
like to see the city and developer find a way to develop more than one ingress and egress location
or widen the street to allow room for emergency vehicles.
City Engineer, Gary Gill stated that the main concern with this development last year was that a
minimum of 24 feet of street width was required from 256th Street to the entrance of the site with
a minimum of 6 foot paved shoulders or a walkway located on one side of the roadway. Mr. Gill
said that this development must construct curb gutters and sidewalks along their sites with the same
guidelines stipulated for last year.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of
#CPA-98-2(H)/CPZ-98-8 Houle Amendment. Motion carried.
#CPA 98 2(A)/#CPZ 98 1 BRUTSCHE AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said this is a request to change the land use map designation from SF-6 Single Family
Residential/6 units petr acre to Commercial District and the zoning map designation from SR 6
Single Family Residential/6 units per acre to GC General Commercial District. The property is
located at the southwest corner of southeast 256'h and 132"d Avenue South.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to recommend denial of
ECPA-98-2(A)/#CPZ-98-1 Brutsche Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
#CPA 98 2(B)/#CPZ 98 2 SHULMAN AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said this is a request to change the land use map designation from Commercial to Low
Density Multifamily Residential and the zoning map designation from GC General Commercial to
MR-G Garden Density Multifamily. The property is located 700 feet west of Pacific Highway South
on the south side of Kent Des-Moines Road. Staff recommends denial .
Ms. Zimmerman stated that she approves of this amendment contingent on the property being
developed for home ownership. Chair Bell and Sharon Woodford concurred with Ms. Zimmerman.
Ms. Evezich stated that the Board does not have authority to amend the zoning code through this
forum.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to recommend denial of this
application. Motion carried unanimously.
#CPA 98-2(E)/#CPZ-98-5 MOWER/TONELLI AMENDMENT
Chair Bell said this is a request to change the land use map designation from Industrial to Low
Density Multifamily Residential and the zoning map designation from CM-1 Commercial
Manufacturing to MR-G Garden Density Multifamily Residential/16 units per acre. The property
is located east of SR-167 at 88'Avenue South and South 288' Street.
Chair Bell stated that he recommends approving the Tonelli Amendment. He stated that Kent has
encouraged development of multifamily housing in the valley for many years and that the location
is conducive to this type of development.
Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the
Mower/Tonelli Amendment. Motion carried unanimously.
.............
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 23, 1998
Page 18
Steve Dowell MOVED and Ron Hannon SECONDED a motion for continuance of the public
hearing on Monday, November 30 to hear the remaining code amendments and to remove the
Costanzo Amendment from deliberations. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chair Bell opened the meeting for nominations.
Steve Dowell NOMINATED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to appoint Ron Harmon
to the position of Chairman. Ron Harmon accepted.
Sharon Woodford NOMINATED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to appoint Terry
Zimmerman to the position of Vice Chair. Terry Zimmerman accepted.
Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion for a unanimous ballot for the
positions of Chair and Vice Chair. Motion Carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
9etary
ctfully Submitted,
. Hams '
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
November 30, 1998
The continuance meeting from November 23, 1998 of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to
order by Chair Brad Bell at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 30 1998 in Council Chambers of Kent City
Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brad Bell, Chair
Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair
Steve Dowell
Ron Harmon
Jon Johnson
David Malik
Terry Zimmerman
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Matthews Jackson,Planner/GIS Coordinator
Linda Phillips, Planner
Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the November 23, 1998 minutes has been deferred to the January 26, 1999 meeting.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
None
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that a tax parcel number for CPA-98-2 (D)/CPZ-98-4 Costanzo
Amendment had been transposed during data entry resulting in notification of the wrong property owners.
Fred Satterstrom apologized to the Board and public for staffs error. Fred Satterstrom stated that as the
public needs to be properly notified he recommends that the Board add this amendment to the agenda for
the December 14, 1998 public hearing.
Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion for continuance of the hearing on this item
to December 14, 1998. Motion carried.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 2
CPA 98-2 (n/CPZ 98 6 MOWER/NGUYEN AMENDMENT
Planner Sarah Bradley said this amendment is a request to change the land use map designation from Low
Density Multifamily Residential to Commercial and the zoning map designation from MR-G, Garden
Density Multifamily Residential/16 units per acre to CC, Community Commercial District. The property
is located south of Kent Kangley at 12809 Kent-Kangley Road. The property consists of one tax lot 15,264
square feet in size and contains one single-family residence.
The property to the west is zoned Office and SR-6 and is encumbered by a wetland that would need
buffering. The property to the east is zoned Community Commercial with a single family residence, a
chiropractic and realty office.
Ms. Bradley submitted a report for the record as Exhibit#1, generated by the Washington State Department
of Transportation. Ms. Bradley said the report indicates over 100 accidents have occurred at the intersection
between 128th and 132nd Avenue on Kent Kangley Road. She stated the accidents from January 1994
through December 1996. Ms. Bradley said that there is one entrance to the property off of Kent Kangley
Road and that the Public Works department is concerned that development in this area could create a higher
vehicular accident rate. Ms. Bradley said staff recommends denial of this application.
Board member, Ron Harmon inquired of Sarah how many trips are generated under the present zoning of
MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily Residential District as compared to Community Commercial. Ms.
Bradley stated that the property has a single-family residence generating approximately two daily trips.
City Engineer, Gary Gill responded to the comparison factors for trip generation between MRG and
Commercial. He stated that most multifamily trips generate six p.m. peak hour trips per unit. Gary Gill
stated that commercial development could potentially generate 19 to 60 peak hour trips per 1,000 square
feet of actual building construction.
Dana Mower,DBM Consulting Engineers,50216th Street Northeast,Suite 312,Auburn stated that he
represents the owner/applicant. He stated that there are geometric considerations that make this property
unique in support of changing zoning from MRG to Commercial and he stated that he would like to see
zoning that is contiguous and homogenous to the property
Mr. Mower stated that this parcel of land is too small to be developed as MR-G. He stated that if the
area were to be developed as multifamily, the adjoining parcels would have to be developed along with
this parcel. Mr. Mower said the parcel fronts Kent Kangley Road for 231 feet with the property to the
east and west zoned Community Commercial and Office. He stated that one third of the property is
zoned Community Commercial and two thirds MR-G,Garden Density Multifamily Residential District.
Mr. Mower said he received data from Pat Fulley with the Department of Transportation indicating 18
accidents have occurred at this intersection since 1994. He stated that he spoke with Ed White,City of Kent
Transportation Engineer, about the possibility of closing off main access from 128th for this parcel and
creating access availability from Kent Kangley Road and that Mr. White concurred with this. Traffic
currently wraps around the intersection and necessitates a hard right tutu of 180% to enter the site.
Mr. Mower stated that he spoke with John Bond,City of Kent Traffic Specialist who voiced concerns with
traffic in the area but rated safety of the 128th Street intersection at below the 200th most dangerous
intersection in the city with the occurrence of three accidents within one year. Mr. Mower stated that he
completed an independent study with the Department of Transportation regarding traffic volume at the
intersection of 128th Street. The resultant report indicated four accidents had occurred within one year.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 3
Mr. Mower stated that the data Sarah Bradley received from the Department of Transportation described a
corridor area of SR-561 from milepost 9.15 to 12.18 that runs from 128th Place SE to Southeast Wax Road.
Nguyen Huy, 12819 Kent Kangley Road,Kent,WA stated that as the applicant he would like to see the
property rezoned commercial as there is commercial development located to the east and west of his
property. He stated that he would like an entrance to the property directly off of Kent Kangley Road.
In response to Board member Sharon Woodford Mr. Nguyen stated that he would like what he would like
to see developed on his property if it were zoned commercial. He responded that he would like to develop
his property as a professional office development. as he was advised by Planning staff that his property was
best suited for commercial use.
CPA-98-2 (G)/CPZ-98-7 GUSA AMENDMENT
Planner,Matthews Jackson stated that this is a request to change the land use designation from MHP, Mobile
Home Park to commercial and a zoning change from MHP, Mobile Home Park to Community Commercial
The property is located at 15386 South 272nd Street(also known as Kent Kangley Road) and consists of 3.28
acres. Mr. Jackson stated that the property is located between two existing mobile home parks.
Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant asked for General Commercial in their application and erroneously
stated that the property south of the site was zoned General Commercial. Mr. Jackson stated that zoning
along Kent Kangley Road and elsewhere on East Hill is Community Commercial. He stated that the lot is
�✓ landlocked from the street with a lot situated in front of the site that fronts Kent Kangley Road. Mr. Jackson
said that there is an easement which provides access to this site.
Mr. Jackson stated that an MHP zoning is unique in that multifamily-zoned property must exist to create a
mobile home park. Mr. Jackson stated that the City does not favor zoning vacant properties for MHP zoning,
as mobile home parks are a principally permitted use and make up an insignificant number of the total
housing within the city.
Mr. Jackson stated that the property is long and narrow with very little frontage and exists between two
existing residences. He stated that Planning staff reviewed the applicant's request to use the property for a
mini-storage facility and staff concurred. Staff is recommending approval to change the land use to
Commercial and the zoning to Community Commercial.
Mr. Jackson stated that mini-warehouses are allowed as a conditional use in the Community Commercial
zone which requires a public hearing. Planning staff could place conditions on the site to mitigate for
potential impacts to the neighborhood.
Harold Peterson,Peterson Consulting Engineers,320 Second Avenue South,Kirkland,WA stated that
he is speaking on behalf of Mr. Gusa. Mr. Peterson reiterated that the original application erroneously
requested a change from MHP to General Commercial instead of a change to Community Commercial. Mr.
Peterson stated that Mr.Gusa supports a Community Commercial designation and is aware that a conditional
use would be required for a mini-warehouse facility which he favors.
..✓ CPA-98-2 (D/CPZ-98-9 MOWER/HEBERT AMENDMENT
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill said that this is a request to change the land use designation from mixed use,
limited multifamily to medium density multifamily and a zoning change from Office Mixed Use to Medium
Density Multifamily Residential. The property consists of 4.8 acres and is L-shaped. Mr. ONeill stated that
the property consists of three parcels; one of which extends from Kent Kangley Road to Southeast 260'Street
e
W W u.n......
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 4
with the other two parcels located at the comer of 108'Avenue Southeast and 2606. Mr. O'Neill stated that
there is 200 feet of frontage along Kent Kangley Road.
Mr. O'Neill stated that the surrounding property consists of differing land use and zoning designations such
as commercial to the north,multifamily to the west with an MRM zoning,multifamily to the south with MRG
zoning while the property directly to the south is zoned Single Family/8 units per acre. Mr.O Neill stated that
the area to the east is predominantly single family residential, although it is zoned office. Mr. O'Neill
submitted photographs from the applicant (showing the surrounding land uses) for the record as Exhibit# 1.
Mr. O'Neill stated that under the existing zoning, 75% of the overall floor area of any development placed
on this site could be residential. He stated that within an Office, Mixed-Use zone, multifamily residential use
is permitted within a Mixed-Use overlay with the condition that at least 25% of the overall floor area of the
development must be developed for commercial usage. Mr. O'Neill stated that this property is located in the
mixed use overlay area and Planning staff concurs with the applicant that this location is well suited for
residential use. Mr. O'Neill stated that multifamily residential zoning as well as commercial use and zoning
is located close to this site. Mr. O'Neill said that staff recommends denial of this proposal.
Mr. Dowell asked Mr. O"Neill what unit density could be constructed on the site under the current zoning.
Mr. ONeill responded that under the mixed-use overlay zoning,there is more potential for multifamily build-
out than for commercial. Mr. O'Neill stated that the Floor Area Ratios(FAR) are higher for residential than
commercial development and that a residential build out of 15-25 units per acre would seem allowable under
.r,
the FAR in that zoning district.
Mr. O'Neill further stated that MR-M zoning allows for 23 units per acre and the MR-G zone to the south
allows for 16 units per acre. Mr. O'Neill stated that similar type of densities for at least the residential
component of a mixed-use development on that site would be possible.
Mr. Dowell asked Mr. O'Neill if the developer would gain bonuses by placing residential development on
that site.Mr.O'Neill stated that the floor area ratios(FAR)for stand alone commercial and mixed-use overlay
is .4. He said that on a 10,000 square foot site, this equates to a 4,000 square foot building. The FAR for
residential use in the mixed-use overlay is 1.0; a one to one relationship between the lot area and the floor
area. Mr. O'Neill stated that this is very large lot and it is not unreasonable to assume that this amount of
build out could happen on the lot; given the underlying parking requirements. Mr. O'Neill stated that the
overall build out allowable could potentially reach 23 units per acre.
Mr. Dowell stated that the topography of that site dips down as you move south and asked if there were
wetlands on this site. Mr.O'Neill stated that there is a slight drop off and indication that a wetland could be
located at the south end of the property.
Dana Mower,DBM Consulting Engineers,50216th Street NE,Suite 312,Auburn,WA stated that he was
the applicant and would speak on behalf of the property owner,Mr.Hebert. He said that he concurred with
staff on the need for higher density residential on the property. Mr.Mower stated that Mr. Hebert's concept
is for two-story townhouse condominiums to be occupied by homeowners. Mower said that a change in
zoning to multifamily has been requested to allow for a 16 unit per acre density for garden unit townhouses
on this property. He stated that the property adjoins a 1.5-acre parcel, which would be developed together.
Mr.Mower stated that he feels Kent has accomplished their mixed-use goals on both a regional scale as well
as on a localized scale. Mr. Mower stated that he felt this property is too small to be used for a mixed-use
development, as there is only 125 feet of width along Kent Kangley Road.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 5
Mr. Mower stated that if the comer parcel of property was included as part of the development, the joined
properties would make more sense developed commercially.
Mr. Mower referred to the City of Kent's Mixed Use Development Code, Section 15.02.260 and Section F,
15.04.150. He spoke at length on his interpretation of development standards and cited three examples for
the usage of floor area ratios.
Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. Mower if there were wetlands on his property and if he felt it would be difficult
to develop the dense southeast comer of the lot at 260th Street. Mr. Mower stated that a critical area analysis
has not yet been completed.
Mr. Dowell asked Mr. Mower if he understood that there is no allowance in the code for conditioning the
property to be developed specifically as owner occupied buildings on this site. Mr. Mower responded that
to his knowledge his client has only developed two story garden townhouses and not multifamily.
William Robinson, 25854 108th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA said that he resides on the comer of 260th
and 108th across from the parcel proposed for rezoning. He spoke at length on the high ratio of accidents at
that intersection as well as the high volume of noise generated in this area. Mr. Robinson stated that traffic
backs up for hours in the evening. Mr. Robinson stated that he did not support zoning of the property for
single family residential development.
`✓ Hugh Leiper,815 Reiten Road,Kent,WA stated that he has been a commercial real estate consultant for
over 40 years. He stated that the Growth Management Act was implemented by the State to accomplish
development of communities that are compatible.
Mr. Leiper stated that he worked with the U.S. Postal Service to develop a market analysis that utilized Kent
zip code boundaries as well as the Kent School District boundaries in providing a total number of resident
deliveries within Kent's city limits. Total deliveries for residential, apartments and condominiums equaled
84,787 of which 9,517 deliveries were to condominiums and 22,209 deliveries were to apartments.
Mr. Leiper stated that the developer, Roger Hebert intends to develop condominiums in a manner that will
function compatibly with the surrounding community. He stated that by developing a condominium on this
site, it would provide a convenient location whereby residents will be able to walk to their shopping instead
of driving as the site backs up to Albertsons.
Mr. Leiper submitted the statistical postal report for the record as Exhibit#2.
CPA-98-2 (J) RUTH AMENDMENT
Planner, Linda Phillips said this application is a request by William Ruth to add a policy to the
Comprehensive Plan under Land Use Goal 9 or Land Use Goal 10. The policy would read as: "...allow and
encourage single family townhouse style attached condominiums in the single family residential zones that
permit residential densities of 6 units per acre or higher."
Ms. Phillips submitted a letter dated November 19 from Mr.Ruth for the record as Exhibit#3. Ms.Phillips
said that Mr. Ruth states that under Kent's present comprehensive plan,many proposed detached single family
developments are uneconomical. She stated that Mr. Ruth believes that land can be utilized in a more
affordable and efficient manner by incorporating attached units within developments with innovative land
use designs that would take advantage of unusual topographical features.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 6
Ms. Phillips stated that by allowing attached units within developments, more view and open space can be
saved and more economical housing can be provided. Ms. Phillips stated that Planning staff considered both
the individual property owner and developer concerns regarding economical housing and environmental
effects in their review of the application. She stated that Kent strongly opposes disruption of the single-family
character of single family zones.
Ms. Phillips stated that Planning has received numerous requests of this nature over the past five years and
that the nature of this request would provide for flexibility and innovation within a single family design
structure.
Ms. Phillips said that it is the belief of staff that there may be validity for attached units even though not all
developments with attached units have maintained the character of single family neighborhoods. She stated
that several developers have successfully built attractive units that have been accepted in the community.
Ms. Phillips stated that Planning staff recommends delaying a decision on this request to allow time to set up
a work program for 1999 to study the effects of allowing attached units within single family zones. The study
would include recommended processes, criteria and conditions for inclusion of policies to recommend
attached units in single family zones in the comprehensive plan.
John Kastien, 20609 94th Avenue South, Kent, WA stated that he has resided in South King County for
53 years with 10 of those years in Kent. He voiced his believe that a blanket proposal should be approved
allowing multifamily development within residential zones of 6 or higher units per acre. He stated that each
request should stand on its own merit as well as allow the property and homeowners opportunity to speak for
or against this type of project.
Diana Woodward,%23 South 203rd Street, Kent, WA agrees with Planning staff s recommendation to
deny this proposal. Ms. Woodward referred to news items in the Kent Reporter's November 25 issue
referring to a study by King County's Council Member; Dwight Pells titled "Distribution Disparity and
Disproportionality". The results of the study showed Kent as one of five cities and two unincorporated areas
in King County that contains 72% of the total public and subsidized housing within King County. Ms.
Woodward stated that the report indicated that these areas are characterized by a high number of human
services and lower property values.
Ms. Woodward stated that the scope of the proposal is to broad, and if the proposal were passed, single
familyresidential areas would suffer lower property values and every piece of land existing within single
family residential zones of SF-6 and higher would be open to eventual development of multifamily housing.
Ms. Woodward asked that single family residential areas be honored by not opening them to integration of
attached side by side clustered multifamily housing.
Howard Woodward, 9623 South 203rd Street, Kent, WA stated that he has reviewed Kent's
comprehensive plan and cluster housing was not included. Mr. Woodward voiced his believe that clustered
housing is no more than glorified apartments and as the proposal stands, there are no restrictions in place to
control the type of attached dwellings that could be constructed.
Mr.Woodward stated that he is aware that property owners wish to maximize their profits by developing land
in a way that will return the most financial gain. Mr. Woodward stated that developers typically do not reside
in these types of developments. He stated that if they resided in their developments, perhaps they would
reevaluate allowing attached units within a single-family zone. Mr. Woodward would like the Board to deny
approval of this proposal.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
. November 30, 1998
Page 7
BiH Ruth, 12410 SE 248th,Kent,WA stated that the market is what drives development and Kent's market
calls for attached housing. Mr. Ruth stated that Planned Unit Developments that have been constructed over
the past 8 to 10 years that have fit well within the community. Mr. Ruth stated that Kent needs an ordinance
that will meet the market demand for clustered housing.
Mr. Ruth stated that the southwest comer of 260th and 108th would work well for clustered housing. He
stated that the property is approximately 3 acres in size,with a pond in the comer of the site. Mr. Ruth stated
that the property owner is only able to sell his property for a price based on the density of the development.
Mr. Ruth stated that he would like to see that a study analysis be provided by Planning Staff in an expedient
time frame so that possible acceptance of this proposal would not be delayed indefinitely.
CPA-98-2 (K) CITY OF KENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Financial Planning Manager,Cliff Craig stated that the Finance Department is requesting approval of the draft
update to the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan along with any changes that the Council
may approve when they adopt the budget on December 8.
Mr. Craig stated that the Capital Facilities element reflects changes in the six year plan resulting from the
1999 budget development process and that the changes are summarized in Draft Tables 8.1 and 8.2 showing
the plan as it was presented in the 1999 preliminary budget document.
Mr. Craig stated that the Council could suggest some changes to the Capital Facilities element between now
and adoption of the plan on December 8. Mr. Craig responded to Brad Bell's concerns about the plan
changing prior to going to Council December 8. He stated that the Council is in the process of finalizing the
1999 budget including the 1999 portion of the Capital Plan. Mr. Craig stated that the six-year Capital
Facilities plan is listed in detail in the 1999 preliminary budget document.
Mr. Bell stated that he speaks for himself and the Board in that he would have a problem recommending
approval of something that the Council could potentially change. Mr. Craig stated that Finance does not
expect the Council to make any changes to the plan as presented in the 1999 preliminary budget.
Planning Director, James Harris stated that he believes that Cliff Craig is asking the Board to approve the
framework within which the Council might make some minor changes at the December 8 final public hearing
for the 1999 budget.
CPA-98-2 Q CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Manager,Fred Satterstrom stated that this is a proposal to amend Kent's Comprehensive Plan by
implementing a mixed use designation for the area called North Park located between Fourth and Fifth
Avenue.Mr. Satterstrom stated that Planning staff submits this recommendation and if the Board recommends
approval of a mixed-use designation and Council approves the request, Planning staff will proceed with the
development of a special zoning district for this area.
Ron Harmon asked Linda Phillips what proposal was indicated in the downtown strategic action plan. Ms.
Phillips stated that the plan indicated zoning this area as limited office combined with residential. She stated
that the original action was to implement a land use of commercial,than later rezone the property for limited
office with a conditional use for combining residential and office. Ms. Phillips stated that Planning Staff
reviewed the new land use designations available and felt that a mixed-use designation would be appropriate.
Linda Phillips indicated that the comprehensive plan originally anticipated a limited office zone with mixed
use residential within a mixed-use overlay. She said that implementing a mixed use designation and limited
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 8
office zoning with a mixed use overlay would cut the cost and time by not having to proceed with a
conditional use permit.
Mr. Dowell asked if a workshop had been held with the Northpark residents concerning this proposal. Ms.
Phillips concurred and stated that there were no outstanding objections from the neighborhood. She stated
that several of the residents complained about the activities at the Commons Park.
Ms. Phillips stated that the intent for this proposal is to create an area compatible with the park as well as
create residential access to the park. She stated that this could be accomplished by combining multifamily
mixed use with office. Implementing this change would provide more office space in the downtown area. Ms.
Phillips stated that if the park is master planned, provisions could be provided for setting up sr:ared parking
agreements.
Ms. Phillips submitted a letter addressed to the Council for the record as Exhibit # 4 from a group of
neighbors within the Northpark area. She stated that the letter is relevant to this issue but indicates
misperceptions in relation to the proposal. Ms. Phillips indicated that the area under question has not been
rezoned as the neighbors indicated in their letter. The neighbors indicated that they believed that as
landowners,rezoning would force them from their homes. Ms. Phillips stated that no master plan or proposal
exists to condemn the homeowner's property and if a developer were interested in purchasing a residential
property, they would have to make an offer and the homeowner has the right to decline or accept an offer.
Ms. Phillips stated that the Strategic Action Plan dictates improving sidewalks and streets south of James
Street as well as the intersection at James and Fourth Avenue to improve pedestrian use and had no
connection with the property north of James Streets.
Mr. Malik asked Ms. Phillips how many peak hours trips would be generated if zoning were changed from
single family residential to mixed use with limited office zoning. Ms.Phillips stated that she could not project
peak hour trip generation at this time. Gary Gill responded that single family residential typically generates
1 peak hour trip per unit and multifamily generation generates approximately 60 percent of that figure.
Mr. Harmon questioned if proper notification was mailed to the Northpark residents, as no one was present
at the hearing. Mr. Satterstrom stated that a 200-foot radius was mailed out within the appropriate time frame.
Mr.Harmon stated that the lack of representation indicated to him that no one residing on 1 st,2nd, 3rd or 4th
Avenue objects to this proposal and that the only objections are from residents on 5th Avenue.
In response to Mr. Dowell, Mr. Satterstrom stated that a series of focus group meetings were held over the
period of a year with citizen groups on the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. He stated that Northpark was
divided on zoning. Mr. Satterstrom said that the residents on the eastside lobbied hard to maintain single
family zoning. He stated that early on in the planning process,options were looked at to designate a mixed
use are along James Street from 5th Avenue eastward to the railroad tracks. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the
Council denied rezoning the area and that the Downtown Strategic Action Plan still indicated the area east
of Fourth Avenue as single family zoning and the Northpark area between Fourth and Fifth Avenue remained
as a mixed use designation.
In response to Mr.Malik,Mr. Satterstrom stated that there were no plans at this time to widen Fifth Avenue
in the Kent Commons area. He stated that although there was a recommendation for the Commons play field
to be master planned at the drop off point to provide safer access to and from the field,the master planning
process has not occurred. Mr. Satterstrom stated that access issues will be addressed at the time master
planning happens.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 9
Ms. Zimmerman stated that sixteen people have signed the letter but that about 27 units exist on the parcel
of land in question. She said that this indicates that a high percentage of residents have indicated their
disapproval of changing this area from single family residential.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
CPA-98-2 (F)/CPZ-98-6 MOWERINGUYEN AMENDMENT
Brad Bell stated that this is a request to change the land use map designation from Low Density Multifamily
Residential to Commercial and the zoning map designation from MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily
ResidentiaU16 units per acre to CC,Community Commercial. The property is located at 12809 Kent Kangley
Road.
Ron Harmon voiced concern that if the parcel were rezoned commercial, additional property owners would
request commercial zoning leaving less property available for MR-G development. Mr. Harmon concurs with
staff's recommendation for denial.
Jon Johnson stated that to rezone only one parcel to CC, Community Commercial is not sensible. He
concurred with staffs recommendation for denial.
Discussion ensued between Matthews Jackson and the Board members concerning the zoning designations
as illustrated on the official zoning map that was distributed to the Board with the staff report for this
proposal. Mr. Jackson assured the Board that the map they received was an official zoning map of the City
of Kent and that the copy of the map handed out by the applicant was taken from the Planning Department's
Kroh Book.
Mr. Jackson stated that the Kroh Book has a disclaimer on the front stating"zoning boundaries in this book
are not to be used as official zoning maps." Mr. Jackson stated that as far as the assessor's data is concerned
and Kent's records are concerned, the property is zoned MR-G. He stated that the Planning Director has
authority to shift a property boundary 50 feet each way based on administrative authority.
Mr. Dowell stated that he would like to see the property rezoned CC, Community Commercial.
Sharon Woodford stated that rezoning a single parcel of property would not generate a great increase in traffic
and therefore supports a rezone to Community Commercial.
Tent'Zimmerman supports staff's recommendation for denial as she voiced concern with traffic and access
to the property.
David Malik voiced concern with high traffic volumes and supported denial of this request.
Brad Bell felt the site has commercial potential. He stated that rezoning this small parcel is not sensible
specifically due to ingress and egress problems. He supports staffs recommendation for denial.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED a motion that CPA-98-2(F)/CPZ-98-6/Mower/Nguyen
Amendment is denied. Motion carried.
CPA-98-2 (G)/CPZ-98-7 GUSA AMENDMENT
Brad Bell defined this as a request to change the land use designation from Mobile Home Park to Commercial
and the zoning map designation from Mobile Home Park to Community Commercial. The property is located
at 15386 Southeast 272nd Street,north of Kent Kangley Road and east of 152nd Way Southeast.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 10
Ron Harmon supports staff s recommendation to approve this request and would like this property to be used
for storage warehouse not a dumping ground for abandoned cars, trucks or heavy machinery.
Terry Zimmerman stated that she does not believe that General Commercial is appropriate for Easthill. She
supports Community Commercial with an agreement that the property be used specifically as a mini-storage
park.
David Malik voiced concern that the easement width from Kent Kangley to this site would not accommodate
navigation of a truck onto this site from Kent Kangley Road. Mr. Jackson stated that the typical width of an
easement is 20 to 30 feet. Mr. Malik supports denial of this proposal.
Steve Dowell stated that he supports staff s recommendation for Community Commercial.
Brad Bell supports staffs recommendation to approve this request.
Terry Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to accept staff s recommendation for
approval of CPA-98-2 (G)/CPZ-98-7 Gusa Amendment. Motion carried.
CPA 98 NIl/CPZ 98-9 MOWER/HEBERT AMENDMENT
Brad Bell defined this as a request to change the land use map designation from Mixed Use Limited
Multifamily to Medium Density Multifamily Residential and the zoning map designation from Office/Mixed
Use Professional and Office/Mixed Use to MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential/23 units per
acre. The property is located at Kent Kangley Road and 108th Avenue Southeast.
David Malik supports Planning staffs recommendation to retain mixed use. Ron Harmon concurred with
David Malik that the property should be retained as multifamily,mixed-use development. In response to Mr.
Harmon,Kevin O'Neill said that Mr. Mower was correct in saying that the mixed-use development definition
states that at least 25% of the total floor area must be commercial. Mr. O'Neill stated that Mr. Mower
referred to sections of the zoning code relating specifically to floor area ratio and site coverage.
Mr. O'Neill stated that the maximum floor area ratio for stand-alone commercial is.4 and the floor area ratio
for residential is 1.0. Mr. O'Neill stated that if the property is developed as stand alone commercial, site
coverage is 40%and if a mix of residential and commercial development occurs,you can get up to 60%site
coverage. Mr. O'Neill stated that this property could not be developed as stand alone residential.
In response to Mr. Dowell, Mr. O'Neill stated that a townhouse is defined as a multifamily dwelling
connected with sidewalls. He stated that this zoning district allows for multifamily dwellings constructed in
several different configurations. Mr. O'Neill said that townhouse developments currently exist in MR-G
zones with height and setback limitations.
Jon Johnson stated that this property has a history of rezone requests. He stated that land use has not changed
significantly nor has the need for additional multifamily housing increased substantially to warrant a policy
change by the City Council and ultimately the zoning that was adopted in 1997 by the City Council. Jon
Johnson stated that he recommends denial of this request.
Terry Zimmerman voiced her support of the applicant's request to change the zoning to medium density
multifamily. She stated that this property has a narrow fiontage along Kent Kangley Road and she can not
see a commercial development built on this site as ingress and egress would be difficult.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 11
Sharon Woodford concurs with Ms. Zimmerman in supporting the applicant's request to change the zoning
to medium density multifamily.
Brad Bell stated that a commercial development would not be conducive for this property and that there is
no market for the existing zoning. He voiced support for the applicant's request to change the zoning to
medium density multifamily.
Ron Harmon stated that staff has reassured the developer that height limitations is not a problem and that he
should be able to build the number of units that he desires as well as enjoy a commercial at a ground floor
level .He stated that he supports denial of this request.
In response to David Malik,Gary Gill addressed how development of multifamily versus mixed use would
affect the traffic flow in the area. He stated that multifamily development would generate less peak hour trips
than a combination of multifamily and commercial and that a commercial development on Kent Kangley
would compound the traffic problems. Mr. Gill stated that if circulation moved through 260th, this could
relieve traffic congestion depending on how the project was sited on the property.
Steve Dowell stated that he recommends denial of this request and supports retaining the current zoning.
Jon Johnson MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to support staffs recommendation to deny
CPA-98-2 (I)/CPZ-98-9 Mower/Hebert Amendment. Motion carried four to three.
CPA 98-2 MIRUTH AMENDMENT
Brad Bell defined this as a request to amend the land use element Goal LU9 and Goal LU10. Brad Bell said
that he agrees with Mr. Ruth that property exists that is not developable under single family home standards
and that affordable housing is a problem. Mr. Bell concurred with Mr. Ruth that Planned Unit Development
ordinances exist and that the City of Kent has not met the growth management goals they have set.
Brad Bell said that the Snyder attached units are as nice as any single-family home development that he has
seen. Mr. Bell said the properties Mr. Ruth pointed out have not devalued the neighboring properties. He
stated that multifamily housing provides for open space that is attractive to neighbors. He stated that he
would not oppose this type of development in his neighborhood.
Brad Bell stated that he agrees with Planning staff that a study evaluation should be completed immediately
to determine how multifamily housing could be developed within single family residential areas and that a
townhouse ordinance needs to be implemented in support of these types of development in the community.
Jon Johnson said that he supports Planning staff s recommendation to study this issue. He stated that only
certain properties would be suitable for multifamily housing within single family developments. He stated
that well planned developments blend well with surrounding single family homes and increase property
values.
Steve Dowell asked Mr. Harris how a zoning ordinance could be implemented that would protect single
family zones with the inclusion of attached dwellings. Mr. Harris stated that this issue would be included in
the study and recommendations would be brought back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Dowell supports
�.✓ staff s recommendation for further study
Terry Zimmerman said she supports Planning staffs recommendation to review allowing townhouses in
residential areas. She suggested that neighborhood traffic patterns should be looked at. Ms.Zimmerman said
that she lives in a townhouse development situated between a large apartment complex to the east and a
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 12
single-family neighborhood to her west with$250 to $300 homes. She stated that the entrance to her home
is off of 277th Avenue, which is heavily traveled. Ms. Zimmerman suggested that positioning townhouse
developments closer to main arterials would be less disruptive to traffic in single family residential areas.
Terry Zimmerman stated that she takes exception with Mr. and Mrs. Woodward about declining property
values and the fact that she doesn't use many social services even though she is a social worker. She stated
that she purchased her townhouse for $96,000, which is what she could afford as a single parent, and the
neighboring properties are well maintained. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she feels that there are many people
like herself who could use a more affordable place to live in a great city like Kent.
Sharon Woodford supports Planning staff s recommendation to pursue a study that would implement a new
zoning area for townhouses. She stated that the Board has heard amendment requests to build townhouses
and have been in favor of this type of development, however, conditions could not be placed on these
amendments to assure that townhouses would actually be built.
He said that he believes there is a market for single family attached dwellings but does not believe they should
be placed in single family residential areas. Ron Harmon voiced concern that at one time a townhouse
ordinance existed in Kent and now is no longer in existence.
Mr. Harris stated that although King County and other jurisdictions have a cluster or attached housing zone,
Kent has never had this type of zone. Mr.Harris stated that Planning is experiencing an upsurge in submittals
for attached dwelling developments because many properties are constrained by wetlands or steep slopes. Mr.
Harris stated that at one time,Kent allowed Planned Unit Developments throughout the city. The regulations
were changed to allow these developments on a minimum of 100 acres.
Mr.Harris stated that Planning staff is requesting that the Board recommend a study for multifamily housing
in a single-family residential area. as well as amend the Comprehensive Plan policies.
Ron Harmon voiced his desire for a detailed study to be completed by Planning staff within the next couple
months and that study results will be heard by the Board after single family neighborhoods have been notified
to allow them opportunity to attend a hearing and provide testimony if desired.
Steve Dowell MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to approve staff s recommendation to amend
the Comprehensive Plan policies as well as recommend to the Council that a work program be set up for early
1999 to study the proposal allowing attached units in single family residential areas. Motion carried.
CPA 98 2 (K) CITY OF KENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Brad Bell said this is a request to amend the Capital Facilities Element. Sharon Woodford asked if it were
possible to defer to the Council for their decision. Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Evezich stated that the
Board could choose not to make a recommendation and defer to the Council.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to not make a recommendation and
defer this to the City Council. Motion carried.
CPA 98-2 (L)CITY OF KENT PLANMG DEPARTMENT
Brad Bell defined this as a request to change the land use map designation from SF-8, Single-Family
Residential/8 units per acre to Mixed Use Commercial. The property is located north of James Street between
Fourth and Fifth Avenue South. Brad Bell asked Linda Phillips what the motivation was that generated this
request. Linda Phillips stated that this action came about as a result of the Downtown Strategic Action Plan
process.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
November 30, 1998
Page 13
Linda said that as discussion progressed with the neighborhood, it appeared that there were a number of
people both in private and in public hearings who favored rezoning mixed use office to strictly office usage.
Linda Phillips stated that this recommendation came from the consultant,Makers. Linda submitted a letter
dated 8/30/98 from a group of citizens surrounding 4th and 5th Avenue North for the record as Exhibit # 5.
Terry Zimmerman voiced concern about the potential for loss of affordable housing in the community. She
said her concerns are generated by the neighbors concerns. She stated that if folks wish to change the zoning
from single family residential to mixed use zoning, more work needs to take place with the neighborhood and
it is her impression that the neighbors do not favor this change.
David Malik voiced concern over the lack of safety for the children who play in the Kent Commons Park and
that peak hour traffic would increase if zoning change was implemented.
Sharon Woodford stated that when this issue was discussed at prior public hearings with no public opposition
towards rezoning. She stated that many of the neighbors indicated the desire to move from the neighborhood
and allow an office or commercial developer to purchase their property. Ms. Woodford stated that there needs
to be more public involvement at this time. She said that she feels the proposal is an excellent use for this
property and that the neighbors are not mandated to sell their homes.
Brad Bell stated that there was no community representation from Northpark at the hearing and voiced
concern that perhaps the 200 foot radius notification may not have encompassed a large enough area. Terry
Zimmerman reiterated that there was a letter signed by 16 of the 27 residents indicated as existing on this
parcel. Steve Dowell and the other Board members voiced concern that the mailing radius was not large
enough to encompass the entire neighborhood which includes First, Second and Third Avenue.
Mr.Harris admonished the Board for deferring to the public at this point. He stated that it is the responsibility
of the Board to analyze the material presented and make a decision. Brad Bell voiced disagreement with Mr.
Harris by stating that he believed that citizens play a vital role in the public hearings and the ultimate decision
process. Mr. Bell stated that the Board can not defer to the public but are servants of the public and are here
to listen to their input. Mr. Harris stated that the public has been properly notified and that it is not the
responsibility of the Planning staff to physically bring them in.
Jon Johnson MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion that CPA-98-2(L)City of Kent Planning
Department's request to change the land use map designation from SF-8, Single Family Residential/8 units
per acre to Mixed Use Commercial be denied. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
ectfully Submitted,
Ja s P. Hams
ecretary
CITY Of
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253)859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLA 49 NG DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
DECEMBER 14, 1998
MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND
PLANNING BOARD
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-2 (D)/4CPZ-98-4 APPLICATION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT 9Y RICHARD COSTANZO
As you are aware, on November 23, 1998 the Land Use and Planning Board conducted a public
hearing on the 1998 comprehensive plan amendments. One of the amendments on which a �.
public hearing was held was an application submitted by Richard Costanzo for a plan
amendment from Single Family Residential to (SF-6) Commercial for properties located at
11715 and 11733 Kent Kangley Road. As you recall, subsequent to the hearing, staff reviewed
the file and discovered that the public notice for the hearing had not been correctly mailed to
adjoining property owners. Therefore, we recommended that the public hearing be rescheduled
so that public notice could be done correctly. This item has been re-advertised, and will be
considered at the Board's December 14 public meeting.
The staff analysis of this proposed comprehensive plan amendment is contained in the staff
report (dated November 23, 1998) which was previously sent to you for the November 23
hearing. Please bring this staff report with you to the December 14 hearing.
I should note that the City Attorney's office has notified the owner of the parcel at the southeast
comer of 116`h Avenue SE and Kent Kangley Road that they have until December 8 to fulfill the
condition for road right-of-way dedication which was placed on their comprehensive plan
amendment last year. As noted in the staff report, this parcel is located just to the east of the
parcels proposed for a change this year, and was referenced in the applicant's proposal.
Therefore, at the time of the December 14 hearing the status of this parcel should be resolved,
and staff will present this information to the Board at the meeting.
If you have any questions about this application prior to the December 14 hearing, please contact
me at 850-4799.
cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
'2041h%VENUE SOUTH : KENT.W%SHINCTON 08I0'-Ss11+,TELEPHONE 1]5 1 gi4-i11N1
CITY OF
Jim White, Mayor
-aT is
Planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Public Hearing
December 14, 1998
The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Brad Bell at 7:00 p.m.
on Monday, December 14, 1998 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall.
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brad Bell,Chair
Sharon Woodford, Vice Chair
Steve Dowell
Ron Harmon
Jon Johnson
David Malik
Terry Zimmerman
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
..r Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner
Matthews Jackson,Planner/GIS Coordinator
Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the November 23 and 30 minutes have been deferred to the January 26, 1998 meeting.
ADDED ITEMS TO TIRE AGENDA
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS
Planning Director,James Harris announced that a workshop will be held Monday,January 11 and the public
hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 26, 1999.
#CPA 98-2 (D)/CPZ-984 COSTANZO AMENDMENT
Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that a public hearing was held on this item on November 23. Mr.
O'Neill stated that subsequent to that hearing,staff discovered that the initial notification had not gone out
to the correct group of surrounding property owners. He stated that the hearing could proceed tonight as
proper notification had been completed. Mr. O'Neill extended apologies to the Board and the applicant for
the inconvenience that had been caused.
Mr. O'Neill stated that this application relates to two parcels at 11733 and 11715 Kent Kangley Road. He
stated that the land use designation on the parcel to the west is currently commercial and is zoned NCC,
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial. Mr. O'Neill stated that the parcel immediately to the west of that
parcel went through the comprehensive plan amendment process in 1997. It was approved for a land use
change to Commercial and a zoning of NCC with a condition that adequate property be dedicated for right-
of-way.
"04th:\VENUE SOUTH ! KEN-r,%%r\SHINGTON ;gv5;TFLL'PHONE �_'Jit gi4-?tlMt
..............
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 2
Kevin O'Neill stated that he had indicated through his staff report and at the November 23 hearing that the
rezone had not yet been formally executed as the condition had not been satisfied. Mr. O'Neill announced
that as of this afternoon, December 14,conditions has been satisfied and an agreement had been drawn up
between the property'owner and the city of Kent with regard to dedication of the right-of-way. He stated
that even though an ordinance has not been adopted to approve changing the land use to commercial all
conditions have been met thereby clearing the way for approval.
Mr. O'Neill extensively defined the land uses for the other parcels surrounding the subject property.
Kevin O'Neill stated that the intersection of I I6th Avenue Southeast and Kent Kangley Road is the northern
terminus of the 277th Corridor project and from this point the corridor will proceed south down 116th and
eventually connect through the valley to Central Avenue. Mr. O'Neill stated that as a result of this project,
the 116th Avenue intersection will be substantially improved due to the addition of road widening and turn
lanes.
City Engineer,Gary Gill spoke at length regarding the standards that would need to be met regarding right-
of-way as it relates to the subject property. Gary Gill stated that if the subject property was developed for
residential purposes, the intent would be to widen 264th Street and create access to the property from that
street. Gary Gill stated that if the property were developed as a commercial use, all access to the property
would be from Kent Kangley Road with no access allowed through the internal residential street.
Gary Gill spoke at length on trip generation. He stated that if the property were developed as residential,
15 evening peak hour trips could be generated. He stated if the property were developed as commercial, 300
or 400 evening peak hour trips could be generated. Mr. Gill calculated trip generation based on the Institute
for Traffic Engineers trip Generation Manual that estimates differences in traffic characteristics of
developments and land uses. He stated that all ITE trip values are calculated based on each 1000 square feet
of building improvements on a site.
Mr. Gill stated that there are many factors that figure into determining trip generation. He stated if a
commercial establishment is located on a arterial roadway,many trips could be defined as"pass-by trips"
(people stop in and leave as they are driving by), "diverted trips" (someone is diverted from their normal
course), or"new trips"(customers are attracted to the area from a distance)
Gary Gill stated that the traffic count on Kent Kangley runs around 34,000 trips per day. Mr.Gill stated that
many of the plats within the corridor area were developed and subdivided in the 1990's and has subsequently
been developed. He stated that the lots were conditioned to deed right of way for the corridor as a condition
for receiving utility service.
Terry Zimmerman asked Gary Gill if it was his intention to allow for left hand turns off of this property
across Kent Kangley heading west, if it were developed as commercial. Gary Gill responded that it would
depend on where the end of the double left turn pocket is located.
Mr. Gill, in response to Steve Dowell, stated that long term trip forecasts were predicted through the year
2020. He stated that the Public Works department estimates that the current level of travel on the Kent
Kangley corridor will be maintained.
Gary Gill stated that 256th Street is designated as a minor arterial and is designated for design
implementation and construction improvements from 116th easterly past 132nd within the next two years.
He said that the State Highway department has identified 256th Street as a future on and off ramp link to
Highway 18.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
`�✓ December 14, 1998
Page 3
David Malik asked Gary Gill what fees the developer would be assessed for peak hour trips if the site were
developed as a supermarket. Gary Gill stated that the current value is about$1500 per p.m. peak hour trip
for new trips. David Malik asked if this indicates that the developer will pay the City of Kent about
$650,000. Gary Gill concurred.
David Malik asked Gary Gill where curb cuts would be placed on Kent Kangley to accommodate left turns
from the site. Gary Gill stated that curb cut locations would depend on the orientation of the buildings on
the property. He stated that Public Works would look closely at determining the most feasible circulation
pattern for this site and place curb cuts accordingly. Gary Gill said that Public Works would attempt to move
the driveway cuts as far east of I I6th as possible.
Ron Harmon asked Gary Gill how much frontage on this site would need to be used to expand Kent Kangley
Road. Mr.Gill said that the current assessor's maps indicates that the most westerly parcel already includes
50 feet of right-of-way from the center line of Kent Kangley Road along the entire frontage. Gary Gill said
that Public Works would require an additional seven feet from that parcel. Mr. Gill indicated that the parcel
to the east shows 30 feet of existing right-of-way with Public Works requiring an additional 27 feet.
Brad Bell asked Gary Gill if he supports staffs recommendation on this issue. Gary Gill stated that the
primary concern of Public Works was just to present facts that would assist the Board in their decision
making. Kevin O'Neill said that staff s two major concerns with this request is traffic hazards and the
placement of commercial development to close to existing residential properties.
h.r Kevin O'Neill said that the applicant expressed an interest in integrating his parcels and developing them
jointly as commercial. Mr. O'Neill stated that an integrated development would allow for better control of
ingress and egress to the site and subsequently buildings could be placed on site in a way that would
minimize impact in the area. Staff voiced concern that the parcels would be developed independently
creating high traffic generation in an already highly congested corridor. Staff recommends denial.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion
carried
Ron Remmer, 11733 Kent Kangley Road,Kent,WA voiced concern that the lack of lighting creates low
visibility and high traffic volume on the road creates safety issues. He stated that even though his home sets
back from the road 80 to 90 feet, the volume of noise is excessive. Mr. Remmer said his home is located
furthest east of the site.
Karen Rehkop,11715 Kent Kangley Road,Kent,WA stated that she has owned the Shortstop Market for
twenty years. Ms. Rehkop stated that the market is located on the second parcel of property from the
intersection and that she also owns the adjacent property located between Mr. and Mrs. Remmer's property.
Ms.Rehkop stated that as Kent continues to grow,she would like to see her property developed in a way that
would be attractive to the surrounding neighborhood and be a positive and viable development. She stated
that she would like to see all four parcels of land developed jointly.
Terry Zimmerman asked Ms.Rehkop if she had an agreement with the property owner to the west for joint
development. Ms. Rehkop said that a written agreement did not exist, rather that they have a mutual
understanding to develop their properties in a way that would benefit the community.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 4
Richard Costanzo, 24310 Crystal Lake Place, Woodinville, WA said that he was the applicant. Mr.
Costanzo stated that traffic has increased to the point where health, safety and welfare have been
compromised. He stated that developing this property as residential would not be desirable.
Mr. Costanzo spoke at length on peak hour trip generation and diverting of traffic specifically from 104th
Avenue. Mr. Costanzo stated that in 1991 a post-opening traffic impact study was completed for the Lake
Meridian Market Place. The study was completed after the opening of the center in the belief that results
would indicate an increase in traffic generation to the west thus increasing traffic impact fee mitigation costs
although results of the study actually indicated a decrease in traffic impacts on the west side of that site.
Mr. Costanzo stated that he believes trip generation would decrease as a result of consolidating the four
parcels as one commercial use. He stated that the development would serve as a diversion as customers
would not be forced to head west from 116th to shop for services.
Mr. Costanzo said that the five existing driveways on Kent Kangley would be reduced to not more than
two access points as a result of new development. Mr. Costanzo addressed the topographic problems by
stating that as part of any development, the roadway would be smoothed out creating easier ingress and
egress. He said that any commercial developer would resolve the lighting and security issue as well as
create a means to buffer noise from the residences on 264th.
Mr. Costanzo stated that he has a contingent cross-access agreement with the comer property owners and
that the property owner,Ms. Rehkob has not signed the agreement.
Mr. Costanzo entered a letter for the record dated 11/23/98 from Village Properties NW as Exhibit# 1.
Tent'Zimmerman asked Mr. Costanzo what type of commercial development he would consider if the
four properties were combined. Mr. Costanzo stated that the use would be service related in nature.
Mr. Costanzo responded to David Malik's concerns about traffic congestion by stating that at the time
the 277th Street Corridor bypass is complete, a large majority of traffic will use the bypass and travel up
to 116th, lessening the impacts on Kent Kangley and 104th Avenue. He stated that by providing a
commercial development on 116th,people would have an additional option for their services other than
Lake Meridian Market Place.
Martin Durkan,Jr.,330 SW 43rd St.,Suite 357,Renton,WA stated that the four parcels of property
would be best served by commercial development. Mr.Durkan said that an agreement exists with
Village Properties for a cross access and cross parking easement. He stated that two accesses exist on
116th Street but believes that will be reduced to one access.
Tent'Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Ron Harmon voiced concern that no neighbors to the south of the development showed attended the
hearing. Mr.Harmon stated that he was concerned about impacts to the neighbor to the east,He stated
that his desire is to see adequate buffering for this neighbor as protection from noise, lighting and traffic.
Mr.Harmon stated that he supports commercial development.
Jon Johnson and Steve Dowell voiced support for commercial development on the property.
Chair,Brad Bell stated that he strongly supports neighborhood commercial. He stated that he resides at
..........
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 5
Lake Meridian and by having commercial services on I I6th, would decrease traffic flow towards the
other shopping centers. He reiterated safety concerns for the residents within the area and noted that the
property is not suited for single family use. Mr. Bell stated that the developer would pick up the cost
associated with increased traffic. He stated that he hoped the city, developer and property owner would
work out an agreement that would benefit both the property owners, and homeowners.
Sharon Woodford voiced her support for commercial development but voiced her impression that as the
neighbors to the south had not attended the hearing; they must not be concerned with the development on
this property.
Terry Zimmerman supported staff's recommendation to deny rezoning the property to commercial. She
stated that she empathizes with the neighbor to the east who is not in favor of this property being
developed as a commercial site. Ms. Zimmerman voiced her concern that agreements would actually be
implemented between the various property owners and would like to see the property developed jointly.
David Malik voiced support to rezone the property for commercial.
Ron Harmon reiterated his concern with the neighbor to the east and hopes that the Planning staff will
take this into consideration.
Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of CPA-98-
`"'� ( 2 (D)/CPZ-98-4 Costanzo Amendment. Motion carried six to one.
l CPA-984/SMP-98-1 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Kevin O'Neill stated that this is an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. He said that the City of
Kent has had a Shoreline Master Program since 1974. He said that Kent's Shoreline Master Program is
governed under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act which was passed in
1971. The shoreline program regulates development within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of
shorelines of the state.
Mr. O'Neill stated that when the Shoreline Management Act was passed and when Kent developed its
first shoreline master program,the only shoreline of statewide significance in the city was the Green
River. Mr. O'Neill said that back in 1996, the city annexed two shorelines; Lake Meridian and a portion
of Big Soos Creek from Kent Kangley Road to the southern portion of the city limits, which affects 10
parcels.
Mr. O'Neill said that these shorelines are still regulated under King County's Shoreline Master Program.
He said the City of Kent has been using the County's program on an interim basis since annexation,but
has been aware of the need to update its shoreline master program to bring these two shorelines into
Kent's shoreline program.
Kevin O'Neill said that the other reason Kent has proceeded with updating its Shoreline Master Program
is that back in 1995 the Washington State Legislature adopted the regulatory reform act or ESHB 1724,
requiring that Kent change their regulatory procedures. He stated that the State law governing shorelines
mandates that the goals and policies of the local shoreline master program become part of the city's
comprehensive plan and that the regulatory portion of the shoreline master program be incorporated as
part of the city's overall development regulations.
Based on this law,the goals and policies in the shoreline program are now defacto part of Kent's
comprehensive plan. Kevin O'Neill stated that Planning staff wanted to go through existing policies and
...................
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19, 1999
"—' Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CPA-98-A/SMP-98-1
2 . SUl+IIdARY STATEN The Land Use and Planning Board held a
public hearing on December 14, 1998, to consider amendments to
the Kent Shoreline Master Program and Comprehensive Plan goals
and policies relating to shoreline management. The Board
recommends adoption of the revised Kent Shoreline Master
Program, dated December 14 , 1998, with amendments .
3 . EXHIBITS: Staff memo, memo from Kevin O'Neill to the Land
Use and Planning Board dated 12/14/98, draft Shoreline Master
Program dated 12/14/98 & minutes from the 12/14/98 Land Use
and Planning Board public hearing
4 . RECOM LIMED BY: Land Use and Planning Board
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUD(�ETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT• NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember moves, Councilmember seconds
to approve/modify/deny the Land Use and Planning Board
recommendation of revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and
Shoreline Master Program, and submit the revised Shoreline
Master Program to the State Department of Ecology.
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 7D
CITY or MO
i
Jim White, Mayor
Planning epartment (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
JANUARY 19, 1999
MEMO TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND CITY,COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 REVISIONS TO THE KENT SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Attached for your review and consideration is a draft of the revised Kent Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). The revision to the SMP, dated December 14, 1998, was considered by the Land Use and
Planning Board at a public hearing on December 14, and the Board recommended adoption of the
revised SMP with amendments, which will be discussed below. The minutes of the December 14 public
A"")hearing are also attached for your reference.
BACKGROUND
The update to the SMP is being done under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58) with the assistance from a grant from the Washington State Department
of Ecology (DOE). The City has hired a consulting firm, Berryman and Henigar, to assist us with the
update of the SMP. City staff and consultants worked over the spring and summer with a citizens
advisory committee, who provided a great deal of assistance in providing policy direction for the revised
document. Open houses were also held over the summer relating to shoreline issues on Lake Meridian
and the Green River.
The SMP is being revised to reflect the City's annexation of Lake Meridian and a portion of Big Soos
Creek, which are both considered "shorelines of the state", and are currently being regulated under King
County's Shoreline Master Program. Portions of the Green River, which is a shoreline of statewide
significance, have also been annexed in recent years. In addition, the Regulatory Reform Act (ESHB
1724), adopted in 1995, states that the goals and policies of shoreline master programs are part of a
jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Since staff and the Land Use Board are proposing revisions to the
goals and policies of the SMP (found in Section 4 of the document), this revision will also result in an
amendment to the City's comprehensive plan.
It is important to note that under the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the City's grant
with the Department of Ecology, once the draft SMP is locally adopted by the City Council, it will be
,forwarded to DOE for their review. Based on their review, DOE may recommend that amendments be
made to the locally adopted version. If this is the case, these will be brought back to the City Council
for your deliberation at a future date prior to adoption of the final ordinance.
2204th AVENUE SOUTH I KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
Revisions to Kent Shoreline Master Program
Page 2
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD
As stated above, the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending that the City Council adopt a
revised Shoreline Master Program dated December 14, 1998,with the following amendments:
1. Section 6.9 of the draft master program lays out development standards for overwater structures,
such as docks and piers. The staff proposal recommended that piers, floats, etc, would need to be
placed at least 15 feet from the side property line, which is consistent with the King County SMP
(see page 10 of Section 6). The Board is recommending that this setback be reduced to five(5) feet.
2. With regard to covered moorage, the draft SMP contains two alternatives on pages 10 and 11 of
Section 6. When Lake Meridian was annexed to the City, the King County SMP did not permit any
covered moorages, as outlined in the alternative shown as subsection (q on the top of page 11. In
late 1997, the County amended their master program to allow mechanical boat lift covers as shown
in the alternative outlined in subsection (g) on page 11. After considering public testimony, the
Land Use Board is recommending adoption of subsection (t), which would not allow covered
moorage.
3. There was much testimony at the Land Use Board hearing relating to nonconforming uses and
structures. For purposes of shoreline management, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
allows nonconforming development to be maintained and repaired. With regard to replacement of
damaged nonconforming development, the WACs state that damaged nonconforming development
can be reconstructed if it is damaged up to 75 percent of the replacement cost of the original
development. The Land Use Board is recommending that this threshold be increased from 75 r'
percent to 100 percent. Staff from DOE has noted that the nonconforming threshold of 75 percent is
a guideline that can be changed locally, thus this recommendation would be permissible.
4. The Land Use Board recommended that staff look at definitions for overwater structures, in that
there was some confusion as to the terminology relating to some terms, particularly "docks" and
"piers". The WACs provide a definition of"dock", which is shown on page 5 of Section 2 of the
draft SMP. However, much of the existing King County SW language which is found in Section 6
uses the term "pier". It is intended that these terms be interchangeable for purposes of shoreline
administration. Therefore, staff recommends that the definitions of"dock" and "pier" be combined
to make this clear. It should be noted that these terms are defined jointly in King County's SMP.
5. Section 3 of the draft SMP outlines environmental designations for the three shoreline environments
in Kent. The Green River is proposed to be designated as "Urban-River Resource". This
designation is proposed to apply to the portion of the river that is within the present city limits and
also to the portion within the City's potential annexation area(PAA). The Board recommended that
the map of the Green River shoreline environment shown in Exhibit A be amended to shown the
shoreline environmental designation of"Urban-River Resource" applying to the entire portion of the
river within the PAA.
In addition to these amendments proposed by the Land Use and Planning Board, the Department of
Ecology has raised concerns about the way which the draft SMP references wetlands in Section 5.6 of
the draft SMP. This section is proposed for revision based on the City's adoption of a wetlands
ordinance, pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Act, in 1993. The intent is that the
City's existing wetlands provisions should be used for purposes of administering wetlands protection in
the shoreline environment as well. In order to clarify this intent, staff is recommending that the
following statement be put in Section 5.6,replacing the proposed language:
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
Revisions to Kent Shoreline Master Program
Page 3
11..�.
Io 1993 the City adopted a wetlands management ordinance. pursuant to the requirements of
RCW 36.70A.060 as adopted in the Growth Mannensent Act (GMA) In so doing, the City
established a new Chapter 11 05 which outlines dellnesdw methodologies for wetlands and
regulations to protect them The definition of"wetland" in Section 11,05.020 is consistent witb the
definition of wetland found in the GMA (RCW 36 70A.O3.0(20)). For purposes of shoreline
management, the definition of "wetland" found in WAC 173-22-030(19) is consistent with the
GMA definition Therefore the City's definition of"w " and regulations found in Cba tamer
11.05 are consistent with the definitions of wetlands in the SMA and GMA, will be used to manage
and regulate wetlands in the shoreline jurisdiction as well as the rest of the city.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the draft revised shoreline master program and
comprehensive plan amendment dated December 14, 1998, with the following amendments
recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board and Planning Department staff:
• Amend the side yard setback for overwater structures from fifteen (15) feet to five (5) feet
• Do not allow covered piers, floats, or moorages waterward of the ordinary high water mark of Lake
Meridian
• Amend the threshold for replacing damaged nonconforming development from seventy five (75)
percent of the cost of the replacement value to one hundred (100)percent of the replacement value
• Amend the definition of"dock"in Section 2 to include the term"pier"
• Amend the map of the Green River in Appendix A to include the environmental designation of
"Urban-River Resource" for the entire Potential Annexation Area
• Amend the language in the wetlands section(Section 5.6)
Staff and consultants will be available at the January 19 City Council meeting to present the revised
SMP and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the meeting,please call me at 850-4799.
KON:pm smpccmem.doc
Attachments
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Nancy Eklund,Berryman and Henigar
CITY or L4]t:l�SV�
Jim White, Mayor
planning Department (253) 859-3390/FAX(253) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
DECEMBER 14, 1998
MEMO TO: BRAD BELL, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND
PLANNING BOARD .
FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: #CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1 REVISIONS TO THE KENT SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM
Attached for your review is a draft of the revised Kent Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The
revision to the SMP was discussed with the Land Use and Planning Board at workshops
conducted on October 12 and October 26, 1998, and at the latter meeting the Board elected to
conduct a public hearing on December 14.
The update to the SMP is being done under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58) with the assistance of a grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE). The City has-hired a consulting firm, Berryman and Henigar, to
assist us with the update of the SMP. City staff and consultants worked over the spring and
summer with a Citizens Advisory Committee, who provided a great deal of assistance in policy
direction for the revised document. Open houses were also held over the summer relating to
shoreline issues on Lake Meridian and the Green River.
The SMP is being revised to reflect the City's annexation of Lake Meridian and a portion of Big
Soos Creek, which are both considered "shorelines of the state", and are currently being
regulated under King County's Shoreline Master Program. Portions of the Green River, which is
a shoreline of statewide significance, have also been annexed in recent years. In addition, the
Regulatory Reform Act (ESHB 1724), adopted in 1995, states that the goals and policies of
shoreline master programs are part of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Since we are
proposing revisions to the goals and policies of the SMP (found in Section 4 of the document),
this revision will also result in an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, and is being -�
advertised as such.
220 4th AVENUE SOUTH 1 KENT.WASHINGTON 4101132.54v51 TELEPHONE (253)854.3300
...........
Shoreline Master Program Revision Memo
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
December 14, 1998
Page 2
It should be noted that in November, late in the process of amending the shoreline master
program, the City was notified by the Department of Ecology that a small portion of Springbrook
Creek in the north end of Kent was a shoreline of the state, based on the mean annual flow of
water which had been recently measured for the creek. The Washington Administrative Code
has not at this point been updated to reflect this portion of Springbrook Creek as a shoreline.
Given the late notice of this, and that an update to include Springbrook Creek was not part of any
of the public process that has occurred to date on the project, the City and DOE have agreed to
not reflect this in this update of the SNP, but will instead incorporate Springbrook in a
subsequent update to the document.
The draft revised shoreline master program consists of the following sections:
1.0Introduction: This section outlines the purpose of the SNP, and describes the
water bodies that are regulated under the SNP
2.0 Definitions This section defines terms which are used throughout the SMP.
Many of the definitions used in shoreline master programs are
provided by the Washington Administration Code (WACs)
3.0 Environments This section outlines broad environmental designations for the
... applicable shoreline areas in Kent. Given that Kent is an
incorporated city and is part of King County's urban growth area
under the Growth Management Act, all of Kent's proposed
shoreline designations are urban
4.0 Shoreline Elements This section contains goals and policies that relate to how shoreline
areas will be protected in Kent. These goals and policies, once
adopted, will become part of the City's comprehensive plan. The
goals and policies are organized into different sections, called
elements, which are outlined in the Shoreline Management Act.
5.0 General Standards This section outlines performance standards that are regulatory in
nature, and apply to all activities and. uses within the shoreline
areas of Kent. This section includes a new set of standards that
relate to protection of salmon habitats, which has been drafted in
anticipation of a listing of the Chinook salmon under the
Endangered Species Act
6.0 Specific Use Standards This section regulates specific uses along the shoreline, such as
agricultural uses, commercial and industrial uses, and residential
uses. This section contains many provisions from the King County
SMP relating to the regulation of overwater structures such as
docks, piers, floats, etc.
Shoreline Master Program Revision Memo
#CPA-98-4/#SMP-98-1
December 14, 1998
Page 3 ..�
7.0 Administration This section outlines how the shoreline master program is
administered at the local level. Administration of shoreline master
programs must follow the requirements of the both the Regulatory
Reform Act and the Shoreline Management Act
8.0 Enforcement This section outlines enforcement procedures when violations to
the SMP occur. Again, most of these enforcement provisions are
mandated by the state Shoreline Management Act.
Staff and consultants will be available at the December 14 public hearing to present the revised
SMP and answer questions. If you have any questions prior to the hearing, please call me at 850-
4799.
KO\znw1P:\PUBLICISMPLUBME.DOC
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager
Nancy Eklund,Berryman and Henigar
CITY OF KENT
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
DRAFT
The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the Washington
State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972.
u
Prepared by:
City of Kent
Planning Department
220-4th Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
Berryman&Henigar
1215 4t'Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, Washington 98106
`✓ December 14, 1998
......... .
Kent Shoreline Master Program
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Shoreline Master Program ...........................................................................................1
1.2 Content Overview................................................................................................................2
1.3 Shoreline Resources in Kent................................................................................................2
1.4 The Role of the Shoreline Master Prog= in Habitat Protection 3
1.5 Ameeieted Resewees
1.5 Relationship of this Shoreline Master Program to Other Plans and Regulations ...............5
1.6 Title .....................................................................................................................................5
2.0 DEFINITIONS
3.0 ENVIRONMENTS
3.2 R ew
3-3-
�..✓ 3.1 Urban -River Resource ......................................................................................................3
3.2 Urban - Lake Residential ....................................................................................................3
3.3 Urban- Stream Corridor ...................................................................:.................................4
4.0 SHORELINE ELEMENTS
4.1 Shoreline Use i
4.2.1 Economic Development .......................................................................................4
4.23 Public Access Element ........................................................................................................6
443 Circulation Elemettt.............................................................................................................7
4.45 Recreation Elemem .............................................................................................................9
4.5 Shoreline Use 91emeR
4.6 Conservation Elem .......................................................................................................11
4.7 Historical/Cultural Rlem ..............................................................................................14
4.8 Flood Control 1!slemertt ......................................................................................................15
5.0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
5.1 Shorelines of Statewide Significance ..................................................................................1
5.2 Archaeological and Historic Resources ..............................................................................3
5.3 Clearing and Grading ..........................................................................................................4
5.4 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................4
DRAFT-Kent SAAR Table of Contents i
12114198
V
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5.5 Environmentally Sensitive Areas
5.6 Mambes,Begs and Swamp Wetlan ...............................................................................6
5.7 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat 8
51; Public Access ....................................................................................................................12
5.29 View Protection ................................................................................................................13
5.iQ& Other Standards .................................................................................................................13
6.0 SPECIFIC SHORELINE USE POLICIES AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
6.1 Agriculture ..........................................................................................................................1
6.2 Aquaculture .........................................................................................................................2
6.3 Boating Facilities (Marinas) ...............................................................................................2
644 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................1
6.45 Dredging .............................................................................................................................4
6.--'% Industrial Facilities ..............................................................................................................5
6.462 Landfill ................................................................................................................................5
6a
6.8 Mining .................................................................................................................................1
6.9 Overwater Structures• Pier.Docks, Floats, Buoys 7
6.9n Parking Facilities ..............................................................................................................0
6.11 Recreational Facilities 18
6.12 Residential Development 0
6.13 Shoreline Stabilization 22
6.14 Signs 7
6.16 Transportation Facilities ...................................................................................................29
6.1-7¢ Utilities 0
7.0 ADMINISTRATION
7.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................1
7.2 Substantial Development ....................................................................................................1
7.3 Exemptions .........................................................................................................................1
7.4 Permit Process .....................................................................................................................5
7.5 Appeals ................................................................................................................................8
7.6 Variance Permits .................................................................................................................8
7.7 Conditional Use Permits ...................................................................................................10
7.8 Nonconforming Development ..........................................................................................11
7.9 Amendments to The Master Program ...............................................................................11
7.10 Severability .......................................................................................................................11
11 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Table of Contents
121WQ8
Kent Shoreline Master Program
8.0 ENFORCEMENT
8.1 Violations ...........................................................................................................................1
8.2 Duty to Enforce ...................................................................................................................1
8.3 Investigation and Notice of Violation .................................................................................2
8.4 Effective Date .....................................................................................................................3
8.5 Time to Comply ..................................................................................................................3
8.6 Cease and Desist Work Order .............................................................................................3
8.7 Emergency Order ................................................................................................................4
8.8 Review of Penalty by The Administrator ...........................................................................4
8.9 Extension of Compliance Date ...........................................................................................5
8.10 Appeal of Civil Penalty .......................................................................................................5
8.11 Civil Penalty .......................................................................................................................5
8.12 Criminal Penalties ...............................................................................................................6
8.13 Additional Relief.................................................................................................................6
APPENDIX A
u'
DRAFT-Kent SMP: Table of Contents m
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
This page is intentionally blank.
iv DRAFT-Kent SMP:TaWe o1 Contents
12114198
INIIIII ....
Kent Shoreline Master Program
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
The Shoreline Management Act(Ch. 90.58 RCW)provides for the management and protection
of the state's shoreline resources by planning for reasonable and appropriate uses. The Act sets
up a joint planning effort by state and local governments, and imposes on local governments the
responsibility to develop and implement a local Shoreline Master Program-LM Pl.
This document is the Shoreline Master Program for the City of Kent. The goals,policies, and
regulations in this program apply to activities in all lands and waters within the City of Kent
which are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. All proposed uses and
activities within the shoreline jurisdiction(including activities that are exempt from substantial
development permit requirements) should be reviewed for compliance with the goals, general
and specific policies, and use regulations found in the Program.
The Shoreline Master Program must be applied consistently with state law and regulations.
Users of the program should consult the State Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW),
and the sections of the Washington Administrative Code related to the Act, since these contain
requirements that may apply to shoreline activity,regardless of whether the requirements are
contained in the Master-Pfegretz3SMP• Users should also be aware of other applicable federal,
state and local laws that may apply to activities within the shoreline.
Regulatory Reform
In 1995 the Washington State Legislature sought to siMplify and streamline the development
gn,.ess for developers and local government by introducing various measures aimed at
regulatorv_reform, As a part of that effort; the Leaisla= amoded RCW 36.70A.480 to require
that the goals and policies of local_ SMPs be int„e&Wcd into local GMA commrehensive 910-
including Critical Area Qrdinances L AOsI In addition rem+lations for these various documents
should be reviewed along with goals andlwlicies to ensure flud the;+are consistent with one
another. The clarification of these local regulati�c_ogp>ad with the consolidating of various
Renr►it processes into one single review=cess is intended to improve the time required for
permit processing,the consistency of the review, and all part1Ps' understanding of the regulations
and their respective pumoses.
Kent Shoreline Jurisdiction
As defined in The 'Shoreline Manag ent Art the Kent SUP governs streams with a mean
annual flow of 20 cubic feet=second or more: takes gm9K than 20 acres in sizes all
shorelands: all associated wetlaWs within the City of ent and its urban grn harea. The area
of shoreline jurisdiction extend_,landward two h>gdmd(2QW feet in all directions of the ordinar;
high water mark or floodway- which ever ism P= of the water body.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 1.0 -Introduction 1
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
theoght ef as wedapAs),Fiver-deltas, fleedw"and fleedruilm assesialed V#CM Bush lake
recogruizes certain 1 rgr Hater bodies as having gnter significance to the entire sate and places
a1h'gher standard on their manggement. Lakeq exceeding 1 000 acres in size and rivers (in
western Washington) exceeriina 1-000 cubic feet pa jerroa in mean annual flow are considered
"shorelines of statewide sianificance." Flow daa for the Gram River show that the Green Rver
in Kent exceeds this threshold Qnalifyyngit as a shoreline of statewide significance.
1.2 CONTENT OVERVIEW
Section 2.0 of this Program contains the definitions that apply throughout the Program,unless
otherwise indicated by context. The different Environment designations, and the policies and
guidelines for each Environment, are described in Section 3.0. The Shoreline Goals. as
expressed in the eight Elements of the Program are found in Section 4.0; the elements consist of
general goals ,ebjeetives and policies that apply to all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction.
General Performance Standards are contained in Section 5.0 and-Specific Use Policies and
Performance Standards are included in Section 6.0. Section 7.0,Administration, describes the
process for issuing substantial development permits, conditional uses and variances, and the
appeals process for such permits. Section 8.0 ixekwle&-describes the enforcement process.
1.3 SHORELINE RESOURCES IN KENT
The i f Kent has three "shorelines of the state"that am +TM+tWAW under the Shoreline
*Management Act: the Cc=River-which is also desisted as a"shoreline of statewide
significance: Lake Mcnidian_ annexed in 1996_and a small seMent of Big Soos Creek
downstream from Kent-KanoRoad(Sate Route 516) These shorelines represent a
significant recreational and aesthetic resource for the City- as well as Provide a rich natural
environment alld habitat area. Kent's shoreline jurisdiction is depicted in the mar s in
Appendix A.
The Green River
The Green River is the most visible shoreline resource in Kent. The river has always been a
focal point for inhabitants of the Green River Valley. Prior to white settlement of the area,tribes
and bands of the Coast Salish people traveled the river in cedar canoes. Native villages were
located along the river and its reaches, and the river basin provided plentiful resources in the
form of fish,waterfowl,mammals,roots and berries. Winter villages dotted the river's shoreline,
with houses of cedar bark. When white settlers arrived,they also utilized the river as a road
through the densely-vegetated valley, and laid claim to the land along the river's shores. Thar
2 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 1.0 -Introduction
12114198
xxxx.o.
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Green River is regionallygygnificant due to its fi*rtion as a snag stw= and habitat for
,Chinook, coho. and chum salmon, and sea-nun cutthroat and steLhead trout.
The fiver has a very gentle slope(less than 0. 1 %)and the adjacent soils are of high quality for
agricultural and recreational uses and poor for industrial and urban sites. Most of the River has
been diked or riprapped and the resultant steep banks allow for few beaches except at low water.
Water flow averages 6,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the winter,speak flows exceeding
12,000 cfs, ,depending upon regulation of the Howard Hanson
Reservoir upstream. Mummer low flows averagt i=than 1 '700 cfs. with flows as low as 81 cfs.
en i Om the regulation of the City_of Tacoma heeadwarke fa6lity.l The river provides
habitat for a variety of mammals,birds,reptiles,amphibians, and fish. Most of the trees have
been logged,but some deciduous and coniferous trees remain along the shoreline, and a variety
of shrubs and grasses line the entire shore.
Lake Meridian
i ake Meridian, a 150 acre lake,is a v luable water resource for fish and wildlife, It has been
developed as a puma ily residential lakefront community Like Meridian Park is located at the
southeast end of the Lake, laong with a boat launn-h gp=lad by the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife The lake offers active recreational om+.Minities such as pleasure boating.water-
skiing. swimming- and fishing, as well as pro i ing a location for float planes to land and take
QM
Big Soos Creek
The section of Big Soos Creek that is rem elated unda the Shoreline Management Act based on
its flow characteristics is located south of Kent Kanglev RaW in southeast Kent This short Man
of creek is flanked by resider i 1 uses on relatively 1 lots- Big Soos is also habitat for
Chinook and coho salmon a*>d stel h ad and cu hmg trout The portion of Big Soos Creek to
the north of the shoreline u=ent finctions as a li_near_;ark Soos Creek is the eastern boundary
of Kent's Potential annexation Area(mi).
14 THE ROLE OF THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM IN HABITAT
PROTECTION
It is important to recognize that the one of the midn pt of the Shoreline Managcm=
Program is to protect,priam and restore fish and x Liife habitats in and aWarpart to streams.
rivers. and lakes within the City of Kent. In addition it is ma tal y i�o=to recognize that the
aQuatic resources protected by the master=gran± and their riparian gee are at the receiving
end of the watersheds within which They are located. To ensure the protection of habitat for
salmon steelhead and other aQuatic Vecieq policies and reglilations ui i g the management of
the shoreline areas must be consistent and c=Vlimznt=to other watershed-based managemen
practices.
1 Water Resources Data Washington Water Year 1996 Us ricolopical survey,Water Data Report WA 96-1•USGS Tacoma
Wash. 1997.
DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 1.0 -Introduction 3
12114198
rl• - 11 1 11 . 11 • 1 d < � +j 11 : k 1 ' '.Ia 4., •: 1 IF •.' . 1 1 1 ( � 1 1
r \ • . 1 1 r.-r- : 1,1 : ! a 1 '.• 1, 7 ! 4 • 1 1 • 1 : 1 1�+ • 1
•1 • • 1 11 / / 1f.1 • • 1 1 +x 1 1 1 11 11 :;1 : y1r 11 •. 1 + r
1 11 c 1 1 r 9 • R I • • I f "
/ q 1 • 11 1 r s.:1, • 1 •
1 • -,11x4,1 q 1 1 . 1 i \ 1 • • \ • 1 := 1 i,x1„ 1 r1 • 1 1 - 1 1 1. + 1 • 1 -
1,: r'.tl -1r • / - . 11 r vr j V/ 1 1, +. n TW1 r r.1•7M o7qn i L, 1 -
. . 1 :,• 1.�f1 it • 1 r -1 + • t. 1 + ! • 9 " 1 r•. ,y 1 1 • 1 1 • - file ,
1 .1 1 1 1 -,. Ii 1 1 r • s, - • h A : q'..1 : a 1 :11 • 1 1 F-I 0196100/ lilt to
- •..1 • f - . f • G,1 . _1 / �.. +C � 11 r •. i: l•,.::; �", • • IS • 1 1 Y Y • 1
1• 51 .•. 14 • 1 - 1 - , u r a 1: 1 1 - WHIPMMMMM • I,x yI!„- r .•11 y•r 1 • 1 : r i • .
• 1 Ir:. 1 �1 11 -MO
74 • of,Rio ./ 1 1 1 - 1 - 11 r -i 1 < 1e - 1 - + 1 • 1 + 111 1 •
• . -1 i • . 1 • 1 l• 1 1 MT 1 r 9 1 1 1 • i L' : 11 • 1 - I • 1 _11 1
�.+ it 1 • • 1 .� 1 1 1 . 1 -,: 11 r • rr 1 . • 1 + l �/I - . 1 - .1 11 r • / - 1 .
1 1 1 1 1 .1 :,•.,' • • y+ - • 11 r �1 „•.rr +.•. • 1 • ".1/,71 • • f1a1 1 - •.• 1
• • 1 '.11 1 1 q - \ f 1 1 - 1 :.• 1 .alf tl'I f y .. •i11 dl ' 1 • -,1
/ • 1 i 11 I,r I J l 1 •.1 1 I • q r / :'x l ; 1 +.L•x1 •x1.1 • 1 /1
• 1 1 • . - ar: / -,+ 1 :-/ 1 /C 11 r it 1 1 1 • 1 4,1 t 1.1 1 - i• ��1 r . . / •. 1
1 - - 9 + 1 •.1 + ♦ .11 / ". • 11 - 1 • - . ./ .1 1 - 1 + •_1 .1 1 " : 1 - ./ 1 - " 1 •
• rf
prqr-p
• - .. . . _ _ .. -. Y. _ .. _ _
- _ _ • - -... _ .. Y. _ _ .. _. . . .. _ .
I ,1 1 fff e 1 • 111 • 1qw,7p,-jI,7x.7 zoreroms a IMPiMe"t 1.W 1/ % 1.: • -M, -j1 W. • 1 1 -
♦ �11 1 e 1 - [/rMIM mil• -i f%I some R • - e 1 ..II TJ 1 1„ r 1 1 1yy•.e I I 11 -31
1 1 - ♦ -11 111 r t 1 dl 1 IJ 1 - ♦ . • tl 1 1 .1 - +
1/ i. e7 11 11. 7 , D Ia. .• 1 - .�11 .I 1 1 - •� 1,•I , 1 e 1.T.• I 1 - N I 111
• .. } 1 1 - • =11 • ills 114OII UdW.. 11 - •1. M• 1- 1 ' • $ - I111711
el Il. el ale � �
II1 • 1 • • 111 / 1 • 1 - 1 - e • 11 �1 I 1 • - 1 • -111 • 1 . 1 i 1 I11
11 • / 1 ' 1 I 1 �y •� e 1 - 4 •ill,
for �! 7.; 1 / 1 • 1 . 1 1 11
• - I • • I - • 1 I - e111 a1 • nr,1 [ :u 1 ., • al 1 • il . • 1 1
1 - -.1 - 11 �11 e 1 • yi •1 • - 1 " 11 =1 I [• '/f II % i,. • 1 d I - 74 • 1 1 e - 1 e
- HI . I . II 1 1 • II ell . 1 .A 1 / .1 =1 ..11 MolITIM ' 11 -19 . .. S 11
{. • 1 : I - 1 e 1 - . - 11 : - e 1 Y. �N - : I • e • 1 19e1
9/ •.fell �1 e 1 •. 1 1 [ / 1 1� �111 0 111 07,1 • 1 •J 1 ITa Ft NO)
/ .. / - f 1 [ 1 1 .. 1 1 J I 1 � a. . e111 �1 • .e a 11 I 1 ' e 1 � -./ _l 11 - 1
1 - 1 1 I a • 1 y. . flll - 1 e • e !� ' •111 1 yl 1 • e / - yI i
. 1 1 • 1 1 - 1 ,.} r l . 1 �. /=1f 11 1 •.• e 'l I: 1 • e • 1 1 1 - }/
G .1 11 - • •. I 1 1.1 \ I . Irl I =1111 r r II 111 S -I 1 S 1 • 1
•_11 1 } • / e MR. 1 111 i - • I . 1 I :J} 1 • I s - �/ a I 1 1• 1 1,• :A 1 1 11 % • -
. I I . IMF e / - • - e 1 - II 1 It: • . 1 e -1 . . ..' 1 : 1 - 1 1.• �1-'1•• 1 / e
M1411"114 -one IMIMPIRIPIr To
1
1 I e ..ti 1 1 I .�1 • ,/1 . 1 e 11 : I - >1 a �. e ♦ :11 1 I - 1 - 1/ ,. =1 � e '1 C• 11
�I 1 • _11 1 11 - • - 1 ll •. .� LN 'JY 11
Kent Shoreline Master Program
This page is intentionally blank.
6 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 1.0 -Introduction
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
' 2.0 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply throughout this Program, unless otherwise indicated.
Accessory Use or Accessory S ructure
Any structure or portion of a structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary use or
development.
Accessory Dw 1e tin$U tt
An accessory dv� ling unit ,A1, i is a habitable dwelling unit ad to created within, or
detached from and on the same lot with a single family dwelling that provides basic requirements
for riving s. _l_eeping eating cooking. and s_ n nation.
Accretion
The growth of a beach by the addition of material trap$ported by wind an &water. Includare ed
such rms as barrier beaches,points; ssnit:.hooks and tombol_os.
Act
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971. as amended(Chapter 90.58 RCW).
Adiacent Lands
w Lands adjacent to the shorelines of The state(outside of shoreline jurisdiction), The SMA directs
local governments to devejW land use controls i.e.. zoning, Comnrehensive planning) for such
lands consistent with the policies of the qMA related rules and the local shoreline master
programs(see Chapter 90,58.340 RCWI.
Administrator
The Kent Planning Director, or his/her designee,char¢ed with the resnnnsibili of administerin¢
the shoreline master program.
Agriculture
[Replaced by Section 15.02.010 of the Kent City Code.]
Agricultural use means land primarily devoted to the commercial production tion of horticultural.
vitcultural fioricuitural,dairy- apiaa- vegetable or animal =ducts or of berries_.Vim_hay,
straw,turf seed- Christmas trees not WWect to the excise taY imposed by RCW 84,33,100
through 84.33.140. fin_fish in=land hatcheries or livestock and that has been in lone-term
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 1
12114198
• 11 11 � •�! 1 1 • : '�1 4 Y. . •1 . 1 • 1 / •1.1 • 1 11 a I • •.Y• II
• 1111 =J 1 •• • 1 • 11 1 / - 1 11 !.. Idr y- 11 :;. :�1 ! �. l • 1 • : 1 ►
I 1 1 II I
1 " 1 , 11 • 1 . 1 1 - - •• 11 1 1 :}. 1 � a 7/ =11,1 : - / . l • 1 1 1 '
- , 11 - L.r1 • 1 - 1 r a •. 11 1 " . p • . N. l -
1 - • • - - 1 1 I 1 1 : r .•Im Y- -1 • 1,' 1,/ -11 � /11 :ll • 1
• 11 I �11 - • oil I =1 : 1 /6 F.2 Lo,oqm I K. sw :I 1 1,, : to 1 1, 1 q.1 1 \ 1 1 • 7 11 1• 1 1 1 -
1 yr 11 - y • ._ � - 1 • �JI � � ./ 1 •: . _ 1 1 111 : ''rll. a1.ti1 :�I, r: 1. /.- •.: l: t 1.�
r . l 1 :?. :fl.. 1 1 • 1 1 .7 1 : I : , I I f' / 1 1 / 1 •—,R 1 • . 4MTMY, • :� 1.1
,• 1.1 1 • - 1 :..:111 �71 • 1 1 1
• 1
• 1 ' • • • 1 1 - - 1 1 LI • 11 r 11 1 1VMV Me 1 •. 1 •..11
lMlilkli lot
I• ylILM; 1
' 1• - •..! 1_ 1 1 - 1 . • . 11 \ • . 1 1 - 1 .7 1 i - 1 •l- .1t4lill til -�I . • . p
• - • l - • 11 1 - • 1 - 11 - 1 - \/ • l i ' 11 =11 � 1 1
1
- _ • - • - _ • Ull—L,1 • 11 • • • / • 1 1 -
• . . _ • - 1 - - 1 was - I 1 1 • • • • • L• 1 -
uwm
• ! l - �1 - • er • . • 1 1 llj l•• : :�1 / • 1 • Il. 1.
1I l' - 11 - 1 •/ • 11 ..V / 1 . • Jj#ATAi1 : : 1 1 1.1 i(wi4d ILYA1 al 1 1 ".1 •
1 ..11 �1 • !• / 1 1/Ir -11 d 11 1 . r • 1 .m < I /. ' RM"57IMP
.1 • - I - 1 e ll • 1 fiff • 1 11 1 • 1 MMIRM 111 . • a l 1 1 i < 1 1
i 1
rl e1 11 . 1 • 1 . 1 1 - 1 • . 11 .. 1i 1 • 1
i t a W.TT I I I Z :. I I
• " • • 1 1 1 • 1• . • 11 - 1 • l 1 •.1
• 11 �. 1 •. 1 1 _
i 1 :
� - • l 11 1 IN 11 1 - r 11 - 1 • 1 . ' /.11 . I 1 l . • • I
r� . • . • . - 1 1 41
Frg Moo
1 • I • Il. � - 1 r 1•. r: - • I /� l" 1 11 • 11 1 • . • 1 1 -. -,1 •
, 1 / / r 11 •.• r P,1. - • r • IS VI nr,• f • i ' / �.1 . 1 : / \ 1 . 11 11
I • - I - I • 11 . .. - . 1 - • • 1
i
MI " • 1 • 1 V • • �1 - 1 : �. �• • I .• 1 I =D 1/ . . %fl i 1 1. I • 1
e.l•- • Il. i_ , • \ 1 1 �1 % i 8 J 11 e • 1 yr .. 1 • 1 • • 1 1 " -
/ , . I • - I • 1 . 1 ' rN �. �1 r 1 1 11 • 1 - 11r1 I is
1 • • -• 1 . 1 . /is : 9 -O 151 1 r . sT1 U7,477ill• • • . 1 11 . l : I1 • . 1. ..
- 1 11 1 • •• 1 Il 81 1 • 1 • .: 9 1 ,d• :.yr 1 •,I • .r II �1 • ali 1
1 ' 1 . y �11 • • - • 1 • . 11 1 l V 1 r 1 11,: e. 1 r 1 • 11 " - 1 11 11 •. 1 �I . 1
. � • I . 1 •..11 •• 11 • r .. • 1 • .•r a.dll ..• I,r< l - • a N / • 1 • • •
M. BiTiMiTiqMGM= i . i -�f` 1 1 / O IR l 1.1 1 • IM • • -
. • �S - 1 11 • ..r - . - i • • Q Illl . .•. 9 !f 1 • i I • 1 • • 1 ..11
I - _ • • rr • -• r • I • �r • • - • • 1 - - •
: r .
1 1 • i • 1 11 •. 1 I al 1 t 1 • 11 1 '�r',1 • i - 1 1 - 1 • 1 ToldliMMeTsTro
o MI
1 • - • • - . -
. I.. 1_ ' • - I ' RIM, . -,. • .. - . . 11. 1 / - • 1I • 11 . + 11 •-. ,. • - I
- 1 / • 1 • - 1 1 1 • • 1 11 - 1 • 1 •
, 1 - . • 1 1 •11 • Il
111 - 1
• I I:
Kent Shoreline Master Program
lRuoys are floating dew sea anchored to a lake or river bottom Led for navigational nurnnses or
moorage. (see also Mooring Buoy)
annel
Ate_ n gpen conduit for water either naturally or artificially cmajal but does not include artificially
created irrigation,return flow, or stockwatering channels See also Stream.
Channel Improvement
Enlargement of a natural stream's discharge capacity by means of straightening, making
"cutoffs", cleaning vegetation,widening,or deepening, and thereby decreasing flood stages.
Circulation
Those means of transportation which carry passengers or goods to, from, over, or along
a corridor.
The desJ action or removal of vegetation ound over shrubs and trees including but not
limited to root material removal and/or topsoil removal.
Covered Moorage
Boat moorage,with or without walls that has a roof to protect the vessel_.
Commercial Development
Commercial developments are those uses which are involved in wholesale and retail trade
or business activities.
Community Structure
A building,dock, or other structure which .s in ed for the common use of the residents of a
paz�c lar s•Uvision or community. It is not intended to serve as a pub is facility.
Comprehensive Plan
Compnhensive plan means the document inc lu ing maps- a fitted by city council w ich
outlines the City'goals and Wicies relating to management of growth. and_p=ared in
accoidance with Ch. 36 70A RCW The term also includes adopted subarea plans 12=ared in
accordance with Ch. 36.70A RCW.
Conditional Use
A use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a conditional use or is not
classified within the applicable master program. (WAC 173-27-030(4))
Seetien-3.0).
Corridor
A circulation right-of-way and the area immediately adjacent to it.
4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Dsfrnftns
121141'98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Degrad
To scale down in desirability or salability,to i irk in respect to some physical Proaly or to
reduce in structure or function.
Development
A use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling;
dumping; filling;removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals;bulkheading; driving of piling;
placing of obstructions; or any other project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes
with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any
state of water level=W 90.58.030(3d),). See also: Substantial Development,
Dike
An embankment to prevent flooding by a stream or other waterbody.
lM
Determination of Nonsimificance.under SEPA.
Dock
A dock is a floating
1 ndi g and moorag facility for commercial and pleasure watercraft which abuts the shoreline and
does not include recreational decks, storage facilities- or other am=enances. See Pier.
�r Downdrift
The direction of movement of beach materials.
Dredge Spoil or Dredge Material
The material removed by dred�g.
Dredging
The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water for the purpose of deepening a
navigational channel, obtaining bottom materials, or for flood control.
Duplex
One detached residential building con ailing two (2) dwelling units totally scparated from each
other by a one-hour(1) fire wall or floor designed for ocoMancy by not more than two (2)
families.
Dwelling, Single-family
See Single-family Residence.
Dwelling,Mul ple-family
Multiple-family devilling meny a residential building des_igoW for or occupied by th= (3)or
more families- with the number of families in residence not exceeding the n=be of units
provided.
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 5
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Earth Material
Any rock,natural soil or fill, and/or any combination thereof.
Economic Development
A development which provides a service,produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in
any other use of activity for the purpose of making financial gain.
ElS
Environmental_ fact Statement.
Elements
Major aspects of land and water use for which goals are written as part of a Shoreline Master
Program.
Emegenc_v
An unanticipated and imminent threat to pjiblic health,cis fiy. or the environment which requires
immediate action within a time too short to allow fidl compiiance with theater jLgam
Emergency construction is construed narrowly as that which is necess=to pM=p=er_ty
from the elements (R W 90.58.030( iii) and WAC 173-27-040(2d)). See also Substantial
Development, section(c).
Enhancement
Alteration of an existing resource to improve or increase its characteristics and processes without
degrajinQ other existing functions, Enhancements are to be disting Dished from resource creation ..:
or restoration prgjects.
Environments
Designations given specific shoreline areas based on the existing development pattem, the
biophysical capabilities and limitations, and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry, as part of
a Master Program.
Erosion
The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces.
Excavate
A�y_p. ,on-made c cavity trench_ or diression in thc
earth's surface.formed by earth removal. [WAC 296-155-6501
Exemption
Certain specific developments as listed in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt fmm+the definition of
substantial developments are therefore exempt from the substantial development permit=cess
of the SMA. An activity that is exempt from Lhe substantial development jwvisions of the SMA
mast still be carried out 'nt o=liance with policies ate:,!tapA�s of the Act Wd the local master
program Conditional use and/or variance permits may also stili be required even thoughhthe
activity does not need a substantial developmen Uermit(RCW 90.58.030(3e).
8 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions
12114198
- 11 \ • 1 1 ._ • - • 1 i•. Se , . l • . 'II I,I:.. +.a - •Hile,.11 li. /1 -.8 1 - 1 (�
a 111 • • 1 - • 11 • • 1 - Y �.• - . Mlle I • 1 II \. 4tl 1 —1 .,illle 1 • I Ill /I 1 -
\ 7.•.1 I 1 a - • 1 11 al r=1111 • 11. -
� 1 - 1 an \ 1 \ / 1(Y 11 1; 1,. :11 . : l.j \J/,}I ef.. e,.J/i1 / tl,..:-,'.. 1 • 1 �. �111 • I • 1 1(I 11
• 11 e : 1 - ♦/ 1 1.�' • i \a ,( 11 1 N.i".I ltiel I,eJ IU,I11 1 • 1 y l V r
�• �11 yl MOM
I.q1 -• :e1,e •..( J;nll.-n 1. n :1 e.- .I 1. Y i+l ./ 1 1
•• . ,all)U I •.t. • 1 MY IIj• r111,11111 i >i.i Ill\ •.0 11M4 r,17W, \ I - ( I w11 &11
• - - \P111 1 • w 1 i• ,• 1e 1J1 I P 1 • I - •. 11
Its 9K: 11 I 1 1 M 11 7 • . 1 : ,•,I ! ! •11 ' - 1.�•11 �11 1,1 ' 1 1
• \ Ill/ �11 • ..,\,:;, I,\ (q!{ et- 1 1 tir '�1 ! e_y+,q.l,1;1! Y. 1.d/ll 1!]1 -11
. .. \ 111 yl \ IJ(\}I,•.�/. 1 / e,�. 1 I ,I�,e 1 .II 1 11 I • 11
/a� 1111 1 - 1 1 r. / I 1 - Q .Y � . 11 �+K 11 1 1 a - 1\ •P 11 �11 I :11 • 1 /
1 I 1 Ks
�I - I 11 al • t O.\ /: 1 a - • 11 al • . all • 1(\ 11 1 .�1111 . H. - • 1 1 -
Ole 1
1 1 .. l • I l•J r.• .\ 1 • 111 `fl 1• 1 • 1 1 91 Y. I 1 1 •..
• ' - 0 SIO JI a =1R1 -i l.1 • 1 - all I N \.I .I • - I e 11 �11 \
,•� ' I - 11 It �11 11 •. 7.•. 1 • 1 I 1 • 1 • 1 - / • le • �111 \ �I / - - • 111 �1 1 �. �
Il• vr• n
11 •. � ' - . I - - • 111=11 1 - • e.dl 11 . (. - . . . 1 - • / 1 I I 1 - • 1
! 'I • 11 1 •- , 1 1 1 1 I l 1 • . •46,
,I.I a 1,1 it =11 1 T. •
• Ile WPM 1 1 1 11 ' .411K. • 1
1 I Ml.• . - ., - / " - •J• 11 71 Il\ 11 .• • 1 1 . , 1 o I • 1 .,. end F1./d 11 01 -1 qll o • 1/
- 11:. 1 Y4• I.•.1 • 1 . , I 1 11:, 1 I =1f1 -... 1 : 1,1 1.U 1 •1 /1 1. • ,
1 - - •111 - 1 le. 1 e - 1 - 11 3 - I I,•
-.1 1_II - I • II � '.le
1
•: „ -.. 1 1 1 - \ 1 - - . 1 1 1 . e : -1 1 • . 1 1 11 \.I it , , . -,I •
• , VI - - 1 1 1 =J 1• \ , a1 1 • . 1 1 1 . I 1 1 S Mi e 1 / . - 1
...............
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Flood Control
Any undertaking for the conveyance, control, and dispersal of flood waters caused by
abnormally high direct precipitation or stream overflow.
Floodplain
A term synonymous with the hundred-year floodplain, meaning that land area susceptible to
being inundated by stream derived waters with a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation
maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act.
Floodw
"Floodwe'mean,q the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adiacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasm¢the water
surface elevation more than one foot
Gabions
Structures cg=se' of masses of racks rubble or masnnry held tigWy together usually by w re
mesh so as to form blocks or walls. Sometimes used on heavy erosion areas to retard wave
action or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties.
Gr2din
The gical manipulation of the earth's surface and/or drainne 12attem in preparation for an
intended use or activity.
Grassy Swale
AA vegetated drainage channel that is defined to -)oll=ts from storm water
runoff throu2h biofiltration.
Groin
A barrier-type structure extending from the backshore or stream bank into the A-water bDdy
aer-ess the be-eh. The purpose of a groin is to interrupt sediment movement along the shore. A
groin is also referred to as a Syr dike or rock weir.
Habit
>ltl
The place or twe of site where a 121 nt or animal (rurally or normally lives and grows.
Hearing Examiner. (Land Usel
A person Mointed by theCity Administrator to conduct Rublic hearings on Mlications
outlined in the City ordinance creating the Hearing Examiner- and who p=ares a record.
findings of fact and conclusions on such applications.
HW
Thhe distance measured from the average grade level to the highest point of a s Icture•provided
that television antennaschimnW and similar aMnrtenances shall not be used in calcul
height, ex t•There it obstructs the view of a substantial number of residences on areas
8 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 2.0—Definitions
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
ad.jQjning such shorelines(or the master=gram= ides otherwisel• hat
construction equipment is excluded in this calculation(WAG 173-27-030(91. See a1s4
Build ng He gbt.
HPA-Hydra fle Praiect Approval.
The permit issued by the Was ington State Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to the___ 4
Hydraulic Code Chapter 75,20.100-140 RCW.
Hyddcoil cans soil that formed under conditions of sauu fi flooding. or pondin¢long
enough duringaaaaon to develop er part jhcEchy
influencing the Prowth of plants.
In-kind Replacement
To replace wetlands biota or other organisms with substitute flora or fauna whose characteristic&
closely match those destroyed. displaced or de a� a d_tLy an activity.
Lake
A body of standing water in a depression of land or exnwdad nart of a river,including
reservoirs.of twenty(20) acres or;eater in total area. A lake is bounded by the ordinary high
water mark or where a stream enters a lake the extension of the elevation of the lake's ordlrtary
high eater gnark within the stream (RCW 90 58 03 -030(9)).
�✓ Landfill
The placement of soil, sand,rock gravel or other material to create new land along the
shoreline below the OHWM, or on upland areas in order to raise the elevation.
Landscaping
Vegetative ground cover including shrubs,trees, flower beds, grass, ivy and other similar plants
and including tree bark and other materials which aid vegetative growth and maintenance.
Levee
A Igge dike or embankment- often which is designed as
part of a system to=tect land from floods.
Littoral
Living on or occurring on.the shore.
Littoral Drift
The mud sand o;2Tavel material moved parallel to the shoreline in the nearshore zone by waves
and currents.
Marina
A use providing moorages for pleasure craft which also may include boat launching
facilities, storage, sales and other services.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions 9
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
[This section has been replaced by "Wetlands']
Master Program
The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Kent, and the use regulations,together with
maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals and
standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in
90.58.
Mining
The removal of naturally occurring materials from the earth for commercial, industrial, or
construction use.
The process of avoiding- + i g,or co Ming for the environmental i_=act(s) of a
Dr=sal See WAC 197-11-768,
Mixed-use Development
Development that combines water-dependent with water-enjoyment uses and/or nonwater-
oriented uses.
Moorage
Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage,but which is
not attached to the vessels ch as a docks or buoys).
Moorage Piles
Structural members that are driven into the lake bed to serve as a etRtionary moorage poin�t_Thev
are Wically used for moorage of small boats in the absence of,or instead of a dock or pier. Tn
some cases.moorage piles may be associated with a dock or pier.
Mooring Buov
A floating_ogt iect anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for
vessels.
Multi-family or Multiple-family
See Dwelling,M l Rle-fam lily
Multiple-Use
The combining of compatible uses within one development.
10 DRAFr-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions
12114198
�1 - 1 •. 1 1 •. V 1 1 . 1 / Mrs MTOM. 1,/ 7, •.t •I 1 • 1 1
/ 1 i . 11 1 1 14! 1 - i • - 1 'I �d 11 • 1 11 =11 , =111 =11 1 / � ' 1 1 1 -
\ 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 OO�tl 1
�i - ,l.• 11 t - +yi I } 1 11 -ir. 1 LI -,1 1,. 11 1 ` a .,1 . / n,'11 ET • 1 1 �1 1 / ./ 1 : 1 .
♦ :J 1 A 11 1 • `ill .jl f 1 •.�� 1 1 1 • � •�•♦1 • 1 r • . • ♦ 1 • • 1 ' • 1 1 • y
•._ Y 1 • 1' 11 :z .f . p •a . 11 1 V I • 1 • 11 �11 .II1 -11 / • • _ • 1
' 1 4
11 1 I 1
• - - 1 1 .. - • off
\ 1 11 NO 711.7 1
�I• • 1 - - 1 1 z 1 " 1 • • 1 1 • 11 . 1 - . . 1 "• • 1 t • I
1 � �' � • .1 \ 1 IS � 1
� 1 1 1 • Ii 11 • 1 • 1 ' 11. - 1 L11 T • 1 /( _ it : • 1 -. 1 1 1 1 r 1 ' 1 • •
11 .. • / 1 - . 1 { 1 ' 1 • 11 1 �11 1 1 1 ! .1 1 11•• / 1 • 1 / t
\ I 11 . 1
• • • - - • / 11 �}I • : yJ. .• 11 1,: 1 - / f •tl / `. ,1 1 . 1 • 1 ••I i
• - / •1 •_1 / ' • 1 al : 1 _ y!a , 1 .'11 . 1 ••1l a'1 P t • / til :. yll 81 ♦ ! 1
yI 1 1 11 ' 1 1 �r' , • 1 - 1. • 1 ! • I • 1 • 111 •. y1 . ♦I 1 • 1. •
i sit1 11 1 1 I I 1...=.
• yl 1 • 1 • 1 �I 1{ - la 1 • 111 �1 l • , IV 11 1 - - 11 . 1 1
avr•:�.w••�Iv.�•a
• y1 Mq- ♦ - I . 11 we In I IM 1 • - 1 - �11 / 111 II �,•. • . 1 - 1 • 1 - • 1
1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Open Space
A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings,
paved areas,or other man-made structures.
Ordinary High Water Mark
"Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found
by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a
character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation; as that condition
exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter or as it may danyip thwaftmin
accordance with permits imw2d b x a local oV ent or IbA dgs= t_ The following criteria
.clarify this mark on those wa=within the City of Kent roar WAC 173-22-030(l I)- speoifical_ly.
lakes, and streams: PRQMPED,
'
1. Lakes, Where the ordin=high water^f9tir c=ot he found it shall be the line of mean
high water: and
2. Streams Where the ordinary high water m2rk cannot he found it shall be the line of
mean high eater, For braided streams the or in=}high water mark is found on the
b nk� -s forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs,
Over-water Structure
Any device or structure projecting over the ordinary high water mark including.but not limited
IQ piers docks' loats and moorage or anchor buoys.
Parking Space or Parking Stall
A parking space is any off-street space intended for the use of vehicular parking with
ingress or egress to the space easily identifiable.
Permit(or Shoreline Permit)
Any substantial development,variance or conditional use permit, or revision, or my combination
thereof, authorized by the Act. (WAC 173-27-030(13)) .
Pier
A general tafm ifiekiding desks afid sifflilaf AFM as Offimisfifig fixed, or. eating-piles
sunqDjJcd_platform(picture) extending from the shore over the water. See Dock,
Pollutant
Any substance that has been or may be determined to cause or tend to cause injurious,corrupt,
impure, or unclean conditions when discharged to surface water, air, ground, sanitary sewer
system, or storm drainage system.
12 DR4F r-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Port
A center for water-borne traffic.
Practicable Alternative
An alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration
short-term and long-term cost_ options of project scale and ing, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall erect poses,
Public Access
A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general public. This
may also include visual approach.
Public Interest
The interest shared by the citizens of the state or commim4jy as large in the affairs of
governmment- or some interest by which their rights or liaWlities are affected such as an effect on
public property or on health safety or general welfare resulting from a use or development.
[WAC 173-27-030f 1411
Railroad
A surface linear passageway with tracks for train traffic.
BC
Revised Code of WashinglQn.
Recreation
The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement, or relaxation. The
recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be
passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife.
Residential Development
Development which is primarily devoted to or designed for use as a dwelling(,$).
Restoration
To revitalize or reestablish characteristics and processes of a wetland or habitat diminished or
lost by past alterations. activities,or catastrophic events.
.
Retrieval Lines
Asystem by which a float or other floating Oject is retrieved to a pier.dock, or shoreland.
Revegetation
The planting of vegetation to cover any land areas which have been disturbed during
construction. This vegetation shall be maintained to insure its survival and shall be consistent
with planting requirements of the Kent Landscape Code.
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions 13
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Revetment
Facing of stone concrete etc.-built to protect a scam embankment-_ or shore structure at iaist
erosion by waves of currents The principal features of a revetment are: 1)heM armor laver. 2)
filer 1 er and , toe pmtection,
Rukariu
Of, on. or pertaining to the banks of a river.
Riprap
A laver, facing. or protective mound of g -stone planed on shoulders, slopes, or other such
places to protect them from erosion, scour, or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also. the
stone so used.
Riverfront Lot
Any lot or land parcel which is adjacent to the Green River, a scenic and recreation road/drive, a
riverfront road or a riverfront park.
Riverfront Park(Green River)
A publicly-owned open space which lies along the Green River, along a scenic and recreational
road/drive, or along a riverfiont road.
Riverfront Road(Green River)
A public street or road which lies alongside the Green River and which has no major
development between it and the river.
Road,and Road.Scenic
A linear passageway, usually for motor vehicles. Scenic and recreational roads/drives;
1. Frager Road throughout its length within the City of Kent.
2. Russell Road from the eastern end of the proposed Russell Woods Park as designated in
the Green River Corridor Plan north to the point where it leaves the River.
(approximately at 200th Street).
Rock weir
A structure made of loose rock that is designed to con_ggi sediment movement,water flow. or
both_ A rock weir educe-,t to a shoreline is tvn�c_ally formed by placing rock in a line outward
from the shore with the Wp of the rock embankment below for water level to restrict current
movements parallel to the shore without completely blocidniz flow.
Water that is not absorbed into the soil but rather flows along the;'o»nd surface following the
tones hv.
14 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 2.0-Definitions
12114198
Ir1I T 77 - I 0 M It
IY• - 1 • 1 • 11 i1 1 - • tl tl oil ! =1 '-:• • 1!1 JI I 1 - : 11 l-i ! aF 1 -
/ I 1 1 . 1 • - . 1 1 : ;no • ....,1 I ' I ,• . 1 1 - ( I(• 11
• •_. f F •. 11 I 1 . 111II 11 IF aF .,ro I ' ! 1.1 S : (- • \. �! 1.4•.
-,1 11 y • 1 • p • • 1 • •.• 1 -;1 • ! i I• •y- 1 1 • .. 1 • ( • - 1 • 11
1 1 • F •. 11 R611 11 IR 1
03 .' III
.•• ar 1 • 1 - • 1 • 1 • • •. 'f( • 1 • 1 - • - i •• 1 1 -1/ :I . 1 • 1
• 411 ' I
I
• • /1 / ojloim 1 1 - : 1 1_d l 1 \ I • l• .:.. - 'J I 1 : 1 : / -1 F -
II I• • 1 1 -reW. IN• 1 - !- / ••)1M.T.7,T 0 11. S 7711 -./ 1 1 1 II 1• •-�1IT • 1 1
111 r • 11 • 1 • 1• / 1 1 - . 1 - - `I191 r 1 • -11111 -J1 -J1 14a • • 1 ' 1 -
1 • 1N - 1 a H • - - 1191 -• ".• : 1 -A-
I 1 I IVIW11 ! i 1 ,
•1 • . 11 - 001111-411VIOZOVW,106 1 \. • I 11 t / 1.1 -1 i 1 1' 1 • 1 : 11 q I I
1 Im .. 1 - 1 • II i - • 1. 1< \ 1 1 . - 11 •.1, 1 1 1 •. i . f.• ,77W Ilife: 1 • , 1 \, •
1 _1 • - 1 1�1 - 1 • 11 1 i •,•.M , 1 1 , 1 1 . < 1.1 ! 1 ' • -.• . 1 I
1 -. 11 1 • a 1 1 1 - I• .1 - 1 N • 1. • lIm. ti 1 - 11 - • 1 - 1 - •JI . ",1
• INIM, i• 1 • .1 - . 47177• 1 OTT1111 -11 1 8 . • y
1 it I I
I I 1 1 1 1
• - 1 1 • 1 • I I 11 1 � ' ' 1 ! I I l i y. I _' ./ 1 ' I � 1
I I ' f l . 1 1 P I .
le • - 11 ; a .. u - 1 • - 1
11 • • .i tcw.101 2 1• : 1 •FM ITTM l L • 1 • . 1 tl < 1 1 /. �1111 �r
• •.Q 1 - .. 1 I - 1 • 1 - 1 "NO - 11 • 1 1 la 11 I yII yl 1/ -1 • • '1 . II 11 • -
1 - • 1 ' • 1 • 11 - ./ ,1 1 /y • 1 A/ : / - :n . • q/ 1 • / • • �1 1 1 1 •
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Shoreline Permit
See Permit.
Shorelines
All water areas of Kent and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying them,
except: (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream
of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands
associated with such upstream segments, and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in
size and wetlands associated with such lakes.
Shorelines Hearings Board
A state level Quasi-judicial body,created by the SMA-NWC hears arnwrals by any agg ieved
pa ly on the issuance of a shoreline permit. enforcement y * Meals by 1-ate
izovernment on Ecology approval of master=gr ms-rules regulations- Quidelines or
designations under the SMA. See RCW 90,58,170; 90.58.180: and WAG 173-27-220 and 173-
27-290.
Shorelines of the State
The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance" within the state.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Shorelines of the state which meet the criteria for shorelines of statewide significance contained
in RCW 90.58.030(e). Within Kent, the shorelines e€dwGreen River is the only waterway that
Qualifies as a are shorelines of statewide significance. -
Sim
Sign means any structure device- letter, ,re,Character poste* irictnre trademark- or reading
matter which is used or designed to nnoun_ce. decLre demonsttrate. display or otherwise identfv
or advertise or attract the attention of the public. Howevera a sisurn shall not include the
following:
1 Official notices authorized by a court.public body or officer.
2. Directi information sign authorized by federal state or municipal
authority.
3 The official flag emblem or insism'a of a government school or religious group Or
agency,
A. A memorial pjaaue or tablet or cornerstones indicating the name of a building and date
of construction when cut or carved into any masonry surface or when made of bronze or
other incombustible parr of The building or structure,
signsq
i6 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 2.0-Definitions
121i4158
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Single-family Residence(SEW
A detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and
developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance(WAC 173-27-
Site
Any lot or parcel of land or contiguous combination thereof, under the same ownership, on
which development is proposed.
Slope
An inclined ground surface. The inclination is expressed as a ratio or horizontal distance to
vertical distance.
Shall
"Shall" indicates a mandate;he particular action must be done.
SMA
see Shoreline Management Act
see Shoreline Master Program
Soil Bioengineering
An applied science that combines structure bioloaiGW od Walogi al comots to construct
living,structures that stabilizes the soil to control erosion, sedimentation and flooding using live
plant materials as a main structural component.
Solid Waste
Solid waste includes all;utrescible and nonnutrescible so id and semisolid wastes including
garbage, rubbish- ashes,industrial wastes,wood wastes and sort yAW wastes associated with
commercial logLrina activities, swill demo i i n *�cry tctinn wastes_ ahandoned vehicles
and parts of vehicles,household appliances and other iscarded commodities. Solid waste does
not include see=gage. dredge material or agricultLravl or other commercial logging wastes not
specifically listed above.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
SEPA requires state agencies- local governments mid o hey*lead agencies to consider
environmental factors when making most tvees of permit de cisio . especially for development
proposals of a significant scale As pert of the SEPA process. FTIqq may be required to be
prepared and public comments solicited.
DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 2.0—Definitions 17
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Stream
A naturally occun i ng body of periodic or continuously flowing water where: a)the mean annual
flow is gE=r than twenty cubic feet er second and b)the water is con fined within a channel.
See also Channel.
Structure
That which is built or constructed; an permanent or tamnamn edifice or building of any kind or
any piece of work composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner,whether installed
on. above, or below the surface of water, except for vessels_
signs,but does net inalude mewad-A ea a-A-4—h or. •
Subdivision
A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels for the per se of sale lease or conveyame,
Substantial Development
Any development of which the total cost or fair market value,whichever is higher_ exceeds two
thousand five hundred dollars ($25001, or any development which materially interferes with the
normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state except for those uses excepted from the
definition of substantial development by RCW 90.58.030(3)(exi)-(xi) . and WAC 173-27-040.
These exemptions are Listed in Section 7.3 of Chanter 7; Administration. See also
Development and Exemption.
Truck Maneuvering Area
An area of a site used by trucks for turning and backing or for access to loading/unloading areas. .r
Unique and Fragile Areas
An area of special environmental significance for wildlife habitat,threatened plant communities,
and/or natural scenic quality. The geographic boundaries of these areas are officially delineated
on the Hazard Area Development Limitations Man (exhibit A of Ordinance No. 2832 § 1. 2-21-
Upland
The area above and landward of the ordinary high water mark.
Urban
An area of basically high intensity and diverse land use, including residential,commercial,
industrial, agricultural and recreational development.
Urban (Shoreline)Environment,also
c Urban-River Resource (Green River).
Urban -Lake Residential (Lake Meridian), and
o Urban - Stream Corridor(leg Sam Creek)
A 3hQ=Ji=designation under the Shoreline M9nsaament Act for areas of high intensity land
use, including residential, commercial and industrial development. In the 4 of Kent-
shoreline environment-,include Urban -River Resource(Green iyer)- Urban - Lake Residential
(Lake Meridian. and Urban- Stream Cotor(Big Soos Creek) and reflect the C4's
18 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Swoon 2.0-Definitions
12/14W
Kent Shoreline Master Program
deqienation ac"Urban" and r the Growth Mans ement Act
S (see Chapter 3. Shore ire
Environmen c),
Use or Use Activity
An activity or purpose for which land or premises or a building thereon is designed, arranged,
intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained, let or leased.
Utilities
Services which produce and carry electric power, sewage, communications,petroleum products,
oil,natural gas,water, etc.
Variance
A means of granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program, and not a means to vary from the permitted uses of a shoreline.
Water-dependent Use
A use which requires direct contact with the water and cannot exist at a non-water location due
to the nature of the use. Examples include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry terminals,
aquaculture and marinas.
Water-enjoyment Use
Recreational uses or other uses facilitating public access to the shoreline as a primary
characteristic of the use, and uses that provide for aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a
a✓ substantial number of people as a general character of the public's ability to enjoy the physical
and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Examples include parks,piers, museums, and
educational/scientific reserves.
Water-oriented Use
A use which is a water-dependent, water-related,or water-enjoyment use.
Water-related Use
A use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose operation cannot
occur economically without a waterfront location. Examples include warehousing of goods
transported by water, seafood processing plants,hydroelectric generating plants, and oil
refineries where transport is by tanker.
Watershed Restoration Project
"Watershed restoration p,rQject"mean a MIblic or Vdvate pEQje4 t authorized bytl e,%Mcor of a
watershed restoration plan that 'mnlernmU the 1 n or a rra _of the pin and consists of one or more
of the following activities:
1. A project that involves less than ten(10)miles of alrwarnrg.rh in which less than en -
five(mi)cubic yarrl&of s"_gravel. or soil is removed iMpglWd disturbed or discbar2ed
and in which no existing vegetation is removed exam as minimally necessary to facilitate
addition g] plantings:
DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 2.0—Definitions 19
12114196
1 • \ 1 l". ! K! 1 1 \ 1 Mtn 1 �1 • 19:�.: / - ..',11-^` 11 e.: 1 1.: M11 1 • 1
111 ••M• \ e • MI 'J1 M11 ' f 1 1 ' 11 -1 1 \h 1 1e1 • 1 1 1 "
/ 1 - 1 . 1 r. 11 �/ 1 • 1 11 \ M111 li. / 1 1 ' 1 � i : 1 \ 1 ! ./ 1 IV 1 MN
: Il\
11 Ia'�il. 11 MI \ 11 'aF.1 \ 1 • 1 1 • MI 1 ' 1- , Ir 1 1 c• l�z.l - 1 • - 1
l \
1 - MI • 1 - - • t• / e -/ 1 • 1 Yet i il. e,1.791 1 7 . 1 1 • ' - • Ml
MF9 MI 1 ' 1 -f 9/ MI 571lt i l- !. 'e './1 P 11-, A l\ -•�. I ' 1 �. • I 1 1 lt1
11 1 :�" 1 � \.1 . 1 \ \, �1 .!.\ 1 • N 1 � 1 I . :. � 11 1, • 1
� :. `1F 1 :.�\ tM•y! t:! \ 1 1 1 11 .til: '. e I e .� •:1,L.e AI :^1.1,.� IJq-,1 1 1 /�:!e: 1111 MI \ 1 11
\ \ - 1 - D MI : till MI 1 . e 1 y 1 4 /.71 telly^1. • 1 r: +:`e Il .-h 1 - Sall : pll MI \
r 1 YL1 1.•_1 \ 1 4.1 :1r N..• 'II -1 Ire. 1 11 1.- 1 i ./ it 1 1 \ 1 IFY :II • is 1
/ 1MoAr-Rois)MM,• 1 \ 1 1 It 1: 1 11 / 1 -�1.-'t'. eil•rV K�11 : 1.1 Ills M11 M1. 111 11 -...=i \
1 \ 1 • 1 - 1 .MWe,1 ic ova :' elf' 1 A I l- M 1 e 1 •1 �I 1 "� —11 -4 • f. IS 1 Y l-^ (.:,+
1 t:. .M . 1 \ ,\ • y • ylt- \I =11C�: 11 •III al Wa1 tt I : I-•: e : .MF AT-1 1 A or V MI
-1 1 FY •. 1 • 1.: 1 M : y1 1 1 / H 1 11 MI .•
1 1 : IT,
.. . .. .
_ 1
� 1 •. \ . � 1.1 t (-,: 11 I ( ._ t- I 1 1 . ,e 1 .- 1 4,1 \ 1 \ •� • 1 1
M \ :yl MI : Ir1 .. Y A . 1 '! 11 MI . Y li•..e 1. : A A r : 1 1 f . •11 : 11 Y.• 1 \ \
r 1 . 1 a " 1 - • :.1e1 �11 . I :n ;1 • 1 .,: i M• •\ • 1 \ • 1
1 1 \11-1111 Ilia rMurl s 11 1 11 : F.1 - Ia/ •: 1 • U : t:•: ♦ - : 1 1 e \ 1 \ I 1
1\ •. 1 1 ♦ - 1 •.• 1 al \ 1 1. " 1 I,R11A I.e.l 1 e 1 1 1 ' 1 1 / 11 - 1
• 1� 1 • 1 : 11 1 1 ] ' 1 1 '1 1,�.1 Y• � / : end Ml A \ 1 M
. ( 1 1 1,', • : 11 ••11 e 1 \ 1 e (.• -,1 1 -
\ \1 1 • 1 1 MI Ras i.1 \ 1 ..TaMP 1 1 • t\ •! A - \
1 • 1 • - 1 •.11FIRM 1 1 - 1 • - : t 1 • : 11 rim, M11 . 1 : ".\ 1 011 1 . 1
/ / - . • / /n
Kent Shoreline Master Program
3.0 ENVIRONMENTS
State regulations require local governments to categorize shoreline areas by different
environmental designations. WAC 173-16-040 states that "the environmental designation to be
given any specific area is to be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical
capabilities and limitations of the shoreline being considered for development and the goals and
aspirations of local citizenry." The intent of the environment designations is to distinguish
between the tunes of lines,or segments of shorelines_ so that the various shoreline RQlicies.
allowed uses and use regulations can be tailored to fit the sMific local shoreline conditions.
Any development in the shoreline must be consistent with the environmental designation in
which it is located.
The original State regulations for shoreline master_pmamm development recommendcd a
classification system composed of four distinct environments: Natural, Conservancy,Rural, and
Urban. More recently, State guidelines_su6gest that the®e categories may be too broad'nnd that
more Specific subcategories can be adopted to tailor the environment designation to specific
shorelines. In addition-the desigalons should more W&uMtely reflect the shoreline's
designation under local gowth management planning particularly with regard to whether the
area is designated "Urban" or"Rural."
The Kent Master program was originally developed and adopted in 1972, and the shoreline
``✓ environment desi_ a ions were amended in 1978 and 1980. Following the original stat
guidelines,Kent designated shoreline environments of Con_seffy& y.Rural and Urban. In light
of the recent legislative efforts to bridge the rejWat= gap between the Shoreline Management
Act and the Growth Management Act (GMA). the City of Kent. as an urban area under the
GMA.has re-evaluated its shoreline designations.
s.
3.1 GONSEpV A i►GV T.M4RONs, NT
Note: This section has been deleted in its entirety.
Note: This section has been deleted in its entirety.
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 3-Shoreline Environments 1
12/1"8
Kent Shoreline Master Program
z 2 Tron Ax Ri nTronwn AENT=Urban EnyiiroamCIIt
WAC 173-16-040(4)(b) t Act provides inelades the following
guidance regarding the Urban Environment:
The objective of the urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization of
shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use and by
managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a
multiplicity of urban uses.
The urban environment is an area of high-intensity land-use including residential,
commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily
include all shorelines within an incorporated city,but is particularly suitable to
those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as
areas planned to accommodate urban expansion. Shorelines planned for future
urban expansion should present few biophysical limitations for urban activities
and not have a high priority for designation as an alternative environment.
Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis should
be given to development within already developed areas, and particularly to
water-dependent industrial and commercial uses requiring frontage on navigable
waters.
In the master program,priority is also to be given to planning for public visual
and physical access to water in the urban environment. Identifying needs and
planning for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water
in the urban environment should be accomplished in the master program. To
enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use,industrial and commercial
facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities. Where
practicable, various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized
transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths.
The Green River Lake Meridian and Big Soos Crek shorelines are located within an urban area,
as defined ender the Growth M naaement Act and Keent's Compreh=ive Plan, However the
biQphysical nature of the shorelines and the sumo Unding development develo=ent pattern of each are
significantly icantly different, In order to establish shoreline environments which reflect the overall
urban setting while acknowledPing the different shorefins characteristics Kent has classified the
Green River shoreline as Urban River Resource the IAtie Meridian shoreline as Urban -L.ake
Residential- and the Big Sons Creek shoreline as Urban Stream Corridor. The Kent shoreline
itnisdiction is shown on maneyn_Appendix A.
2 DRAFT—Kent SAAR Section 3-Shoreline Environments
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
3.1 URBAN-RIVER RESOURCE
pPpose• The Green River shoreline is an impQ=t biological physical and aesthetic public
resource. Under the Shoreline Management Act,the Gram River is also classified as a "Shoreline
of Stateside Signific nce "- The p V3M of the IjIbm -River Rremw= environment is to
recognize the river corridor as a focal pQ=for public recnmfigm,while At the UMe time
presen"ng Q- a space,nreszr3jnv and enhancing fish and wildlife h i At preserving historic
and cultural sites- and pm3dding_for water-deoendent or water-related uses.
Designation Criteria• Areas to be designated Urban-River Resource meet the following
criteria:
A The shoreline is along the Green River within the City of Kent's Potential Annexation
A=
Management Policies:
1 Visual and pbvs� ical public access to the shoreline should be required for any new
development wi in the shoreline.
2. Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means such as sign control•
development siting screening and ambitectural standards and maintenance of na oral
vegetative buffers.
3 Acguisition of land for permanent public access to the shoreline is a high priority.
4. Restoration of shoreline vegetation is a high priority.
3.2 URBAN-LAKE RESIDENTIAL
Purpase• The Take Meridian shoreline lies within an&stab fished.nlimaxi lv single-family
residential neighborhood The ll se of the L1rb n- .akeResidential designation is to
maint^in the character of the a isting,residentiai_nei&W rbood w ile preserving and enhancing
fish and wildlife habitat and continuing to provide public access to the Lake.
Designation Criteria* Areas to be designated Urban+ Lake Residential meet the following
criteria:
A The shoreline is located along Lake Meridian within the City of Kent.
DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 3-Shoreline Environments 3
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Progmm
M2n2gement ' I T
Because p=erties around the - are almallysuhaWntially1,. . I♦ia 1
flll
1 - - • 111 =11t and/or redevelomentbe consistentwith the character % 11 nature"
the existing neigbbgdlgg%L
2. Both pkuical and visi,21 public. agcess to the Lake i&all be pMvided. New residential
subdivisionsma be l'.1 I,.-,/ to • V / • - common RI•.81 gpace along the shoreline ♦ 1 @
feasible1• where cgmpadble with the natural environment.
3. The existing' Il park andState boat } 1 facilities shallbe adQuatelymaintained,
4. Protection and enhancement of 1e environment is : high priority and shall • -
encouraged,
3.3 URBAN► u COBBIDO
Purposee The : • Soos an li f.•=biningir2l and hyAmlogical resource.
The p=ose of the I Jrban it it rorridor .yl / V,n.11,.-1' is to pm=the1 s fragile- and
valuable elements of 1 - environment *ncluding the wildlife and habitat :,.1. .If . VPrr
iate for
this enviromnenti . the natural Y• environment a1 • may include such activities • • - 1
apace and planned low-intensity e 1.-•: • 1 : uges mirb as a trail =111
Designation Criteria: to be designated 11 . 1 i 11 Corridor meet thefoll• ./ 1 '
criteria:
A. The shoreline is alona the •.•. Creek(downstream of the Kent . 1 - • . 1
• within 1 - \ of Kent anditsPotenbal : 1 I,+L a,i 1 1 Area.
Management Polideso
New development eI 1 the11: 1 i " : Q Corridorenvironment s1 • 1 reflect th-
character IY., of 1 - surrounding area by limiting dential density-=viding • a/n 1 " t
1 1 e1 space and 1 /1 . 1 1 1 • skdcqilqte bilolding setbackmIl• it water and 1 ♦ - 1 /
2. Public access • ip ll 1 / .. to theshoreline .,I-.,., ,• e.. a1., .• .{.'-i through r l• / • 1 1
Men=11 71 .. and trail y ail I develg=ent sbikilbe locafcL sited, designed. a1
maintained to protect a1 1 enhance s1 • 1 - areas and adjacent • habitats and
Mfiour=L
3. Activities or T which 1 . • 1 be detrimental • 1,' 1gA Y. and biological limitations
Kent Shoreline Master Program
4.0 SHORELINE ELEMENTS
The elements of the Shoreline Master Program consist of goals and policies that apply to all uses
in the shoreline. The Shoreline Management Act lists seven shoreline elements which should be
included in every local shoreline program:(a).Shoreline Use;(b)Economic
Development;(e)Public Access;WRecreation;(e)Circulation;(#)Conservation; and(g)a
Historic-,.Cultural; lement. Local master programs should also
address any other appropriate elements;thus,the Kent Shoreline Master Program includes an
Shoreline Flood Control element IQ-addressing flood protection along the Green River.
As a result of regulatory tory reform legislation. the god 1wd ggliri_es of the shoreline master
program are to be integrated into he oral comp ve n,lap Thy gba»tom of the master
=cram will therefore become the"Shoreline Element"of the Kent Compmbensive Plan. _
Currently.that plan contains the five "elements"originally Mq u+�b_y the Growth Management
Act(Land Use.Housing, Capital Facilities. Tran_ssportat on, andUtilities) and four optional
elements (Community Design Human Services,Parkssand Economic Development. _
OVERALL SHORELINE GOAL• To protect and enhance the shorelines of the City
Kent and its Urban Growth Area.
�✓ 4.1 SHORELINE USE (Note: This was previously Section 4.5)
This is-an-element€efconsidersing:
1. The pattern of distribution and location requirements of land uses on shorelines and
adjacent areas, including,but not limited to,housing, commerce, industry, transportation,
public buildings and utilities, agriculture, education,and natural resources.
2. The pattern of distribution and location requirements of water uses,including,but not
limited to, aquaculture,recreation, and transportation.
GOAL 1
The(seen River is designated a KShoreiline of Statewide Significance." and
as such. is of value to the entire State and should be protected and managed.
In order of preference.the priorities are to :
a. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest:
b. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline:
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 1
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
C. Result in the longterm over zhort4erm benefit:
d. Protect the resources and ecol2a of the shorelines:
e. Increase public access to pgblicly owned areas of the shoreline.
f Increase recreation opportunities for the public in the shoreline area
(This goal was previously in Section 5.1 and is still repeated there)
Policies:
1. Allow only uses and activities within the Gregm Ri=WI reline that are wager-denendmt
water-=o,ymen • •"r"orlente d_wmas �w"'Y�otherwise compatible with the naaWd
environment and the"Urban -River Resource"designation
(from previous Goal 1)
2. Give preference to those uses or activities which enhance the natural amenities of the
shorelines and wetlands and which depend on a shoreline location or provide public
access to the shoreline. (Previous Objective 2, Policy 2)
3. Continue to promote diverse recreational development and use along the Green River
shoreline by encouraging multiple uses, including the incorporation of public recreational
uses into shoreline developments.
(combination ofprevious Objective 3 and Policies 1 and 2)
4. Discourage 46;ses and activities in unique or fragile areas unless
measures can be satisfactorily undertaken to mitigate all related adverse impacts.
(Previous Objective 2, Policy 1)
5. Encourage restoration of shoreline areas that have been degraded or diminished in
ecolo;cal value and function as a result of Fast activities or catastwp is events.
6. Support applications for current use taxation for those agricultural and open space uses
along the shoreline through Chapter 84.34 RCW.
Afiantsid F;J;AWa ha e e 4A FR' _,,.e (Previous Objective 4. Policy 1)
(Previous Objective 4)
2 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114✓98
ProgramKent Shoreline Master
'AL 2 : Uses 1 a .fir . 1 Meridian I'. I I II , ,
residential- i t 1 1, Y ti lam caMatiblewith then2tural
PoUciese
Locate1. 1 1 desism new and 1 1 residential deveIgpment to maintain the character1
2. New Ial development but not including 1..1 / / single-family dwellings-
should
pmvide joint • 1111 1 + or public accessto the shorelinewhere- pQssible,
3. DiscouTaLye uses and activities in uniQue / fragile l-as"niess mesksures can be
satisfactorily undertaken to mitigate ill related adverse impacts
• EncouTaize restoration of shoreline areas that have bow 1 •J•: 1 ql or 1 11 1 1 e1 in
ecolo6cal value and 1. 1 1 . 1 as a result 1 past activitiesor ass 111 events
residential-5. Maintain rurrent visual and physical public access to the lake shoreline,
GOAL 3: Uses allowed within the My Soos Creek shoreline shall be low d=si
and open !ace uses comp2tihie with the natura
environment anI 1UrbanStream Corridor 1 :T 1 1 1
Policies*
Locate- / ' 91 and maintain 1 • residential damlopment to promote a stable residential
2. • residential devel=ent 1 1 1 - where 1..1 1 / 1 • 11 11 1 1
public to 1 - shoreline • 11 1 . with the I 11 m environment,
3. Discourage uses and activities in unique or fragile areas unlesr.measures can b
satisfactorily undertaken to mitigate�11 related adverse iwR=
4. Encouracre restoration of shorelinehave beenezra d ".• or diminished in
ecolo2ical value and Awction as a result of past activities or cataat=hic event
5. Maintain v t • physical access to the shoreline,
GOAL 4 Agricukural usa.while ras a"rund" use under the Growth
Mnnsgement AcL are sull1wrted by the
t of Kent comprebensive jphuj6 I
andthe shorelinemaster program 1 1 • 11 I 1 ! ' this land
where applicable,
- SectionI Shoreline - -
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Policies: (moved from existing section 6.1)
j Aericultural lands should be protected from inL comoWble Aatterns of development.
? The scenic beauty of natural shorelines as well as the historic value of many rural
;inicul iral la_n sc apes should be protected in agricultural development.
3 The creation of new a¢ricultural lands by diking- dmining or filling Of
Hof wetlands should be prohibited.
4.2 ECONOAHC DEVELOPMENT
(Previously Section 4.1)
Economic development refers to development that prom^des a service produces a good, retails
a
n nv other use or activity or h se of matting financial gain, For
commodity, or engageses i_ a_� .purpo
the City of Kent.Economic Develg9mal=fies only to the C+ree_n River shoreline.
GOAL 1: Development of the Green River shoreline should be limited to uses Ur
activities which are wa er-dep nd n L water-enjoyment water-oriented,ed
eff or otherwise compatible with protection, restoration and enhancement of
the shoreline.
Policies:
. (Moved to
Shoreline Use, Goal 1, Policy 6)
21• Encourage the location of shoreline-oriented or shoreline-dependent recreation and open
space uses along the Green River shoreline as part of my development along this
shoreline.
2.. Ensure that planning- zoning and non-reg l� atory nmgta`governing lands within and
a4iacent to the shoreline allow environmentally sensitive recreational/open apace uses
along the shoreline.
3. Support environmentally sensitive agricultural uses salong the shoreline in applicable
zones,
4 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
r-- GOAL 2: Permit development of the Green Aiver shoreline only if it enhances the
environmental qualities of the shoreline, recognizing that it is these same
qualities that provide an amenity of incalculable economic value to the
citizens of Kent. (Previously Objective 2)
Policies:
1. Design Sherelne-shorclimdevelopments should be desigued-to enhance scenic views.
2. ,Sup^ort shoreline enhancement and restoration in areas of new development and
redevelopment.
3. Locate w-Water-dependent and water-related economic development sMold be leeated
first in shoreline areas where other economic development already exists. (Previous
Objective 3, Policy 1)
4. New economic development within the shoreline area should enhance the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline.
65, Design aAH economic development should b
designed to allow reasonable public access to and along the water's edge.
(Previous Objective 3, Policy 3)
6. Consider public access in the review of all private and public developments(includin¢
land div sim)with the exception of the following:
a. One- and two-family ((dolex)dwelling unitse or
b Agricultural/rancbingactivities;a
c Where deemed inappropriate due to health, ufcu and environmental concerns.
Administratively off site public access should be sublWtueel for on site public access
only where water-dependent uses and sensitive areas make public access elements
physically infeasible.
$Z• Permit over-water structures only when in the public interest and when such a structure
includes public access.
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shom ine Elements 5
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
(Previous Objective 2, Policy 1)
9.a. Potential long-term effects on the shoreline should take precedence over short-term
economic gain or convenience in development.
4.3 PUBLIC ACCESS (Previously Section 4.2)
This is an element addressing the need to provide public access to shoreline areas.
GOAL 1:
Continue to oroyMe a coo in■ted &loan of diverse physical and visnal
public access to the City shorelines.
Policies:
1. Along the Green River. the City and/or other government agencies when feasible should
acquire and develop property to provide public access to the water's edge at a minimum
inters of one access point per mile.
2. Along the Green River.provision should be made for public access to and along the
water's edge in new substantial shoreline developments and/or when substantial
modifications or additions are proposed to substantial developments. (Previously
Objective 1, Policies 3 and 4)
3. Publicly-owned shoreline areas should provide public access to the water's edge where
feasible and where compatible with the natural shoreline en immnent
4. public access to and alone the waterr, edge should be compatible with the natural
shoreline environment.
5. Design and screen &Access points to create the
minimum objectionable impact on the adjoining property.
6. Adegyateely m in Ain Al public access a= and facilities.
7. preserve and enhance views of the shoreline and water from public areas.
8. The=file of water do nd nt or water related structures should be as low as feasible in
order to minimize visual impact on Jhe shoreline-
6 DRAFT—Kent SUR Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114 98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
9. Site buildings and structures along the shoreline in such a manner that vis Mal access is
10. The i should minimize public access to unique or fragile areas,
11. neQi_gn and landscape parking and/or recre_■ton facilities for shoreline activities to
provide adcQuate p-' strian access to the shoreline nd to minimize adverse impacts to
4acent prong es &nd the nWNW environment,
12. Encourage new residential development Mquiring a Substantial Development Permit fi.e..
including subdivisions but excluding indi dL stele-family hom to Mmdde common
shoreline Wen apace.
13. The City should actively s=ort extension of a public trail along Big Soos Creek.
(Note: Previous Objectives 2 and 3 and accompanying Policies relating to the Green River trail
system and dike setbacks have been moved to Circulation and Flood Control, respectively)
GOAL 2: De�Aay-development adjacent to private property al'Ami l be designed-so as to
screen and protect against intrusions from the public activities. (Previously
Objective 4)
`..•' Policy:
1. The Shoreline Administrator should review all public access developments to insure that
the rights and privacy of the adjoining property owners are protected.
4.4 CIRCULATION (Previously Section 4.3)
This is-a+relement for-assesscsiag the location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares,transportation routes,terminals and other public facilities and eeffelatin
correlates those facilities with the shoreline use elements.
GOAL 1:
:.royide cek viremiation systems to shorelines
where such systems will have the least ppssilbl_e adverse effect on the natural
enyironment 'nd recreational o-poortnn_itles-
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 7
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Policies:
1. The i should encourage public transportation to access shoreline recreation areas.
(Combination of previous Objective I and Policy 1)
2. Restrict m tor vehicle traffic to existing two-lane roadways, except
for limited bridge crossings for major freeways-across the Green River:
3. Along the Green River.plan and design shoreline roadways shewd be plomed and
develeped-as scenic boulevards for slow-moving traffic and which provide fiveF public
access to the shoreline.
4. in order to reduce unnecesl=traffic along the shoreline- plan for. or require.
alternative access routes located on the upland side of a nonwater-oriented.
eleng-the sherel�ine.
5. Along the Green River,plan, design, and reroute through traffic situ
designed to avoid adversely affecting the recreational and environmental
qualities of the river corridor.
6. Along the Green River. the City and/or other governmental agencies should actively
explore alternatives to additional cross-river arterials.
7. New and existing circulation systems along the shorelines should minimize impacts to the
natural environment.
GOAL 2: Provide a continuous non-motorized trail system along the entire Green
River shoreline.
(from previous Objective 4)
Policies:
1. The City should develop and implement in an orderly manner a plan of acquisition, lease,
and donation of land for trails.
2. Separate the The-trail system sheald be separated-from the roadway.
3. Connect the q4wtrail system to other trails in the region.
4. Link-aAccess points to and along the shorelines sheu4d-be linked by a system of trails.
5. To assist in developing a trails system, offer incentives sheWd-be effeed-to property
owners in exchange for larger setbacks, easements or other benefits to a trail system.
8 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Secdon 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
6. Include the trail system n all new or expanded motorized river
crossings. Whenever practical, modify existing crossings to
accommodate the trail system.
7. Provide trail system bridges where needed, and where compatible with the natural
environment.
8. p rivate roads and developments skeaid-be desigHe&to avoid conflict with, or
adverse impacts on,the trail system.
9. Design the44wtrail system should be designed-to avoid conflict with private property
rights and to create the minimum objectionable impact on the adjoining property.
(from previous Public Access- Objective 2, Policy 2)
GOAL 3. Provide for ihlic aces to the Big Soon Creek shoreline where compatible
with the natural environment.
Policies:
1. SMort extension of the non motorizes) Big Soos Crack Trail system.
2. Require new develo ent Aacent to Big Song Creek_to provide common oven space or
�..' public access to the shoreline where compatible with the natural environment.
4.5 RECREATION (Previously Section 4.4)
This is an element for the preservation and expansion of recreational opportunities through
programs of acquisition, development and various means of less-than-fee acquisition.
GOAL 1: Encourage diverse, water-oriented recreational opportunities in those shoreline
areas that can reasonably tolerate such uses during peak use periods without
destroying the integrity and character of the shoreline.
(Policies moved from section 6.11)
Policies:
1. Recreational facilities should be developed for diverse recreational uses.
i �
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 9
12/14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
32. DesiGm and locate rRecreational facilities to facilitate
access by public transportation.
.2. pmvidgfFishing areas sham-be pr-e Ade&through City or State acquisition of property.
24, The Cily encourages the Tke coordination of local,regional, state and federal planning
so as to satisfy mutual recreational needs. Shoreline recreational
developments should be consistent with local adopted park,recreation, and open space
plans.
10. The i encourages�e44wuse of shoreline street ends and publicly owned lands for
public access and development of recreational opportunities when sitable_parking
facilities are available .
11. The City encourages w4uisi io s for gpen gpo&e that p=serve environmentally sen_sitive
areas--provide wildlife habitatand offer gD2g n*+ities for education and interpretation
within the shoreline jurisdiction.
GOAL-12,: Public recreation opportunities along the Green Rver should be maximized
by developm at of a regional riverfmt par!k Ustem and greenbeltb=n
space syjtems.
Policies: '
1. The City's Parks and Recreation Department should take action to interest state, federal
and county government in the City's Action Program to acquire and develop a regional
riverfront park system.
2. . -a--_ Ensure that designad sections Of
the riverfront shed-be amavailable to the public for recreation. This may include City,
County, State and privately-owned recreational facilities open to the public.
3. DSlign-aMy public development adjacent to private property shed-to
protect the rights and privacy of the private property owners.
4. Provide aA trail system shexld be-pre�Aded-along the entire shoreline.
5. AccQuire and dedicate as public recreation sites theThe areas between the waterline and
setback levee when
compatible with the natural environment.
6. Provide largeF parks for river access, interpretive natural areas,picnic areas, open play
areas, quiet natural areas, restrooms,parking, etc.
f 0 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements
121141'98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
GOAL U: Maintain_ and enhance the ezisting Lake Meridian Park.
Policy:
1. Provide diverse recreational onnort mjties compatible with the natural environment.
GOAL 44: Provide public fishing areas along the Green River and Lake Meridian
shoreline.
Policies:
1. The City should acquire property and should encourage the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife to acquire property to provide additional fishing areas and accesses along th
Green River.
2. Maintain current fishing access alone Lake Meridian,
3. Ensure proper use and adequate maintenance of all boat launches.
GOAL 54: Along the Green River.Eencourage private water-oriented recreational
development which is open to the public in areas located outside the public
park areas.
Policy:
1. Encourage uNonmotorized recreational boating facilities, as long
as they are compatible with other uses and the natural environment.
GOAL¢5. Provide recreational opoomnities long Big Soos Creek.
Policy:
1. Include a public non-motorized trail connecting my M&blic access po'nt in r&&maWmal
4.6 CONSERVATION
This is an element for the preservation of the natural shoreline resources,mdconsidering such
characteristics as scenic vistas,parkways, estuarine areas for fish and wildlife protection,
beaches and other valuable natural or aesthetic features.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 11
121141'98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
GOAL 1:
Identify preserve and restore the rewaiab(natural resources of the
shoreline such as wiltillife habit" ftk=resource&wetlands.beaches,
natural veg tion, and other fra4Le elemeats. (Combination ofprevious Goal
and Objective 1)
Policies:
1. Protect and restore aAguatic habitats, spawning grounds, wildlife habitats and wetlands,
. (Combination ofprevious Policies 1,2, and 3)
2. Avoid or minimize sStream or lake bed disturbance.
3. Alone the Green River, .slope spy pa=se I new addWeeal-riverbank protection(wet
side)should be sleped-to allow escapement of fish after high water.
4. Prohibit development in unique or fragile areas.
GOAL 2: Preserve Jhe,_ereas-escenic and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline.
Policy:
1. Balance the restoration of natural vegetation with maintenance of scenic views.
GOAL 3: Prevent further deterioration of water quality and require water quality
improvement.
Policies:
1. No untreated effluent or other pollutants should be discharged into the river.
2. The City and other government agencies should aggressively enforce all governmental
water quality regulations.
3. Encourage the reestablishment of natural vegetation along the shorelines.
4. PFevem the eutfing e Preserve existing trees and natural vegetation alone the Green
River or Big Soos Creek unless necessary for public safety or public access-an&levee
maintenance.
5. Discourage the time of building materials which have significant adverse physical or
chemical effects on water q is ily- vegetation fish and wildlife in or near the water,
12 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114198
,•. 1 •JI • f v/\ :., • II r / : IL✓.-{ •.: . ,. 1 Ill hill. y\I. I I IC : 11 i • .
\: - • i •.•.• tiF. / N 1 1..- • yl t•' N III aV147 17,• 1 : 1 • 1 11
- • • , y • • 1} I - •a • 1 - 1 A ' d
• 'slim I I 1 1 1 If 1 1 1 11 • r
. r
1 1:,• •al-r,. i 1.\.. • 1141 - 1./ yi 1 :.1 /1 • 1 I I 1 • -.,: -
• II 1 I \ 1 • 1 - I 1 S.• :ill 1 I 1 •..: - • 1 • U
► 1 1 : ,aIgo `*,,0,.sf :.v IJ a 1.1 A ..d l .-1 41 NO I\- : 1 I 1 •loll M I • /
as I
,• . 1 1 1 -AM IS - • 1
..• • IT!,• ,ri-D IiI I,,,,"Alga)1 : 11 1 1 11;M1;Tmut - 1
• - • 1 11 :14,1 lei i !,41 Z11 : 1 IFl:: /I L.' IS 1 .• i 2t rMo I 1 ./ 1 1
1 • 1 :11 I 1 1 : 111 •1••P • A Y 1 =1P 1 - 1 1 •� • 1 -
1 I ..\III I • • 1 -14 1 •IP 741\/Wi -,1 •• i 1 : 1 \ 1
�I - 1. • jr P Y.I LIA 1 - aD '.I UT I yl • 1 --f1 1 1 1 1 , 1 • 1 • 1 • - 1 1Wi 1
-,I • 11 . 1 • • 1 - I :. 1 .Rml-Imemm.
11 ' a\ • \II •. 1
11 . 1 1 I • • 1 11 - • II L►: 11
rl - • - 91,404TUrs ' I\ 1. 1I • I.:JI 1 q. 1. • y •. 1 • 1
1 MI - � • l- 'J 1 . . : Y 1 1 • 1\. � 1 I :1 ti 111.1 \ • - • U � 1 • . ; y
-,1 • II • 1 •r : \ 1 • - . / III - 1•. Rem rein 1 1 Mal• • 1 - lal
- • 1\. 1 - I / 1. . 111.- . - "11 1 t II i.^I• • \ - ILI
• \II. . e - 111 - 1 -.it • - • - I • JI 1l".+ 11 IY t `11 • \ • no11 �1 1
1• I 1 ' - 1 .• _\: t A : • 1.. 1 :,\:., •. I 1.. '• `11 • \�,• 1 • • • 1 I • I -
- • 1 11 : 11 ire rim I .,II :1 1"1 :j•/ • V I 11swil 1 VAN 11 / 'dr/ I
\ - . 1 �) 191 1 I.. -, , -
U 1. 11 1 - ! 1 • ' • • ._I• -.• 11 1 1 • •. \. •. I _\ A ' 1 e.1 1
• . 1 • • 1 1\. • 1 1 • • 1 1 - - • • • 1 11 .-,1 11 �11 .• II • 1 -
�I - + - I • 1I / : 1 - 11 1 Iq : 11 : 1,1 11 - i • \ 1 : • \I (,-qwTITI
- I .- 1 II • oiler,1 .. JI I - . 10OPM -,I I - I - I I II a • 1
Kent Shoreline Master Program
10 The City of Kent encourages rnnsideration of Wwm ipe,recto Winn and remediation
incentive mgmms. Such VMgms could identifX if in some arms and under certAin
circumstances, the setbacks required in this s�zwine master program could be reduced in
exchange for developer agreements to provide restoration of the shoreline.
4.7 HISTORICAL/CULTURAL
GOAL 1:
Fnco�nd prffl:de for Le id@etilieatlon.preservation- restoration.
development and intel=tatiom of cultural-
(Combination of previous Goal, Objectives 1 and 2)
Policies:
1. Desiegate, uAujrree,,urotect and restore ashoreline areas having archaeological,historical,
cultural, educational or scientific valu ,
.eester-sd.
2. Provide aAccess to historic and cultural sites to the general
public,when consistent with the protection of the sites.
3. Encourae pPublic and private cooperation in site preservation and
protection.
4. Provide ilnformation on historic and cultural sites in the form of signs or other
interpretation of historic and cultural featuressheeld be Pm when consistent with
the protection of the features.
5. Encourage educational projects and=ar9ms JbW foster a greater appreciation of the
importance of shoreline management, environmental conservation- and shoreline big=.
GOAL 2: Prevent the destruction of features of potential archaeological, historical,
cultural and educational significance.
Policies:
1. The City may restrict the development of suspected significant sites and newly
discovered sites€er.up te Nve mes fora lieriod of time so that their significance can be
determined.
2. To ensure their preservation&udjLmJwAi= significant sites should be a high priority for
acquisition by the city or other appropriate entity.
14 DRAFT-Kent SM?:Secdon 4.0-Shoreline Elements
12114 98
.............
Kent Shoreline Master Program
4.8 FLOOD CONTROL
This is an element for the location and design of flood control works along the Green River
shoreline.
GOAL 1: Ensure future flood control works are in the public benefit.
Policies:
1. Ensure that all A-flood control project proposaldn.Ktitlt shAmid-be-ambased on a
thorough analysis of the potential impacts on the shoreline;and an examination of
alternative measures, for example, control or reduction of surface water runoff.
2. Require that flood control works are designed for multiple uses.
3. The Cihr shall acquire pRublic access to the flood control works should beasq -prior
to construction.
4. I2gsiga fFlood control projects shetAd-be desigaeed-to maximize open space elements
which are not subject to extensive flood damage, such as parks and agriculture.
5. Dslign-fFlood control projects should be decked-to provide diverse public recreational
opportunities, such as fishing, swimming,boating,birdwatching, viewing, etc.
6. T)eqign and manage FFlood control works to avoid or
minimize-negative impacts, and enhance and restore the natural environment and
wildlife habitat.
7. Design. landscape and plant(Flood control projects&MWd be designed, lafidwaped an
wed to maximize a natural shoreline appearance, fish and wildlife habitat values,
public access, and public recreation.
8. Provide dike setbacks at favorable locations th&t promote bank stabilization_ restoration
of natural habitat and largeF river=level access parks.
(from Recreation, Objective 2, Policy 2)
GOAL 2 Ensure that shoreline ItAbIIIZaUgLACd3ddjLcpndncted for flood control
and/or habitat restoration purrnon sre in The public benefit and protective
of the overall river corridor envirronment.
j. Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands.
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 4.0-Shoreline Elements 15
12/14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
2. Permit shoreline stabilization only when it has been demonstrated that shoreline �
stabi ization is necessary for the protection of leggy establi lied structures and public
improvements.
RCQuire that all shamline modification&Wyities he in MWZ of a permitted shoreline
use that is in conformance with the Vwdsions of this master=g am unless it can be
demonstrated that such activities are necessary and in the public interest.
4, Place shoreline stabi ization solutiong developed to mpLe existing shoreline
stabilization along,the same alignment as the shore ine stabilizWion being replaced_
hog-ever these may be plaaced waterwa_rd ireectiy ab�ng the old structure, in cases
here removal of the old structure would result in construction problems or severe
gn�nronmental impacts as determined by the City of Kent.
Shoreline sta ilization shall notsigilificantly_int ere with normal surface na _d/or
subsurface drainage into the water body.
�. Design shoreline stbiliztion so that it does not constitute a hazard to navigation_nor
substimfially interfere with visual access to the water.
Z. Design shoreline stabilization to not create a need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere.
$. R cgylire professional desig]3 of shoreline stabilization works as approved by the City,
t..r
16 DRAFr—Kent SMP.Setclion 4.0•Shoreline Ekernents
12114198
..........
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5.0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
General performance standards apply to all activities and uses within the shoreline. These
standards carry out the policies expressed in the Elements of the
Kent Shoreline Master Program and the policies found in the Shorelines Management Act.
5.1 SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 designated certain shoreline areas as shorelines of
statewide significance. These are shorelines which benefit all people in the state, and therefore,
preference is to be given to uses which favor public and long-range goals. Within Kent,the
Green River and its associated wetlands are considered a shoreline of state-wide significance.
RCW 90.58.020 requires that local governments, in developing master programs for shorelines
of statewide significance, give preference to the following uses,in Owdescending order of
preference:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
'�►' 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline.
The following development guidelines shall be applied to proposals in the ram''een River shorelinc.
a shoreline of statewide significance, in addition to any other applicable performance standards
in this Program:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest:
a. Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals representing
statewide interests by circulating proposed master program amendments and uses
for review and comment by state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, local officials.
citizen advisory committees, and statewide interest groups.
b. Recognize and take into account state agencies'policies,programs and
recommendations in developing and administering use regulations and-in
approving shoreline permits.
C. Solicit comments, opinions and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology,
biolo�y.eeeanegragk3,geology, limnology, aquaculture and other scientific
fields pertinent to shoreline management.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance Standards 1
1214198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline:
a. Designate and administer shoreline environments and use regulations to minimize
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline, and to enhance and
restore degraded natural resources.
b. Where intensive development already occurs, upgrade and redevelop those areas
to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future
growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low intensity uses
or underdeveloped areas.
C.
.
d. Protect and preserve the existing diversity of ve9etation and habitat values,
wetlands and riparian corridors associated with
shoreline areas.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefit:
a. Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments relative to
the long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural shoreline.
b. Preserve shorelines of statewide significance for future generations, and restrict or
prohibit development that would damage shoreline resources.
C. Encourage restoration of the natural character of the shoreline in developed areas.
d. Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development,
redevelopment of existing facilities or the general enhancement of shoreline areas.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline:
a. Leave undeveloped those areas which contain unique or fragile natural resources.
b. Prevent erosion and sedimentation that would alter the natural function of the
water system. In areas where erosion and sediment control practices will not be
effective, excavations or other activities which increase erosion are to be severely
limited.
C. Restrict or prohibit public access into areas when necessary to protect the
resources and ecology of the shoreline:
d. Minimize development activity that will interfere with the natural functioning of
the shoreline ecosystem.
2 DRAFT-Kent SUP:Section 5.o-General Permormance Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
e. All shoreline development should be located, designed, constructed and managed
to avoid disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources, including migratory routes, spawning,nesting,rearing, and habitat
areas. Wildlife habitats and sanctuaries should be included as part of recreational
developments.
f. ,Shoreline materials including,but not limited to bank substrate. soils-beach
n c- and_grayel bars should be left undisturbed by shoreline development.
g. Preserve environmentally sensitive areas for use as open space or buffers.
h. Encourage the restoration of presently degraded wetland areas.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline:
a. Give priority to developing paths and trails to shenlies are the Green Inver.
n i i g linear access along the river shoreline and to developed upland
12nrki11-
b. Locate development landward of the ordinary high water mark so that access is
enhanced.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shoreline:
a. Plan for, and encourage, development of facilities for recreational use of the
shoreline.
b. Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on uplands well away from the
shorelines with provisions for non-motorized access to the shorelines.
5.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
1. No development shall be undertaken with regard to a site or structure that has probable
historical, scientific,or archaeological significance until an evaluation of the site or
structure has been made by an authority judged competent in such matters by the City of
Kent. The City shall identify a competent authority within one month of discovery of the
site or structure.
24. In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an mergency as defined in RCW
90 58 030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or Areum artifacts or data identified
above-�e=jest may be exempttia from the omit requirement of these regulations.
The CityShall notify the 4 Ate Department of Ecology,the State Attorney General s
Office- and the State Historic Preservation Office of such a waiver in a timely manner.
's✓
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance Standards 3
1214198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5.3 CLEARING AND GRADING
1. All clearing and grading activities shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the
intended development. Within the Urban n-River Rauource and Urban-_Steam Corridor
envirotLments clearing and"ing wi hi A=is;*nhibi ed,ass
associated with public recreation activities,restoration and enhancement of natural
vegetation or wildlife and nQuati .h hi at- utility contraction or required landscanila.
2. Unless exempted bye the SMA, clearing and grading activities shall be allowed only when
associated with a permitted shoreline development. Upon completion of construction,
remaining cleared areas shall be replanted with native vegetation or other plantings
approved by the Administrator. RC;llanted arm shall be min wined such that within
three-years the vegetation is fully reestablished
3. No cutting, damage, or removal of trees over few(4)six fi)inches in caliper(as
measured twelve(12) inches above their mean ground elevation)will be permitted prior
to the submittal and approval of a site-specific tree plan and mitigation proposal. The
tree plan avast-shalLbe drawn to scale, and shall indicate the precise location of all trees
of four-inch caliper on the shoreline portion of the site in relation to proposed
development. The mitigation proposal must-AbAlLprovide for the replacement and
maintenance of any trees removed. The developer may be required to replace trees at a
ratio greater than 1:1 falie:
4. Uses shall avoid adversely affecting any other natural vegetation in the shoreline unless
necessary for public safety or public access, or otherwise clearly in the public benefit.
Normal pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes shall not be
subject to this regulation. Clearing of invasive non-native shoreline vegetation or plants
listed on the state noxious weed list is permitted in the shoreline if native vegetation is
promptly reestablished in the disturbed area.
5. Any sir ificant placement of materials from off-site(other than surcharge or Are-load or
substantial --e�erraising of daj pl na I be considered landfill and shall Wso
co=ly with the landfill provisions con fined in his Master Program.
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. The location,design, construction and management of all shoreline development shall
protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground water adjacent to the site and shall
adhere to the guidelines,policies, standards and regulations of applicable water quality
management programs and regulatory agencies.
2. solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any bodies of
water or to be discharged onto land.
4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance Standards
12114198
• Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. The release of oil chemicals- or rdous rnalgfi&onto land or into the water is
n,hihi era Fn.inment used in association with such mgmdals shall be maintained in safe
and leak-Proof condition. If there is eviderLce of C&Age-the f ether use of such
glW,nment shall be su=ded until the deficits=has been satisfactorily corrected.
4. All shoreline uses and activities shall use Best Management Practices_ MPs)to
miiirrize any increase in s Wface runoff and to control treat, and release surface runoff.
5. All shoreline development shall utilize effective erosion control methods during project
construction and operation.
6. For other than singl -f mi y 1-ots. the application of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides
shall be prohibited within one hundred(100)feet landward of the Or in=High arse
Millk(OHWM). Fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides shall not be applied or allowed to
directly enter water bodies or inaff4es,begs of swmps wedmis unless armroved for
such use by apMoriato agencies (U.S. T)WA ment of Agriculture_U.S- Environmental
Protection Aga . Washington Doa=ent of Eco1_o¢vl.
7. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located deli;+ed constructed nd managed to
minimize interference with beneficial shoreline pro sses such as water circulation sand
and,gravel movement. erosion, and accretion.
8. All shoreline development shall be located, designed, constructed and managed to avoid
�✓ disturbance of and minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources, including
spawning, nesting,rearing and habitat areas and migratory routes. Where a development
cannot avoid such disturbance or impact, the developer shall be required to mitigate the
impacts of such disturbance or impact.
5.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
1. Development in or adversely affecting unique and fragile areas is prohibited,unless it can
be clearly demonstrated that the values and functions of the areas will increase as a result
of the development. The Administrator may require that any mitigation measures
associated with such development be fully implemented prior to development.
2. Development located in,or"adversely affecting sensitive areas,including meshes;
, wetlands fish and wildlife habitats,migratory routes, spawning areas,
seie-vistas, and unstable bluffs, or scenic vistas shall be avoided or minimized.
3. When a development site encompasses environmentally sensitive areas, these features
shall be left intact and maintained as open space or buffers. All development shall be set
back from these areas to prevent hazardous conditions and property damage, as well as to
protect valuable shore features.
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 5.0-General Performance Standards 5
1214198
rl • 1 - p .7.77r.W77,11MrOrM1 : 1; TM,1 , .,WNT7711 707,141,174 Ms Me : N 1
1•' 11 1 .ell IF F,. :.•.: : �1. .•1.• E •1 1 . 1.... .,,� ,. .till 1 t 11
1 �111 • 1 1 �1 1 :. 1 1 i / � 1 Iv e; � w., II��1 \1 �: N : 1 1-111,1 •
1 • • �::1 1 . 1 11 �.1 1 • 1• �.1 • I 11 :ui 1 • 11 1 1/ - : 1 1 'tl . • 1
1 - • 1 1
/ - - • . 11 - 1 • 1 1 • : 1 f .1N. f : 1 • a 11 'N9 1• �•/ •1 •♦ ill 1 d 11 =i11 ' •
Y_ -
Kent Shoreline Master Program
w"ands;
3. An of-the f
site;
in the King Gemoty WedsiWo f 1
e
plan,
The plea fRum identify wh,
t the
G�_,�1��71
Y eki-.
F"Iegyf
ageing the reg"es in paragp"k 6 obeve. The Mewing WOOF OW SO*
in 4he
f
f
and&a edge ef
c-m1�'' v
2�m":
9. hmapiefflemmiefteffnifivatienplam. City staff shag Wks any stops fiesessoy te MESI—ife-
e
piano,
OW.). Gity st&g ghem4d slog sawam ow 01*4mWomfieo plan is impINHORW Fief te
plea ��
DRAFT'-Kent SMP:Section 5.0-General Performance Standards
1214198
I 1 1 +
•. 11 • 1 - J 1 1 - 1 t. 1 • A - �1 1 l 1 • /PI Iy1 P L \.. l 1 . 11 / 1 1 1 .. 1� : 1
11 •It I 1 nf I l .• 11 1,1 l :_1 1 N '. 1.• 1 - - L • 1 1
• 1 - • 11 1 1 1 • 1 N.11 / -
i •i• wwvI I N 1 / -+1 1 :il Mill
1 P 1,' I 1 1.• I 1 11 11 +1
11 - 1 � 11 1 1 all ., l -t, 1 : y• - 1 -.; : d\.
1 • - 1 1 11 • 1 1 1 A .I Y 1 1 1 1 , J . dl L, 1 '1 t: 1.1 � . Ii -•e ;},1 -.] 11 -.1
• f ./J 1 ' 1 It+� 11 ; 1•f `�. A 1 i ,.. 9. -J 1 1 T.1 1 1 1 - t 1 • 11
1 ",•_. 1 . 1 /. 1 ' 1 . -1F : 1 . Al : 11 T 1 / .1 I I 11"'I RITM. .. 11 I • ;
1 Pro
• • 1, 1 • ITIMMINTOR71751 1 y1.R 11:. - 1 • .1 J ' 1 'It • 1 1 1 11 1 1 I
11
1 / Y it t I V , , , 7 , " , "'Iiw .
rl �. I 11 1 . � -� .. t;•:;, : 1 1 , 1 1 . , . y 1 1 �, 1 1 . 1
lolls 1 l .1 •,1 • ISM. • - 1 11 :.- =1 1 • 'e 1: 11 • Mal \ • IM'sqW, Tall 1 i -
� ' •�• 1. - 1 • ./1 I : 11 IN It . 1 � 1 1 I - Y -11 Y 1 • - � 1:,1 • I -
• 1 OWNFA 11
1 I • f 1 • 1 . - . : -Jl .f Ill I.:- f : : 11 "I : u 1. i;l 1 i • 11 • C 1 dl -
11 M I Il . • I ill 1TzI I 1 i MW Ms. IM"I'VOTIM /,1 I 1_- 1 1 1 - • ! 11.1
' •.
►/ -11 • • 1 i • . 1 I 1 VMS Nfrom 7ITNIM f • 1 I/ 1RIN
i • . 1 • 1 l - 1 • 11
1 � .-11 � 1 •. H 1,1 . 1 f f,1 �/I .� a ir. . .'I.Y .I a � • 1 •
�/ •'l 11,11 ill 01A,.. .1 ! p1 1 n ®!f 1 a /I ! + Irl Y;1 l 1 11 • .
�/! 1 a ! ! / .� J A Y 1 -.' a ./Y J a /Y a ;a . It• : o I tits • 1-. . Id 1 11
11 . 1 Y• •. JI 1 1 1 - 1 : �1 ./ 1 1 1 - \ 11 • 74,f-11 :i Mel 1111 1
1 1 . 11 1 r . .• 1 1 • 1 f - 1 • ., 1 1 .: , 1 1 1.1 . . 1 . . I • 1 "
1 1 1 1 . , 1 • 1 • •..11! 1 - - , -,, 1 i ! 1 V 11.: Ill - : 1.• t8- •1
11 •. 1 -111 • 1 ea 1 / • -• ye < ./I 1 t � 1 I 1 R 1 1 e : . • 11 f 1 1 'I•♦-.
1• :� 1 1 • 9 l♦ 1 ILS 1 11 1 � = Il'•'`�11.; R !, 1t^.^1 \ d :Ii 1 ,�1 -J 11
11 1.• 1,.. 1 .I I l y1.� • 11 U, ! 1 P,I / f l 1 I 4l-:^'1 y dF I -.•
111• l •. 1 1 Me . 1^ 1 - - - • 7- I r.• 1 1'1 law 11,11 11. 1
• 1 1 1 • 1 ,1• 1 1 ! ' � y, / •,. i. . - Ill : 1 1 ']• � 1
f 1 / y1 �J 1 n 1 1 1 'i/. I 1 '. 1^ /' 1 y 1 Ie.�,N • / yl • 1: -
11 •. i 11 - i •. 11 : I rtmsi nip i 14,14 11.: IRS1♦•,1 I/ • 11 � 1 1
- 1/ -71 1 : ( l ff+11 1.: 1.1 1 l: f I 1 � 1 . 1 • ,1 a l`s• I e q•. 1 1 1 - •.•
- ♦ �ti 1 S1 •1 l -1 / 'l 41 -11 ll ll.dl • ` 1 �6.1 �- / '1�� �l/ 11 is isIMT IMP,
• . I I 1 Mti• .I 1 e -11 1,1 1 t 1 1 ' f Y I,I,f °. I 1 �J! 1' ! J! ! - !! ... 1
i - •
I - :. 1 yl • 1 • 1 -J11 I1 • 1 .I 1 ' •.1 :ie.e 1.;�1 �.1 • 1. •11 • 1 T ♦ tile.•♦1 -
1 �.• l 1 1 l / - 11 -1 1 l 1 4 :-11 i I TIT l T I11 1
1 \ d I 1 ,i 11 ♦ 1 1 1 ,♦ 1
1 for. ,1 1�1 • • I l - 1 - 1 J 1 f 1 1 • • / • 1 ' • 1. • 1111 1
1 1 II q i t i l l .
Il. 1_l •.1} T I : 1 " 1 . �1 1 il • 1f 1.: . • 1 1 - • fe • I - 1 • • I1 -
1 1 • • 1 � 1 1 11 1 ' • 1 1 11 1 : f 1 : 1 -. �• 1 �.•
1 I I. 1.,. • . MITR 1 11 11 '1 r`.1 f 1 • : I 1 1 I • I•
e -)1 1• 1 1 dl 11 'AY 1 e' 1'f ,/I 1 -.: 11 1 • 11 • - I ' 1 • • "
1 111 .1
. , • 1 1 1 • 1 Il. • 1 • 11 • 1 1 1 :,1 .-1• 1 N 1 �• , 7 • I
a - • .
. , 1 1 11 1 Il ! - 1 1 :� a1 I n,.al n, •. 11 °A r'.1 • 1 .1 Il 1 • f` � 1 '
, 01Fp1 • 1 I.-11 1 T Heil. ,, -Jo 11 1 . .IJI1 • 1.•. • rll 1 •
• : 1 •.. =111 . 1 ••111 -11 1 111 • �. I / 1 • L 1 •
�I - 1 U � • - �, • • 11 1 1, 11 a . f 1 - -11 • 1 11 al
1 ■•1 - 1 • :q I • ' 1 t . \ yr. - . i , 11 •.1 t 1 : ♦11 To. 1 <.I
■1rMWPTSrl 1 r - 1 I 1 LJ(-+ I I
7rTsTZ7e7MMj I iTTromri' • 1 . f 1 .1�' - 11 1,:,. t 1 1 %J 1
11 1 11 1 •.e 1 (-.:.. 1 ' 1 i I ,dH �1A
t�l a ( 1 1 (yl .J11 -/1 11 :.1 1 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 :.• : 1 I I t 1 - yr: .••
" • .. � \ ': 1 •. 11 9 t'... 1 I • • ,Nt. ,. 1 1 . n 11 :j Imo- 1 - VI '! 1!
\ 1 la -.+ 1 11 ' ill•j 1', U 1 11 ,T 111e ' • '. ey '11 I �J 1 : 1I yl(' 1/
r + r • ar -t �/• \ e a+ r YI( . 1 .- .I I 1 \ 1 1 t 1 1 l • I
1 •• (. • ) r + ' • y i " : 11 11 1 : !.1 (1 • 1 - 1�1 � 1♦t.1 t 1
. 1 • • 1 1 1 M 1 .711 11 � 1, 11." '.nee • ( 1.- •. �t 1♦ \. .JI 1 11
••♦1 1 1 : 1•• 1. t / 1.: \ 1 1 .d 11 11. 1/,.1 A + l 11 Y.� 1 1 :
1 1 ..1 (.' IL t. : -;1 :. a\♦ (1 \ 1.- t 11 I • 1 • 1 ♦ % d 11 : 1 1
• i r1 t :J \ I \ 1 - - -111=771470 I - 1 ,141:111 ill1 1(.Mill.
• \ r t •. - 1 • 157.31 -
1 11 J 1 1 Mrilm's",.. 1 -.. 1 (ta.,. 1 ' r ,.. \ - • - \ 1 1 \ 1 1
t.t 1 1 11 /: • a : i 1 I 1,.1 ,n r iron/ . • ' �1/ : 1 - 11
+ 1 1 •;.. 11 I r - 1 % 1 K Y+ .� /1 1 -! a '. ar % 1 1 - 1♦t i \ 11 � d•
To on
1 1 t 1 +. + 1 1 1 - 1 . i. yl - : 11 1 1 1 �i • I ! l'111 �I, 1 - 1 " :JI +. 1
1 - / - • 11 1 / 1-
+ 1 % ( MEMO 1 + 11 �• - r 11 1.. -• • yt:.l • - / - • 1
- 1 1 - + • / 1 -. ♦ Iy 111 1.\ 1 + 11 1 % 1 : [ ar
I ra 1.4Itll - 1 • - 1 -Ir % 1 1 _.+ 1 �11 =1+ .• +
+ � 1 ar -1 U .. 1 ' AI 1 IC 1 ., 1.- 1 • r / �1 •{ i 1! • 1 1
too \ 1 1 • , («. 1 ' • : ,:,1 . 1 1,- t I +i. \ ♦1 1 I \ • 1 �1 - 11 \
•• 1 1 - 1 - - t 1 - . � N 1 ' Ilt \ •1 -' 1 yll y -
_ 1 • - KILT t /(4 • f• 11 % 1 - •� ! 1 11 t 1 1 1 .,I t H / t :,1 1 • t • t 1 �11
ProgramKent Shoreline Master
a. 1altemativevl 11 al not
. The prQ.ject is located and• designed • minimize impacts • I the al / 1 1 11 al
C. Adverse impacts caused by the=ject are suiCQuately mitivated- land
1 Any 11 1 located landward • L • tl 1 .,,r I • twater mark.
1 installershould reestablish 1 1/l=f. P Z •11 /n eleysition and contour of the
lake or rCtl 4a1 Placement of All materiskis shallbe conducted in1111a
1 minimizes i=acts on the environment- and
r
f. The facility 1 the . . interest
8. Dredging which will adversely /l=. hahitat used 1sahnonidsfor 11 gr.1 . 1 • /rt . F
rearing, and reffige aball .. all• . =,1 only�the=M=ent • r 1
conditional use permitqnd demonstrates at all . thefollowingy conditionsmet
a. The dredging is for a water-doentient use7
. An rl : dredging. . 1 rl a .: - 1 e• 9 1 location. 1 .
t feasible:
C. The 1 ' . • 1 • activitiesare design to minimizeimgacts • 1theenviromnent,
d. The dredging=ject is in the public intertat; Md
ill create significant unavoidable advem impactq on habitaL the
impacts : C 11• ar r creating in-kind,1 .11 all a l babitatnear the . r1
Where- in-kind mitigation not rib lerehabilitation of degraded habitat May be
reguired as 1 t
• Dredging and removal of bed materials below t1 ' • •W►/ r •bibited within 11 • 1
. JI 1 •
1. Permanent lake bed or IC • 11 cbannel modificationg andrrAlignments prohibited
withingalmonsd 1 1 .a• when the . 1/.1..•e modjfirA1nnr,or l-.:. •JI 11 al
ts
part ofa fish babitat restorafign or enhancementt1N ".tl which 1 has been - / - . •r 1 /
. . 1 • :1 by theWashington al rin - 1 of 1 and Wildlife,United f 1
Wildlife qmice- or the Army C=s of Engineers.
11. The removal of aQuatic and riparian . 1 within or sidjacentto salmonid 1 ._.
shallbe minimized, Areas of dist3irbed earth 1 :, be revegetatedas soon as pgssibl-
Section /—General Performance Standards
Kent Shoreline Master Program
12. Outfalls within or Upstream of salmonid shall he designed and
constructed to minimize scouring or other disturbance of salmonid snawrLg beds.
5.8 PUBLIC ACCESS
1. For all shoreline substantial developments within the Urban - River Resource
environment if apubliic W&ess easement 1L not already been w=t_ed for the CY_reen
River Trail system. a public access easement or land dedication shall be granted on land
located within shoreline jurisdiction,beginning at the OHWM,and extending landward
to a point at least fifty(50)feet from the centerline of an existing dike or fifty(50) feet
from the OHWM where there is no existing dike—whichever is the greatest distance
inland.
2. Within the Urban-River Resource environment one twenty(20) foot wide public
pedestrian and bicycle access from a public road to the riverfront shall be provided for
every one thousand(1,000) feet of river frontage or scenic drive frontage.
3. Within the Urban-River Resource envimnmest one off-street public parking space shall
be provided for every one hundred seventy-five(175) feet of river frontage or scenic
drive frontage. Parking shall conform to any applicable standards in this Master Program
or other City requirements. In lieu of providing such parking, the Administrator may
allow the developer to meet this requirement through payment or by development of
additional public access. _y
4. In review of all shoreline permits within the Urban_River Resource environment public
access in addition to that required above shall be considered. Provisions for such public
access, which may include recreational opportunities, shall be incorporated into a
shoreline development,unless the applicant demonstrates that one or more of the
following provisions apply:
a. Significant environmental harm will result from the public access,which cannot
be mitigated;
b. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist which cannot be
prevented by any practical means;
C. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the
application of alternative design features or other solutions;
d. The cost of providing the access, easement, or an alternative amenity is
unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed
development;
e. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the
proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated.
12 DRAFT—Kent SUP:Section&0—Genera!PAAorrnance Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. Within the LJrban- Lake Residential and LJrbm- Strmam Corridor environments,
shoreline substantial development permits may inquire co±r+mon open space or public
access alonE the shoreline,when compatible with the natural environment.
6. All public access points shall be provided through an easement, covenant, or similar legal
agreement recorded with King County.
7. Public access provided by shoreline street ends,public utilities and rights-of-way shall
not be diminished.
5.9 VIEW PROTECTION
1. Except for existing or future arterial and freeway crossings,the following shall apply:
Shoreline development shall avoid blocking,reducing, or adversely interfering with the
public's visual access to the water or shoreline.
2. Visual access shall be provided and maintained in a manner consistent with this
Program's requirements for preservation of trees and natural vegetation.
3. Development on or over the water shall have as low a=file as possible and shall be
constructed as far landward as possible to avoid interference with views from
surrounding properties to the shoreline and adjoining waters.
5.11D OTHER STANDARDS
1. Within the I hban -River Resource en 'mn+nent loading docks shall not be located on
river-facing sides of buildings unless a inimum Ry(50) foot buffer of native
vegetation is=vide_d to screen the loading docks from theshoreline- In no case shall
c aging of trucks or trailers. or outdoor Storage or dilolly occur or the river-facing side
of a building Other design and land nents may be imposed by the
Administrator in order to meet the Yoals of the Act and the Kent Master Program,
2. Within the Urban- River Resource environment building lengths facing the Green River
shall be limited to two hundred(200) feet.
3. Within the Urban-River Resource Environment.no structure shall exceed two (2) stories
or twenty-five (25) feet in height except for bridge structures associated with arterial or
freeway river crossings; telephone or transmission poles may be permitted as conditional
uses.
4. Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted so as to be harmonious with those
already planted on adjacent properties and consistent with any other applicable
landscaping requirements.
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 5.0-General Periormenoe Standards 13
1214198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
the shefelixe.
6. Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be
designed,where feasible, to be integral parts of any common trail and QI open space
system. .
7. Fxccpt for piers, docks floa+ and moora=_n the U ba_n -Lake Residential
environment. there shall be no overwater structure unless it is demonstrated that such
structure is needed to protect or promote the public interest,or will enhance public access
and enjoyment of the shoreline. Over-water,. utted only in the I irb n -
River ResoHMe and Urban- Stream Corridor enviraments,where a need for ate ev@F-
wateF such crossing has been demonstrated,and such crossing shall(a)provide or allow
for a safe pedestrian access under-the age-wherever the bridge crosses a potential river
trail route identified in the Kent Green River Corridor Plan(1980); and(b) in the case of
public roads,provide a safe pedestrian river crossing having a width of no less than six
(6) feet.
14 DRAFT—Kent SAP:Section 5.0—General Performance Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
6.0 SPECIFIC SHORELINE USE POLICIES AND
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
6.1 AGRICULTURE
Agricultural use meang land primarily devote to the ao*r g Wjal VMd,iction of horticultural.
vitcultural- floricultural aia- aniary vr9dably. ors anal mdu ts or of berries- gram-hay.
Mawr turf sped ChristMas trees not subiect to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84,33.100
hro ueh 84 33 140 or livestock and that has been in long-term commercial significance for
agricultural production.
The following Mlicies have been moved to section 4.1. MI 4.
.
Pelieiesi
Performance Standards:
1. Erosion control measures shall conform to guidelines and standards established by the
U.S. Soil Ceftsepvafieft SOFA"Natural rgnMation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agricul Vlatnr t� •N++ent Manuat for he Pug �o nd
B iaJ sin jwd avTnlicable local regulations and standard&.
2. Pesticides shall be used,handled, and disposed of in accordance with„nlicable Kent
regulations,the provisions of the Washington State Pesticide Application Act, Ch. 17.21
RCW,and the Washington State Pesticide Act(Ch. 15.57 RCW), a-s amended.to prevent
contamination and sanitation problems.
3. Livestock waste shall be disposed of in a manner that will prevent surface or groundwater
contaminati - nda d in Qg liance with local regulations and standards.
4. Manure lagoons shall maintain a minimum one hundred foot Uffl _setback from any
water body,river, creek, mod, and if located in the floodplain
shall be constructed to an elevation one W foot above the base flood level occurring at
the site-, and if possible, adequately covered.
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Polidw and Performance Standards 1
12/14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. Manure spreading shall be set back from the shoreline a sufficient distance,no less than
fi$X(50) feet from the floodway boundary, edge of a manh,-begeF
sw&%p,wetland or ,whichever is
furthest,to prevent animal wastes from entering water bodies or wetlands adjacent to
water bodies.
6. A permanent buffer strip of natural vegetation, or planted permanent native vegetation,
no less than twenty(20) feet in width, shall be maintained between any tilled or pasture
area and the ordinary high water mark of the river, lake,or creek, the edge of any nask;
beg or xp wgibmd, or floodway edge,whichever is greater.
6.2 AQUACULTURE
Aquaculture includes the fanning or culturing of food fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants or
animals. There are no known aquacultural activities existing r anticipated within the thre
shoreline environments of Kent.
Performance Standard:
1. All aquaculture shall be permitted only as a conditional use.
v
6.3 BOATING FACILITIES ) [previously Section 6.71
fef ton (IQ) or-faere beats. (See aloe sestieff6.19,PELRS AND DGCArcS).-
Boa i g facilities include marinas boatlaimcbruM- covered mooras-boat houses- mooring
buoys, and marine travel lif?s for ten(10)or more boats- For regLiat=Vu=ses. lame
community moorage facilities. came or resort marina`would also be reviewed as marinas.
Accessory uses found in marinas may include fuel docks and storagg,,boating rQuipment sales
and rental,rcpai_r services,,public launching parking- gmceries and da goods.
I ses and activities which are associated with bQIWng,facilities which are identified as separate
use_in this master=g=(i.e..Piers and Docks,pre anted in section 6.9- OVERWATER
STRUCTURES) are subject to the re;ulatio s established for those uses.
err -tly,there are no boating facilities of this scale in the Kent shoreline jurisdiction. Because
of the intensity of this use- it is unlikely that a marina would be g=gatible with aaWacent
Aevelg=ent in any of the shoreline environments of L City- In addition- marinas ffee
wildlife and fish habitats although the degree of i_mpW detods on such factors as the twe of
construction and desitm- variety and number of boats using the facility and their density and
operation characteristics.
2 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards
12114M8
Kent Shoreline Master Program
If environmental or other circcp gt*s. TM es among the river chlange making this tune of development
feasible and ecologically sound_ mid development of such f jlities is considered in the fut=.
re¢Llations will be established jtamen ,neat to this master nroaram.
Boatina facilities Shall he prohibited in the Kent shorelintjudadiatiM
Use Geffibi--kag
6.34 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
�.,.' Commercial development includes uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale and retail
trade or business activities.
Performance standards:
1. For commercial uses,the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of two
hundred (200) feet from the ordinary high water mark. Parking facilities associated with
such uses are subject to the setback requirement contained in the specific performance
standards for PARIING FACILITIES(section 6.101.
2. Building setback lines shall take into account the need for visibility of the riverfront park
system from public roads at access points.
3. The City shall require and utilize the following information in its review of commercial
development proposals:
a. Whether the activity is water-dependent,water-related,water-enjoyment,non-
water-oriented or mixed-use;
b. The need for the shoreline location;
C. Special considerations for enhancing the relationship of the activity to the
shoreline;
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Powes and Perlomiance Standards 3
12114f98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
d. Provisions for public visual and physical access to the shoreline;
e. For mixed-use proposals,pmwA mdek ..alternative mixes of water-oriented and
non-water-oriented uses and activities structural locations, site designs and bulk
considerations-,;alternative enhancements for natural features of the shoreline"
physical and visual public access to the shoreline (both public and private spaces);
and other considerations which address the goals and policies of the Shoreline
Master Program.
4. New commercial developments shall be located adjacent to existing or planned
commercial developments which are consistent with the provisions of this Master
Program,whenever practicable.
Ha-A A-lefl-d-iAWBej 080.
6.45 DREDGING
Dredging is the removal of earth, gravel,silt or debris from the bottom of a river, stream or
other water body or ,grew. Dredging material is Womed of
on land or into water bodies and may be intended for then =se of creating new or additional
lands for other Les. Dredge soil varies from cl=river Md to organic sludge. While some of
this materials is deposited on land a significant portion is dnmper1.intentionally or
unintentionally,back into the water or immediately aW acent to the water.
Of all activities on shorelines dredging noses one of the gte=t threats to water a alila d
aQuatic life,
In most cases dredging occurs in shallow areas and Ma itiaturb theaQuatic environment in the
following ways- (1)t=12g ary reduction of water clarity from suspended sediments. (2) loss of
liQuatic plants ad animals by direct removal or from the svlimentation of sug=ded materials,
dl alteration of the nutrient and oxygen levels of the water colum and(4)"claim sioonn of toxic
materials from the sediments into the water column.
All dre�`rg activities shall Gomnly with other Sate and fad" re ilatio s- as discussed in the
Performance Standards portion of section 5.7 of this master gmgm
Performance Standards:
1. Dredging to obtain bottom materials for the purposes of landfilling is prohibited.
2. Dred,SL:operations sha11 be sched pled so as to not materially interfere with the
meveme„®_life gulg mQuirements of fish.
4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Speck Shorskw Use Policies and Performance Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. age material_disgsal in water bodice shW1 be nrobibited except for habitat
`-` JM=ement M=Ses-
4. T)Md2ing and dradgc material disoocal shall be located and conducted in a manner that
rriinimi,ec tiamagg,to existing ecological values and nAWW resources of the area to be
dredged and of The disposal site.
25. A plan for deposit of dredged materials must be approved by the Shoreline Administrator.
6.96 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
Industrial facilities include facilities for processing,manufacturing, fabrication.or storage of
goods.
Performance Standards:
l. For industrial uses,the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of two hundred
(200)feet from the ordinary high water mark. Parking facilities associated with such
uses are subject to the setback requirement contained in the specific performance
standards for PARKING FACILITIES. Additional applicable development standards
argnrovided in Section 5 10 (OTHER STANDARDS)of tlhe general performance
ntaridards.
32.. Building setback lines shall take into account the need for visibility of the riverfront park
system from public roads at access points.
42. New industrial developments shall be located adjacent to existing or planned industrial
developments which are consistent with the provisions of this Master Program,whenever
feasible.
6.61 LANDFILL
Landfill is the placement of soil, sand,rock, gravel,or the other material to create new land
along the shorelineweas in order to raise the
elevation.
l annr,ll is Ls Ially c nsi&.cd in locations when the w tsr iS Sballow and where rooted
ye,getation often occurs. in their DaMW tion.'` me"me areas nroldbe valuable_habitat for
�� steel*,•�• Rin1n,�Wly the shallow vegetation areas tend
nsii and wildlife ieedin¢ er- — --- +s
to b highly productive ngrtions of the Green River, Take Meridian_ and Big Soos Creek, For
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 5
12(14M58
Kent Shoreline Master Program
these reasons,govemmental agencies and scientific "perts have,gully taken a gWd against
landfilL
A small landfill occurring on dly land landward of the gMdiAW]high water mark_ such as a
ga •en or a candhox,which doe not exceed a cost of two lbonand five hundred(S2.=
dollars. does not mquire a shoreline substantial develoement ts=it sm noted elsewhere in this
Master Progr, m- Landfill d yelornnent.however.must com++ly with all other applicable policies
and reglilat o s as defined in thir rite pMaram T A WMI activities not in cmpliance with this
master=gramm are prohibited,
Performance Standards:
1. The following information shall be submitted by the applicant for landfill projects:
a. Proposed use of the landfill area;
b. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the fill material;
C. Source of the landfill material;
d. Method of placement and compaction;
e. Location of the landfill relating to natural or existing drainage patterns;
f. Location of the landfill relating to the ordinary high water mark, or any
begs er-swamp-wetland;
g. Perimeter erosion control or stabilization means, and schedule for
implementation;
h. Type of surfacing and run-off control and treatment devices.
2. Landfills shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that they will not result in the
following:
a. Reduction in water quality, fish, shellfish, and/or wildlife habitats;
b. Adverse alteration to natural drainage and circulation patterns, currents, rivers,
and tidal flows, or significant reduction in floodwater capacities; or
C. Adverse alteration of geological processes along the shoreline.
3. Landfills waterward of the ordin=high water mark shallbep +ern tted only:
a In coni ,n h^n with a water &Va+ast or public use 2=itted by this master
program. and for Ny irh there is no practical alternative: �.
6 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-SWft Shorskie Use Policies and Performance Standards
12/14W
Kent Shoreline Master Program
�✓ b. In coni nc ion with a bridge for which tbare a demo strated public need and
where no feasible upland sites,design solutions-or routes exist;
C. For fisheries or wildlife enhancement Mjects: and
d. As part_of an annroved beach restoration=jam
34. The fill shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the proposed use. This use must
have shoreline permit approval or an exemption authorization prior to placement.
Speculative fills are prohibited.
45. Where existing public access is reduced, equivalent public access shall be provided as
part of the project.
-6. Any placement or removal of material-_ landward of the ordin=high water mark shall
cam ly with the general performance staDdaE&in section 5.3 (Clearing and Grading)-
6-7 MA1 UN"
[This section has been merged into the new section on BOATING FACILITIES.]
`.J
6.8 NIINING
Mining is the removal of naturally occurring rock, sand,gravel and minerals from the earth.
There are no mining activities existing or anticipated within the ahoreline jurisdiction. If such
uses are proposed in the future,regulations will be estab iiahed by amendment to this master
progr=•
Mining is u prohibited use activity min all environments of the K=Lshoreline jurisdiction.
6.9 OVERWATER STRUCTURES: PIER,DOCKS,FLOATS,BUOYS
NOTE:
[Text in bold, italics and underlined and in this section is from the King County Shoreline
Master; the underlining indicates that it is new text proposed for the Kent Shoreline Master
Program. Text that is not italicized or bolded,and double underlined is a recommendation for a
change in the King County text.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Perionnance Standards 7
12114198
- If' 1}..I a I . 1 - • ti I • -.. 1 • I a.. a 7.
. • - 11 -p - 1 . . a : r . ee z
-. - • I r.. ! . ry - . : 1 1 ':I 1 1 : ..� a r l IP..- ■ /. a- 1 1 1 .I . ! 1 . -
1 • tII - 1 . . a 1 ar al + a/ • 1 . 1 / T 1
t • 11 •• t I ' till - . >,a 1 1 1 • 11 t-• 1'' +1 " 1/ •�. Y • I a. 1 ' 4 +
-�. . t 1 . • . I .It: L.iW6V I or .aP 1 i71 In, p tl *Iiililr 1:• 1 f . 1 �.. . . (.
1 • 911 • - 1• . I1• 11R i 1 : :� : 11 . �,t U ..I Y ' t :.• . =..
• i . . 1 • . - / . 1 , 1 7Q I - . t L• 5 . 11 L I . 1 1 . 1 I P I -
11 .1
t - 1 M111 1 , - 1 - wailiTH dFima 1 - - , ti` `11 : . 1 1 - 1 • C 1 - + • al
. I .;. - a11.a- . 1 �, 1 I,r 1 I a 1,.�•. / .11 I It 1 11 al � y1.�, . :., 1 • t •�
11, is a +.�f. . civil 1 1 • . a • •.
1 all • 1 • Y• •.1 1 • i1 11 al 1 a . MM M1 Ilan itsWIWIF 1 .• - • • A'
t al . - 1 . T, 474
r a ah • • 1 • • - . afF ` I Ir CI / , a aF - I.• I • I I
1 • I • - C• o1w-TIVIVII . 1 . • aF II t.�d 11 al • I •:lei fa tl
• • 1. la.. • 1 - • "1 • 1 . I l• - I . / • 1 t ' 1..'TEN • I . 1 • - 1 - 1 -
11 I I a.• 1 . 1 . - �1•- 11 . t a • 1 - I a .,. + al : • I ` 1 - 1/ at •. : i
la - 1 - ! - 1 1 • - 11 • 1 aF
y . 1 .." a.•, 1 / • . •a I 1 - .al t . a 1 A l 1 ,! . 1 ./ 1 • 1 a 1 • - 1 -
/ ti` I t 1 ` .• P:1at A • 1 y •. 1 I 9 .i7W to I I,ti@ 1 I
' 1 I / 1 11 •. I • 4 11 1 • 1 • . I 1 �1 P ti .. / I.: 1 . 1 s.a � - 1 a
. . t • all . 1 .•. 1 •.• •.
/ • .. 1 a. 1 ' . 1 I I I ..I f, - a . :.,•,11.M f: i '. 1 i ..t <: Is 1
• f: • - _ 1 1 • 1 I MW 1 ,+ 1 . rl 11 1 , • •.
a `JI - 1• 1 r t ! • 1 • 11 11 al a - tlf� 1. sk t1 iiI I : y 1 ' .I11 I 11 ti'. . 1 1
11 a - 11 C • al - : 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 ' 11.1JIF • : F : 1 1 1
-,a 1 • Ill 1 I .'.•+ al . • •, • il�i 'i •.+ './ 1 1 1 . 1 I t . .. a Il t . 1
Will I a 111 1 - .+ aall .II • 1,1 1 y I;.: < !. r -► i:a 11 dl I.a 111 I F 1 f
c / a. • Ilual
. (. .1 / . aF , a 1 .. a t-- ail) 1 -
1 - 1 • I. • 1 • , all 1 fl• 11 , - -• an al . I y 1 a - - . a II -
I too
Kent Shoreline Master Program
2. The p= Al is JWWbi3t located and des;Sned and ChAt skil noten i 1 impacts have been
recognizedand i igo_an_d
3. The nm os 1 is consistent with the intent,policies, and reglations of the Act.RCW
90.58.10(12) and this master yLgMAMM.
Performance Standards:
1. Overwater structures are prohibited in the Urban-River Resource environment and the
Urban-Stream Corridor enAronment Z as nrovi" for in Section 5.10. Dion and
2. Overnvater structures may be permitted in the tlrban-Residential Lake environment.
urovided:
a. OverNater structures which are not ac essory to a residential use req 'IL-Te gg
conditional use permit.
b. No reddesdat dhIUkg unit may be constructed on a Bier dock or other
moorm facility.
..: C. The design, location and construction of piers and docks shall minimize adverse
effects on fish, shellfish,wildlife, water quality, and geohydraulic processes.
d. Piers and docks shall be located,designed and operated to minimize interference
with adjacent water uses.
e. Location and Dimensions
il i d ,
..0-ka ..
[replaced by...J
L No pier.da:k,moorage, float or JAMaghing facility or structure authorized
by this mastery Vm2ram Tway he i woW nor emend further waterward of
the ordinia high water mark than mit fjaur k_(1/4`*) the total distance
AM the sh MCNEe to the aneost!o
shore&e� This i.0 he aev red m h poinnt where
Me au horizd structure ghats tie drdAIX A ii�h water mark to the
Mearm_--W- W gcdig=&W *vest hark m measured aLmg a sbWght
1 •nrmd when the sirueaw Ames not abut the ordEnary hW water
mark the distance from one angm=W4 water mark to the nnnoske
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specifk Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 9
12114198
INIIIi...,.
Kent Shoreline Master Program
one gnum ,,hw Wamr mad r®d along the shortest
ctraigb•fine Vg&%jdg thromgh dw comes itfgW er yanre which
commences ftm the prOJIMUJine&n0GI=ted with the structure
I No n% moaW& dwL or smusW scow or deceitkg shall be located
closer than,jfiA= as)&a am the aide omega a e wdeAdrA amo
that such structures may abAtJUJOP"knes from the use of
gt(laMt arejbcm owners Haon by the aMperty
AAR '� 92dW Ar bU ffdW9 Ar orelitue; Jff sSLdh Mint use
piers mia beA rm n d g12 to Mdee the e6aee area&lowed by this le.
iii. No aim inducing AafffiE or oIyj3jWW structure or
des„ee shams/be wider tha-M n- aermt aos)l of the lot with which it is
associated
ix All nips docks moorages-fly or er such structures shall float at
all t mes on the oL,face of the gaw ar*b n be of am
cmStru •• L W me aatao aL &e Ah 4ra nier dyQ during the
course the norma_/amctuatiaes a�the n ofthe water_bo�i.
protrude more than ft(1) feet above the ordinary high water mark. [if
covered moorages allowed this should be conditioned to except for that
section.]
NOTE:
[Under the WAC,when a jurisdiction annexes a shoreline of the state,that shoreline shall
continue to be subject to the previous governing body's regulations in force at the time of the
annexation until the annexing jurisdiction can amend its shoreline master program. In the case of
Kent, Lake Meridian and a segment of the Big Soos Creek were annexed in 1996. At that time,
Section 25.16.120 (c) of the King County regulations stated:
"No covered pier,covered moorage, covered float, or other covered structure is
permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark."
In 1997,the County amended this language to clarify its regulations and allow covered
moorages. The language presented in(f)below represents the language currently in force in
Kent; the language in(g)below provides an alternative to (f)and represents 1998 King County
SMP regulations. Section(g)would be listed under the Overwater Structures Accessory to
Single Family Residential section on page 15. Regulations pertaining to the Overwater
Structures Accessory to jhplex and Multiple Family Residential appear on page 15].
10 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Per Omwncs Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
f. Covered Moor a No covered o . covered e000rag,4 covered float. or other
cpvered structure „ , :« a . . and a£ihe ard3nary high water mark.
ALTERNATIVE to 'f'above— Use current(1998)King County SMP language which
allows covered moorages. If moorages are allowed, this text would be placed in
subsection g. of section IL Overwater Structures Accessory to Single Family Residential
Development"because moorages would only be allowed accessory to single family
development(p. 15). In addition, subsection f. under section 11. Overwater Structures
Accessory to Duplex,Multifamily, and Planned Unit Development" (p. 17) indicates
how covered moorages are currently regulated under that land use.
This section would be placed under section "k. Overwater Structures Accessory to Single
Family Residential Development."
g. Covered Moorygg Cuhweernel free-standing mechanical boat
ems . rss dMdal pkm and
recrca&nal wate=Jt g=he covered with a canonv prrovided:
L No canggy shall be more than 25 feet in length or wider
than ]5 fg
�--' if, No pardon of the Pak/=shall exceed a height of LQfAd
..b ye the_gEdlnar hW water mark:
HL The cangAv sha'I Ae no time have any sideAartly or r who. l�iv
iv. The hioest ngc&o Itf Le can w,'shall be located below
thethe�p, graoT!gem*gtexisting homes on
surrounding pronertles:
V. CaniDles shall be made out of canvas or other such
_ionic nw&Z aie,
vL CanoD es Shall d should be of a
shade aahLithat is nonobtrusive:
vfi. The canna I&M he 'mcluded in the youarg Rootage
calculations for pi_ ..n damMeraid In secdon afa above:
td
vUL Only one boat lift'can=per sing&fay &resLMce shall
be allowed
DRAFT--Kent SMP:Section 6.o-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Pedormance Standards 11
12114198
ProgramKent Shoreline Master
adjusted][ifsection 'f"above is removed(that is, if covered moorages are allowed), the
numbering of thefollowing sections would be
_ All ovezwaterstnicturep khall be .• r::n1 .M.-I and maintained in : safe nnd Sound
condition. Abskndoned or nsafe overwater
Ktmcturesshall he removed
=aired OrgWIX 1 the • JIy
h. • 1 1 1 ' Pursociated with • e1\•A.d structures ShAkIll 1. beamed- 1 •• 1 -,1 or direct�.•
to avoid causiny glare on ad-ililgent UMACWea or water bodies.
i. Piles. floats or other structures A direct contact r water SbAll not be
treated
coated with herbicides- fungicides pskint, or 1e 1 • 4•I. 1 n1 • of . •••.1
members ft-eated with arsenate ,• IA r,• e 1 [ or creosote is discouraged and shall
only be aHowed in accordance with the following pmvisione
i. XJnb=todwood-V=ast concrae or othernontoxic altd•1.: 1 - shall 1 "
toxic treatments 1 which yAII 1 • I 1 - the sIC t
characteristics necess= for 1 1
j. T=Uor=moorago shallbe permitted for yesgels used 1 1 - construction
shoreline 1 - The / y. 'JIee congtruction ofsuch moorages. ..t ll 1 - such
that jWn termina.Ion of 1 - pmjact themQuatic habitat 1 the affected areacan • -
retumed to its original / .• 1 .. 1•. t •J1condition within • 1 " 1
o cos
to 1 - environmentor 1 public,
k. Overwater Structures Access=to Single Farnily Residential Development
Piers, mooragaL Ug=or r y re.T rl (g be l // f r
acccLwZv to r t '.rr -1 FuNexce. I c/ I r
a. ah and Docks,
MSC Ii /wmr"amt be consUeredan MWt use on
when dmensaxwneed fim mednw
and that fkgfa9ewkg --t/I -dy has been
1 Widgatednot available / ' I
ar Al-
/ I .lUsemogragg /
ProgramKent Shoreline Master
morethan onepkx.fgr eachraidence , i[ .P I
3. On Ifigs Wkk lem thm l.11a achWO&CNAt. QBJY
r r rf.r li :,y Am hem -7'.'..1 estabMed Vim_
11
than I Pf. -fame '0i //I(' [ be Izermbied an
Dr dock
-AI/don 1 .1 I f 10 N Or I Agini
where t •y
A .d'.. ,.I71 w Mow the
• 1/ '.r / /' Ai" oji .i I Kent sborelinedl / N 1 11 O
&4mmWFd4ff
a
.ruvv��ua,v
nwdk
�.w
idmee my
I r r . .[ corridors:
.vv16 v.r•i-.3lrr. s..
ru Ser
[consolidated y I / I .
■1 11 intrusion of- I 1:• ! • 1 • 1
Jamughing
Kent Shoreline Master Program
feet below lbs ordin=higb water mark,whichever is
reached first._f
Z, Lstunrliny rails shall be Anchored to the ground with the
other=s whieb solidly cover the water body bottom are
not permitted.
3. No more than one(1)launching rail per single family
residence is permitted
d. ma he D=itted as
an accesaorv, to residential develg=ent under the followine
S�IIdill�llli.:
1.
(rewritten and Manded as follows:l
2.
distaece of eighty(>IM fUL nr At the e+-* where Le water ..i
denlb is thirteen (13) fleet below the o
mark whichever is reached first.
3, Re&ieval Unes sh&U not float at or near the surface of, the
water
q, Area No &W shall have more than one hundred and
Aft(1 ) Wmare&d ofcudmce area.
$. Hei2ht Floats must be built so that the deck surface is one
(1,) foot&Wye the waters surface and tha must have
reflectors for niahttime visibility.
e. Excav&W Mooragg Mips, j_yray fad moorage s! s are
f 717.. ... -- ..11p if than
f
ri
14 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0•Specific Shomfine Use Policies and Performance Standa
-uv
e
I I I
r
li r
• : 1 1 1
! / 11
IS i. A-
ar
/
I I / I ".r/.T.i I r 'r ",I
/ I rII / r..t f• 11 / uII ! II / I• I •
Ir ! r
1 .-J 1 -4 117r.rorlso 11
In W.77
. 1 r ti 1 1 ...5 17
/ II r rr. , .r . Rl l I I
Kent Shoreline Master Progmm
r •.� id-' r I " I 1 � l av�>.a
au:b
mm
r rr..r . r. , condidojw
.is a
1.
T1 - maxim- 11 �i►_.. 1 ;mnicinin nf stinv1,• 11 • 1 •feet below the grdinja bigh water mark- Whidl=.ig
reached firs
2. Launching 1'. AM beanchored r " IthegMund with
th
' r l.' f H" 4" t {1( .r{.r r- A&ehalt or r r cm as r r
other " ri whkk saUA(vU water I IJI boftom
are r r u .f. .
3. No morg than tw Q common use launching " r; r 1
Iminchiggy r2fmr eAwk one kundred l ! a il
« } " rr dgMIgMemiLshort subdUsion. subdivision
/ -planned " " ddimftmeW is A=itfeA
be /CM 7 ZI ar an : :.YJq to di/le diMlex and Multifamily residolW
1. One rr,.i ,,W djjWu and muliffimi& L7 f rub
t.
.vur ' .". rshort .'.fi. ." ! or " " l ! " unit
WmiftrA
Kent Shoreline Master Program
u
[rewritten and expanded as follows:l
2. Floats may be located up to a maximum waterward
distance of eighty(80)feet, or at the point where the water
dCplb is =(131 feet below the ordi =high water
mark_whichever ig mjWJW.first,
3. 8etrieval lines shag A.r&at at or near the surface ofdw
water(included in single family regs).
4. Area No fiM EhM have more than one hundred and
fifty, aSl1)jguare feet ofsurfaee area.
5. Hight. Flosts mUM be Wit so that the deck surface is one
(1) foot above the water's surface and they mut have
reflectors for nighttime visibility.
e, FXeavated moovW ,s Eha not be AMiyed accessory to
da and muW&tn6 dnualarrment or as common use ra
accessory to subdivisions, short subdivisions or planned unit
�-► deodpments.
f Covered Moorage, No cov d Xim covered ilia: or other
covered structure wxAsM t2 dqjda and multifamily
dmrjeAmats, S..AdhgA&a._ .Awt subdhddon. or planned unit
deg ment is permitted waterward nfthe ordinary high water
mt! &_
6.91Q PARKING FACILITIES
Parking facilities are areas for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. The followine
provisions AWly only to parking that is mcessory to a permitted ahoreline use Parking as a
Frimary Lse and parking which serves a use not permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction'ction is
prohibited.
Performance Standards:
1. Parking facilities shall be allowed only to serve another permitted use.
2. Parking facilities shall be set back a minimum distance of 100 feet inland from the
ordinary high water mark,or sixty(60) feet inland from the right-of-way of a scenic and
recreational drive, or seventy-five(75) f--t inland from the centerline of a dike,
whichever is greater.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Secdon 6.0-Sped&Shonsllns Use Polk ies and Performance Standards 17
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impacts u=
4acent shoreline and abutting properties and to enhance water quality,wildlife habitat,
scenic values,and public access. A minimum 50-foot buffer of native vegetation shall be
required to screen the parking area. Other design and landscaping requirements may be
imposed by the Administrator in order to meet the goals of the Act and the Kent
ShQxdi=Master Program.
4. Exterior parking facilities for nonresid tt'A1 R M "U be landscaped with ve¢etton in
such a manner that plantingsproyide effective screening within three(3)years of project
completion.
45. Parking facilities shall provide adequate facilities to control surface water runoff andA.Q
prevent it from contaminating water bodies.
5. Lighting associated with parking facilities shall be beamed,hooded or directed to avoid
causing glare on adjacent properties or water bodies.
6.10 PIERS ANID DOCKS
This section has been moved to Section 6.9, OVERWATER STRUCTURES:PIERS, DOCKS,
FLOATS, AND BUOYS
6.11 RECREATION FACILITIES
Recreational Facilities provide opportunities for relaxation,play, amusement,or contemplation.
Recreational facilities include parks,trails,pathways, and areas for passive recreation such as
bird watching,photography, and aesthetic enjoyment. This section anWies to both public and
private noncommercial shoreline recreational facilities(excluding private residences)in Kent.
Policies moved to Section 4
Pelieiesi
Moved to 4.5.goal 1:
Deleted entirely:
Moved to 4.5. "11:
18 DRAFT—Kent sMP:Section 6.0-specific shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
'�✓ noleted here in Goal 2 of 4.4
Yehieles.
Moved to 4.5_goal 1:
Fb
14.
Performance Standards:
1. For recreational facilities which are structures,the building setback line shall be located a
minimum of one hundred(100)feet inland from the ordinary high water mark, or SbU
(60) feet from the right-of-way of a scenic and recreational drive,or sev -five (75)
feet from the centerline of a dike,whichever is the greater distance inland from the river.
Parking facilities shall be subject to the setback requirement contained in the specific
performance standards for PARIUNG FACILITIES.
321. Public recreational facilities along the Green River(Urban—River Resource
environment) shall provide public access to the water's edge at a minimum of one access
point per mile. No recommended mi im lm public ac&C3s intervals are required in the
Urban—Residential Lake environment_a•�e�) or the Urban-Stream Corridor
em^ronment Big Soos Creek),
4. In the Urban River Resource environment(CY1•een River).ngublic access to the water's
edge shall be provided wherever feasible.
5. Recreational facilities along the Green River shall connect to a trail system along the
entire river.
6. All recreational developments shall matte adagknrovisions for:
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Specific St►oreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 19
12114198
�p11/ • • a ".1 1 • 1 11 • • [ L.1 1 1 • ',1 yl� I
1 71 r `fl • 1 • A - y/ - • 1 • : • : -.;X. 17 V!X„-!a_ 1 • 1 ' / 1 • 11 �,1 [
. II • 1 . I1 rd - 11 ells dlTel H
JI 1 1 1.1 1 - / • 1 • 1 •
11 •. 1 1L,1 1 • Iyl •7131 rem,
1 - Y.1 1 • . I1 1 - �111 1 •_11
1 : i �� 1 • • 1 e - • 1 11 - 1 IV 11 • :. HI • � - 1 • • aa� � 1 •. 4. r.
1 • • • 1 11 - 1 - l el : • - / r el..,a 1 . ., I : �1 ' l 1 1
• - moo
11 �11 ./ 11 1 1 tie e 1 • 1 1 wr r I . l I - - t l
•I 1111 1 ' - •. 1 • =1/.: t: .1 IV II 41.t, r, 1 : [ "'
• rl - • 1 la • 1 ) ./ 11 11 A 1 - •• '•11' la,•,n rf.,•...; � •.: : : X 1 tl, 1 1 " _
a1 • 1 • • X "IL
1 ' 1 '1 11 1 r '..NA /1 �• • 1 - •� : 1 • 1 - • r
•Ie 9\. •. - it 1 - 11 '1l. ,• 1 1 1 MY7 7t 16 1 • A1 1/IY
1 ' . 1 . . 1 1 1 ' 11 la. 1 • 1• ,• /,[• � . 4,1 1 Il. � I 1 • 1 •
I 1 _ • • .,. " 1 \ 1 : I I I I -XI -J M WANW-1l e - I - 1 : it
1 1 111 �XI 1 14 I • 11 1 • 1 1 f 1111 Ito ;Na 1 1 •
11 ea FM t — 1 • 111 7 • 1 • l �Y,.yl r s to„1 �1 : 1.1 . al • 1 - • V. 1 \ 1 1
1111 loll V I 1 / • • 1.• OMM, . �[•/ 11 11 1 I,e,.• r: ' 1 `•1. '� • t-.
- 1 - Me UPS I / 1
• 11 II 1 1 1
mrTom, ir, - - • . 11 `Xr •.y 111 1 • [L,1 (�,. • • 1 '!t• / • 1 .� 1 1 1 • 1 . 1 • • 1
^. I 1 JI y - -,- • .• 1 la:, • [ 1 < '.-1 • I .,,n [., . �I ,- • 1 •. ./1 • 1 - ,- •
1 11 • e . - y 1 .• 1 yia 1 1 1 � 1.1 1 • 111 '�r;rA a dl 1 y1l 1 11 • 1 a\.I
[ I • 111 • I 11 y y • P •JY 11 � - • • 11 81 •A. -1 .I 1 : 1 � '.1 \ / • 1 ' 1 I 1
- II • 1 111 -Me • - 00146N@40111
• I II : I : 1 1 1 1
1 • - 11 1 1 ^). : 1.1 11 11 1 •Y •°,n -+I - •.�1111 t.-.1 1 1,- 1 • l- 1 .
1 • 1 1 e r -11 -1 Y• y : 1 • r .. • 1 r • l r 1/ y :n rN •,a: 11
to / IIt
�,e
� .
i • 11 1 - • e 11 �1 1 1 - 1 _ •.• 11 '11 1 It I Moo, 1 - - • 1 !1 �1
1 �llil 1 4• 1 1 - I / -1 / 1 ' • 1 1 ,:41 • 1 : 1 1
• : vi • oval mk - 1 ' 1 ,",mv,e I -.1 IIS. :,1 1 / 1 • / 1 ' • 1 t ' !
t 1 • l 1 - r .1 • 1 1 1 (h,l ( IJ (' 1 I.:J t11
• 1r,7, M F=IP • q11 j1 W, i 1 ' { A I e.iill :n, 1 : • - • l• 1 • 11 \. 1
I I I
1l 1.. - 1 1 1 � A - • 111 �I • • • 1-;� e.'-11 /' l- 1 �q1 1 �I 1 1
t . ,•. -.1 ./ i - 1 L)1 1 � /.. e 1 11 til : (- 1 / 1 yl 4, 1
1 ar • tll , 1 , !♦1 • mot
1 1 t • 1 . 1 ' : : .� ► M
Irr4t (- 1 1;• • •. .a • 1 . h. '!! 1.. • t • 1 ,yi: /�0 Wit
1 - • 1 11 1 .• 1 1 1 C (- 1 1.: 1. -e 1:1 • 1:- 1 ll.•. • e A •.yl
1 . - • � l" • 1 : 1 / \ 1 1 • 1. -fl ./ 1 I / :g, :J\ 1 • 1 • 1 =11
. ... .
• 1 . 1 \ ♦ • l - 1 • 1 it t 1 1 il,i t 1(.�: 11 • tt 1
' - 1 - I 1 • • 11 =11 ' t - Il s 1 1 it 1 fl tl _ 1 : , 1 • 1 ` 1 1 • :,1 Id
- - t 1 1 il• 11 1 • 1 1 \ 1 • I : a ,1 • 'A e 1 1 1 1 IN 11 i
r . flat) , • '11 1 1 kn t A. I < •it 1 a dl 4► 1 9- / 1 1
1 011 1 -11 N 1 ' • 1 • 1 1 ' y 'JC.•. 9
Sell /1 1 I' I< r - I
1 1+ I . I .N I dl� 1,-. , .f{ I�1 Ili I 1 . I , 1 • 1
Min, •^1'► • 1, •'I l 1 e,• 1/ 1 11 11
• - , - r ,:. 1-111 :11 1 nl�f \.I ..:1 I M.I . , I I
olo
1 K•
' el 1 1 -1 l-.1 N Y 11 i. ^'i l e'! I '. l .[ � C 'J ". I I I �•
1 : 1 1. 1 1 r l',r / I I r.-1 I;I I I.: • l 4,1 I 1 .�. 1 • 1 1 4.
-�/ I .l• • 1 • 1 - 1 1 side I e 1
1 •r l�- �'. rr ri ..' v 'J.,' r1.1 • r r r ' ' r r � � '
1 - -
1 • 1 - r 1 • 1 :,Ile 111 dl . ,I :.1 �R: nlu' ,-1 r Ildl i 1 • 1 -
• , - 11 Ie 1 / .;. 11 . 1 1:. , / 1 . 1 11 1 f<. r . i 1 , , l- , .. .tI . 1 •. 11
I l• i, , • 1 I 11 MI.- 1 r �l % -N • 1.;� . l : X I :.I , I, 1 i I i I- Il 1
• 1 1 • al 'tr 1I I - ,• 111.7I :r1 1 e . " .1/1 X : t i./.1 1 ,on, •+ 11 1 • It al •.
/ • 1 - 1, - •J I r . h1 1 1 tl `11 ./ { n �.:•. 18 1 1 . 1 '1r• 1 Y
: - 1 ; - • 1 • 1 • 1 I 1 �11 �11
" 1 - 1 1 1 all �11 1 - -1K • 1 • - • • -r 1 1 y . II -� -e =I • I =;. • 1 - . Ir,/
• e 1 - ei 1 1 l •. l e - 11 �Jl e l / / : r 1 1 % I ,. 1 / 1 • - • • 1 1 1 % -
• 11 11 - / •
• : • �1 •J 1 " �1/ 1 '
1 �11 • 1 •�11 L / - - 1 1 ' y It r 11 : L.- Ylr .•I e I•" 1 1 Il�:a/ ; y : 1 1 :
•• 1• 1 - 1 / e• r - I/ �f1 I 1 1 • r I :.I . : 1. IU 11 1 - 11 1! - 1 -
I• I _
� - 111 1 • r �l 1 • 1�- q 1 r • r l• � : 1 - 1 ' �l•.• 1 ' 1 • - 1 - 1 1 -
Kent Shoreline Master Program
° meads
Uses and activities related to bulkheads which are identified as separate use activities in this
=gram such as I ANDFILL and RESIDENTIAL DEVFLOPSFNT,are 511bject to the
regulations for those uses in addition to the standards for bulkhead_a established in this section.
° Rock Weirs, ietties. and Groins
These J=es of struc=s obstruct sand and sediment carried by the littoral drift action along
shorelines. Trapping sand will effect plant and animal life to some deg=- in areas of
gjgnificant sand mi,;ation al^ng the s`>orelinr, s_: �v comer acnm&life while he
consequential effects in other areas may be v=small- SeamtL c angel in wind direction-the
locations of sources of beach parent material- and the q an ' f sand and sediment tranned by
such structures affect the degree of impacts they may hgve,
Exemptions
The follow 'na uses and activities related to shoTeline sta ifi ation are exempt from the
rreQltirement to ob ain a substantial develg=ent nw.mit bixt moat otherwise w=4with
a icable Vm3jsions of the Shoreline Aaannaoement Act and the local master=&=- These
exoalWons,along with additional exemWons- are discussed in Chapter 7(Administration)of this
Master Program).
° Normal Protective Bulkhead.
Emergency Construction Nece&%ty To Protect EaMc tv From Dam"C By The Elements,
° Dikes,Ditches and DWnc_Q+eration and Maintenance
Watershed Restoration Proiects
Performance Standards:
eFesiex:
21. Such works shall provide for escapement of fish after high water.
3. AIR f-A-e i eefitml eels shall!
a-
s✓
DRAFT-Kent SAAR Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 23
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
v'
by&0 FiP �1 �
6-
[revised and shown as standard 10 below]
[The preceding performance standards have been replaced by the policies which appear in
Section 4.5 (Shoreline Flood Control Element) and the performance standards as listed below.
Both the policies and regulations expand on the existing standards and are more specific to the
types of shoreline stabilization that Kent is likely to experience in the future. References to
engineering requirements have been removed since these may be more prescriptive than
desirable for successful habitat restoration under existing best management practices]
2. Shoreline stabilization and modification=jects shall provide evidence of all efforts to
avoid adverse impacts to the em^ron_rnent minimize all adverse impacts- and mitigate all
adverse impacts as red nire
>�d by the City, --
3. If MIblic funds are used in the constniction of shoreline sta ili7a ion and protection
projects, including dikes- levees, and flood wails-VMblic rights-of-access to such works
{l sir .i 12rior to construction- if compatible with pro cclion of shoreline resources.
[previously#7 above]
4. Beach Restoration and F. h_ anent
a. Bach enhancement may be Dermitted when to 20licant has demonstrated that
thhe�project will not detrimentally i ten- 0 littrn's_1 processes.redirect waves.
current, or sediment to other shorelines- or adverscly affect a 'acent properties or
habitat,
b. ;Tatural Beach Restoration/Enhancement
i Desizn Standards Natural beach restoration/enhancement shall not:
a. F- `cnu waa erHn=d.3r than th minimum amount necessaZ IQ
achieve the desired stabilization'
b. nisturb si2 ific nt 2mQVW of valuable shallow water fish/wildlife
habitat without arn=date mitigation of the impacts,
24 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specffk Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards
121141'98
•1 � 11 • 11 I 1, . . 11 : .-.11 ' • . - .,1-1 .I • . . 1 1
f •1 - • �1 1 -,:, t ." 1 :.1:R 1.1 11 :, - 1;1 1/.- • 1 =.1 I -
1 1 r 1 1 ♦IM 1 A • r . 1 Too 1 - 11 I / 11 1 • I
1 I y1_ : 1,1 1 •il Ilr I,f
1 1 1 • f 1 1,71_Mrs1 : 1 $T :.1.. .A a 1• .,r v y1:,-
�C 1 1 (: 1 rold. 01471 1 u. ,:.tA �'.Y II -11 : • I i l .1(,; :.�
• 1 - ! 1 :. ./1 1 • -4 tell I go •)doll 11.) (v.: • 1 I I •J 'JI 1 •. 1
• : • yl J 1 - y11
• 1 • -11 •JI .-1f 1 ' 1 • = A ' - 1 ' t 1 1 11 �( .. . •1•.
IIR
f I 1 (
1 : - -.1 . 1 I - y• I ,=1 1l.11 •SI • • J t • .f 1.'11( 1 • i 1
(( .1 i • • _!/ l i s ,� 1 A 1 lam' (. A /1 off
! ! - \ I� t H =11 1 1 _,. 1 I'. 1 . 1 �I - q=py.•.1 1
Fiff
I I 1 : I ' 7 . 1 =.1 i1 1 1 11 • =.1 . 1 11 -i f 1 1 1 11 1
1..(. 1 - �/ U • - - 1 i ,y ,f 1 1 . Me co)1 i R-7,171 IVI =11 1 '
111101mial,., • or.,111 1
. •. 1 \ 11 1 •.I) . f . 1 11 1 11 1 . 1 11 • • 1 11
• 1 • i
1 - I11 -11 �� f•.1
1 -11 f - 111 1 -0 $ - 1 1 ' 01 I >: •(1 I =l y111 dl - 1.' 1 - I =1ll 1111 �t 1
loll 11141111711111 malmns IONS
t 111. • - 111 a1 6r 1 . It -
: .. 1 , - - 111 - I . 1 - - 1 =1111 1 =.1 1.' 1 1 1 A �11 '.1 • - t 1 1 , •
1 - 1 • 1 -
• / - L1 1 ! - . ltl 1.1. >,1 l- $111 .JI 1 % 1 .•.rl.• f:, - . l• / -1 • 1. r dY• , . 1 1
11 .. >.. . 1 .• 11 1 1 1 .
tl1 1 - : 11 • rlyl i1 . •. \ 1 / 1 i1 . 1 . 1 !, •. ! 1
i � • 1 1 �1 1 V •�y[1 u,
�1 tl l. 1 .J[: 1 • 1 1.% 1 1 1 • t U 1 11 1 1 1 1 I r 11 1 ' % 1 • 1
1 - 1 1 - 1 • 1 - ► • 1 �F 11 1 1 1 • 1l8 11 r - Ott
1 -,:,1 • :;: •11 I • • - • • 11 �1 1 ' .1 I 1 111 .tl • 1 =1 % ql 1 - ..
�fl llll yl 1 1 1 1 1 • • �1 r1 1 1 - 1 'I) 1 1 1 1
1 i / -.: / • drll 7 �,• 1 1 1 \/ -11 i '. 1 .,/ r - 1 - 1 r • 1 1 '.• 1 1 1
' 1 � 1 • 1 1 1 � i - 1.1 1 • 1
1 1 C 1 1 1 - .,1 ! 1 • /. . % 4,1 . - \. 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 •_\ 1 ' 1
. a II
�)1 1 tl [ 1 ... . 1 �1 - 1 . 1 1 �) . P,4:. ,., - • '11 1 - 1 1 Il • 1 1
11 • - 1.•. I ! - - 1 • 11 I - . • 1 - 1 • 7 K Mill-
-is
11 . 1 1 t l�l -.-1 •g�: V . . • 1 : \ 1 1 .a 11 - % 1
1 tl • 9l ! - / 1 .• -.1 . ! 1 11 1 - 1 i 1 ♦I ! 1 - 1 - !
r ! - •.1 • 1 1 1 • 1 - • 1 1 . \ 1 1 '1 11 • 1 • 1 : 1 -
1 . 1 - M •1 1
1 [ . • 1 tlltl • 1 :./ 1 • 1 1 1 1 O 11 1 - • - 11
r! - 11 , . 11 1! 1 " r Me 1 " ! 1
� - - 11 - 1 - . 1 1 •.\ 1 • 1 . •. -1 11 . 1 - �� - 1 •. 1
1 � y1 �JII 1 / 1 -: 1. 11 � - tl y1 11 11 4,1 : 1 1 • 1 tl 1 I • 7. 1 ' -
1 r l ' tl 11 11 1 1 r 1 yl 1 1 1 .% • - yl . 1 =1 �11 .- yll - 1
1 1 1 1 1 111 tl ! 1 1 1 • �i �.1 . 1 - : 1 1 r / - 1 1 r tl
Kent Shoreline Master Program
dig=air that iS located more than three (3) fed waterward of the ordin=higb
water mark Renlacement of such bulkheatis shall be located at the ordinary high
water mark.
e. New w l h ads shall be allowed only when evidence is presented l
conclusively demonstrates that one(1)of the following conditions exists:
i. Serious wave erosion threatens an established use or existing building(s)
on uplandproDCUe or
I Kulkheada are necessary to the.gpg aeon anti location of water-dependent
and water related activities consistCat with this master pmgo -provided
that all alternatives have given in_ f>rQ'-ble(Le..u. relocation,ue desiM
nonstnict iral sh^.re c_tahil�on g]?tigW and that such bulkheads meet
othernnlicies and regulations of this chapter or
R=sals for bulkheads have flrst dCMWWnW that use of natural
materials and processes and nonstnictural solutions to bank stabilization
are,muorkable in protecting existina development.
f. When a bulkhead is rewired at a public access site provi4ions for cafe access to
the eater shall be incoroorated into bulkhead design.
9. Stairs or other y=Rted strucfi'res may be built into a bulkhead-but shall not
extend waterward of it.
h rill behind bulkheads shall be limited to an average of one(1) cubic Yard ner
running foot of bulkhead, Any filling in excess of this amount shall be carLhdered
landfill and shall be subi ct to thennalicies 2nel reigulations nMlWning to landfill
activities in this ma_ater=gram and the requirement for obtaining a shoreline
substantial development permit.
6.14 SIGNS
For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, signs include any structure, device, letter,
figure,character, poster,picture,trademark or reading matter which is used or designed to
announce, declare, demonstrate, display or otherwise identify or advertise,or attract the attention
of the public. Signs do not include official notices, direction,warning or information signs
authorized by a court, federal, state or municipal authority.
Policy:
1. Vistas and viewpoints should not be degraded and visual access to the water from such
vistas should not be impaired by the placement of signs.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 27
121i4138
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Performance Standards:
1. Signs shall comply with the City'c sign ordinance (CI ptP* 15.06 KCCI. except as
follows:
a. All signs shall be located and designed to minimize interference with vistas-
im ' is and visual access to the shoreline,
b. TerMrl=or obsolete signs shall be MMgWW wiLbin tan (1Q) d"of elections or
termination of any other fin,etions Kxamp lea of texnynorary signs include* real
estate cicma directions to events-IMlitical advertisements event or holid_y signs
and construction sign,,
2. Allowable Signs The following I es of sigiL MAY be allowed in all shoreline
environments:
a. 'later navigational sigar, and 'ghway_gr_gn necesary for operation. safety and
direction.
b. Public information gisms directly relating to a shoreline use or activity. or
educational and interpretive si,;+c usociated with an adiacent trail system.park_
or open space,
C. Off-pr 'se freestanding signs for community identification, information or
directional purposes•
d, *rational site and institutional flags or temnorary decorations customary for
special holidays and similar events of a pub is afore.
3. Tha IWIRA Prohibited in the shorefine 6igU. The following�i nc are
prohibited in the shoreline environment:
Is. Off-premise signs and billboards;
212. Banners, streamers,pennants and balloons;
3n. Animated,blinking or flashing signs.
d. Signs placed on trees or other natural features,
25. Lighted signs shall be hooded, shaded, or aimed so that direct light will not result in glare
when viewed from surrounding properties or watercourses.
28 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Seodon 6.0-SpeclfPc ShorNJne Use Polk ies and Performance Stand
Kent Shoreline Master Program
6.16 SOLID IWA&FE D18PAfi�4I
[Incorporated into the Utilities section]
6.1615 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Transportation facilities are those stru tures and that aid in land.air, and water
surface movement of pcFle. gn aand services. include,
iaehWiRg but mm-not limited to,-euek-deviess-es-roq d s and
highwjay8- ridges,bikeways. trails,and trestles, and associated develQDment such as ramps or
culverts.
Performance Standards:
1. New rail lines are prohibited within dw&WLshoreline environmen
2. New road and bridge construction in the shoreline jurisdiction shall be rninimi7.ed and
allowed only when related to and necessary for the support of permitted shoreline
activities.
3. FFxp nsion of existing roadways shall be allowed only when the proponent obtains a
conditional use permit and demonstrates trate h
a. No alternative route is feasibleL and
b. The roadway is constructed and maintained to cause the least possible adverse
impact on the land and water environment-
C. The roadway is found to be in the public intent
24. Along the Green River shoreline:
a. Roads extending ajong the shoreline shall be limited to two lanes;
b. Roads extending along the shoreline shall be developed as scenic boulevards for
slow-moving traffic;
C. Roads extending along the shoreline shall provide a trail system separated from
the roadway;
d. All lots and buildings must have road access without using scenic and recreational
roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Plan;
e. Development shall not include street connections to scenic and recreational roads;
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Specific Shoreline Use Policies and Performance Standards 29
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
f. Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed development
to use a scenic or recreational road for access; and
g. Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed
development to use a scenic or recreational road for access.
35.. Whenever feasible, road routes shall make provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
6. Road designs must prol.'de safe pedestrian and rOnanntorized vehicular crossings where
public access to the shoreline and trail systems is intended.
7. Streets within the shoreline juriadiction shall be dC1jBWW with the minimum Slavem
area r� . ed. Gavel and more innovative materials shall be used where feasible for
pathwais and road shoulders to minimize the amount of impermeable surfaces and help
to maintain a more natural appearance.
8. Transportation and Wm= stilily facilities aball be required to make eJioint�of rights-
of-way, and to consolidate crossings of water bodies to minimize adverse impacts to the
shoreline,
9. All debris and other waste materials from roadway construction shall be disposed of in
such a way as to}prevent their entry into any water body.
u
10. Any road expansion affectingstreamc and waterwW shall be designed to allow fish
passage and minimum impact to habitat
Oil. Mechanical apparatus,rather than chemicals, shall be used for brush clearing
maintenance unless it is demonstrated that no feasible alternative exists.
12. Float planes shall conform to all applicable City soles and Federal Aviation
Administration standards and reduiremm1s for fiL:L oil ills nafcw and fire fish in
�q��+pment noise and vehicle and pedestrian and swimmer separation.
13. Heliport facilities and services are prohibited in the Kent shoreline jurisdiction
6.1! 1¢ UTILITIES
Utilities are services or facilities which produce,transmit, or carry electric power, gas, sewage,
communications,water and oil.. The Utilities categ=includes both` rim rV" and"accessory"
utilities Primary utilities_ serve an area beyond the immediAU shoreline jurisdiction such aS
solid waste handling and is- J— ,power genera++ g or asker faoilities�gas distribution lines
' s age facilities- and high tension utility lines. Accesl=utilities provide service to
shoreline uses such as power, ) hone cable water sewer, and stormwater lines and systems.
30 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 6.0-Specific ShonNine Use Policies and Performance St yn
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Performance Standards:
1. Utilities shall be installed underground,unless the applicant clearly demonstrates that this
is not feasible.
2. Utilities shall be installed adjacent to or within existing utility or circulation easements or
rights-of-way whenever feasible.
3. Upon completion of installation or maintenance projects,banks shall be restored to a
suitable configuration and stability, replanted with native species, and provided with
maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established.
4. Where major facilities must be placed in a shoreline arm the location and design shall be
chosen so as not to deW=or obstruct scenic dews. Type of screer>ing r�Quired shall be
determined by the City on a case-by-case basis.
5. Utility facilities shall be located and designed to avoid destruction of. or damage to.
imvortant wildlife areas and other u_niQue�fragile areas.
6. Utility facilities shall avoid distnrhance of unin a and fmaile areiM as well as wildlife
spawning.nesting and rearing areas If no alternative routing of utilities is available.
mitigation measures shall be mQ uir .d.
7. Solid waste disposal is prohibited within the shoreline.
8. The location and construction of outfalls shall comply with all aunropriate federal, state.
co=1y. nd city regulations.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 6.0-Speci£c Shoreline Use Policies and Pertomwnce Standards 31
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
This page is intentionally blank,
32 DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 6.0-SpeaAc Shorobw Use Poikies and Performance Standards
12114198
..............
Kent Shoreline Master Program
7.0 ADMINISTRATION
7.1 PURPOSE
There is hereby established an administrative system designed to assign responsibilities for
implementation of and Shoreline Permit review,to
prescribe an orderly process by which to review proposals and permit applications, and to
ensure that all persons affected by are treated in a
fair and equitable manner.
7.2 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Any person wishing to undertake substantial development within the shoreline shall saubmi1
materials for a=Ml' ahon conference as required reguired under KCC 12 01 040 And 12 01 080 then
sMLapply to the Administrator for a shoreline substantial development permit.
Development is defined by RCW 90.58.03OLUd)to mean a use consisting of the construction
or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling;removal of any sand,
gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling;placing of obstructions; or any project of a
permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the
waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any state of water level.
�.r
Substantial development is any development of which the total cost or fair market values
exceeds two thousand five hundred dollars($2,500.00)or„ for docks built in fresh water.the
fair market value ,or any develonment_which materially interferes
with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state, except for those
developments listed in WAC 173-1.404A 173-27-040.
7.3 EXEMPTIONS
Certain developments are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development
permit. Such developments may-still may-require a variance or conditional use permit, and all
development within the shoreline is subject to the requirements of the Shoreline Master
Program, regardless of whether a substantial development permit is required. Developments
which are exempt from requirement for a substantial development permit are described ills{
RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) and WAC 173 14-940 173-27-040 am include the following
1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value whichever is higher, does
not exceed two thousand five hundred dgilars- if nich development does not materially
Lri of the.:,Ater or 1h-=lines of the a=- For pLrn(]ses of
interfere v�rith the rnr±■_�zt1,u•".,�^� ... -_ ..— -- ---
dete=ining whether or not a permit is mQuired the total cost or fair market value shall be
bNe on the vidue of a nent that is occurring an shorelines of t Ate as defined n
v lornr
RCW 90,58,030 (2,(�(g). The total cost or fir maket v lug of the develgg= chatl
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 7.0-Administration 1
12114198
I I - 1 - 11 : 1T - • . , 1 . 1 : i/ .• 1 17 ! -1 • too 1 .,' >1 1 11 al
11 a1
\ • 111 11.: 1 dl : 1 • 1-1 r.: • • 'P 1 :all 1 (�. • ! :� •1a11,d1 1 1 1 1 all
1 al 1 l • d11:-.1 ..-;! : dl! dl 1 '!r, N1 !l • 1 - IlUll 1 71
(d1 . 1 ah a .1 l-;a. 1 ,dll :,I 1 - ,1;11 11.•,1 lt? 1.a„1 1 ld l.' 1 1 ,/1, • YU 1 C
• 1 - • . 11 -11 :il.l la ld• -dll dl Yll 1 4 el /,-1 a:lrU .•1 .• Illy f^ I - • 1 • 1 •l ,
Y,l 1 • • - •'a lll.dl 1, 1 1 r IJ Il I.-1 • 1; ;v 1 al.- .• 1 1 •/ Y,1 1 1
•, 1 • 1 La a'. d.11 ayy..a f:l1, : I 1 , ,.;, r77s1 7.1 9-:•.d- 1.• 't. ;71 FT11 1 I Vi :.),. ..
j ; • 1 • l 1 - l^� l • dl I l• 1111 �1
• I YII 1 • 1 • 1 1 • •Ili . V 1 - • I �':.• .• of Ii,a.l • 1 - 11 I.dl .!+
1 • 111 •. • N � A • 1 .: 1 1.1 � �11 r J l;:a, .;,.a •1 U a ,l,•,r,' • yl.�.1 1 ' 1 r
• I • I�1 al : dll • I.d- dll ." - ,,a 1 ' .•;1"'11 •f,q1 • l- .• 1 all -1 1 • 11 • -
1.: 1 • 1 ! 11 Wei IFNI I M l l - .,,• • .1.' Pwr,791 In. 07.r 7 411 1 I d1 : 1
1 r1 - r,d / ' lw l:: V,• . .l,1 '11, M. !;1 . :yl
, .• I - 11 7-a 1,1 1 al 1 ti .dr. - 4! . 11, :/. 1 1.• 1 �. 1 r< 1 A 1
1 S a• .: \ • .• 1 YII 1 / 1 • 1 -l• •.• 1•1 ' 1�1 .'.1 1, E. 1� .'.1 1 1 a a1 • f: -1 Y 1 1 1
1 11 1 : r I ' 1 `� 11 '1. 1= . I:�al 1. 'a :1 ! r! .IA`''dl K 11 •fl • 1 1
11 • i•- . L-f' • I,dl 1, laa .,,11..1. r i...:-a 11 1..- •. :.1 • 1 - 1
l .• • 11 li r 1 '.1 11 •. 1 I.a 1 ...R aa..•^.1 ':l 1 r ..-tl '1 1 :;d l-:, ala lY 1 1 f 1 11•
I l• - p.. , J 1.9•h..1l::a 1) 111 ' ! V , I; r.�' I ,,:IA : 1 Yll i R d/1 dl l
d 1 al ./ 1 1 •.• _ l=1 lall al i 1 1 dl 1 - •,N - 1 - •�,al .all/ • -,• • 1 -
� y1 . 1111a1 • avoirMISIAAlreirl
11 a ' al WAVO)OKIIIII 1411141111IL- _:,:. .' r • r (/ .-.el 411,,,1,....11 Il• 'Ito to 100.: • - I 11 - d/1 al
11 a ' .1 .• 1 '11l A 1 1 , •.^. 1 • 1.. ../ 9 1 - Ta:.1av -Flint 1 y. •.dill 1 dl a to -
YIl 1. l-h l ..l a'vs;, iill
1 •,1 11 1 YIY. • •.- 1 - .�.1411• ! /.:. 11., i16' • ^ (q,•,`� la -111 d1' dl Y 1 1 • 1 )•,• 1
• • •, all al • I - -!11 d al. 1 : 1 a 1 1. a -1. :PI 'yl R 1 ,. 1-:11 • -a • : 1 •d111
1 1 . • 1 1 � /.�.dl ld1 1-,1. , , .11 1 -ll..-►'..-+o.N I hY 'il • 1 ae � •11 � 1
-, - - •{ . 1 • , • i - /.. Il. Y:a , 11 '•Y 11 I;,J a' 1.-., -'ll d dl'. .e,l .111 1 • 1 1
1 - • 1 dl .I 1 I,- ..• -. • 1 ! ,d �1 ( ya "�1,! I •. : 11 y,d I V 'af% 11
' al aC• 11 1 a •.•.a 1 ' 1 1 1 d a:. 1.. el I: 11 a : I 1: 1 1 •: -,1 :,, 1 11 •�
1.•. l 1• 11 rl 1 dl I . . I all ar dl
• 1 Yll. 1 • / : I,1 ! f:.•11 ..+ 1 • 11, • 1 � ::r •, '�/11 , 11 1 • 1 - 1 1 Y 1. 1 1 a
1 / 1 1 1 1 + °-,/ aj + f- .dr1 - l•,: 1 f. I A i a 1 .: 1 1 1 . l- :. 1 / ,• 1 YMI. •fl • 1 •
• . 11 • 11 •.',1 1 1� ill •14 l : Ii9 11 ,• a c.)ol all I 1 n,,.1 11< 1 ai' 1 - • 11 •.1 • 1
it 1. - 1 wro 1 • 1, 1 • 11 :• • , - ,.a 11 ml! 1 • A d. • 1 • 11 a . 1 • 1
• 11 11 al 1 la M t I,df: 1 6)1 • I - .•JI !1, 1 :"I .i, a1 1. I - 1 ' • 1 1 • I 1 a
1 - 4 1.• ./I 1 l;~:!, : Ile n 1:/ 1/! A '.'1 .,l 1 ' I,o, I, r1), ' , dlgl 1 • 111
1 -i -' . r . 111 1 • f' 1, 11 1 •f1 I , .• . 1.,:-a i:,ai I,. ,1 til� •Y Il- • . .�1
,. , . • - • ,d 1 • -1 U .fir 1 T1 •: 1 'af^ 1 Y : •. • • / a !: .-,•
1 , • ( • - 1. . 7I• ./ 1 • Nl• 1 • • :1 1 •,1 U a-Y�. , 4,-. / • , 1 . LY ! •
•, 1 .'^r.l • YI Or IJ11 C
• • IYII 1 . 1 • 11 h1 1 ,• 1 • I 1 • 1 a A
Ia• 11 11 • ! < • all al 1 • ! � • 1 / • 1 • 1 • . �• 1 � 1.• 1 1 - 11 � ati 1 • 1 1 •
1 •
yl• 1p1 , • 1 ..ItF;lo, : , , 1 : 1 / .IIa A. w• 1.,;:« e t 1 : :,d • 1 • - 11
• . 1 • 1,-•j Y'11 . 1 1 t-+1 1 dA•." 1 •.:� 1 • :��1
JjJ,1TFq LTD livr4pml if! -I.
t:.! tau al • 1 �t -.
• 1 YIt 1 • 1 1,• 1 -.• A a t aAl Ill , I 1 q 1. :,1 :1, 1 (1 • / - • 1 1
• 1 lot 1 • 1 • fTg7qF4j1. 1
A 1 .• 11 F1. II + AJ. L;ca 'AI :,1 I,• 1 :;: Y t NY• 1 • 1
LTA
11 11 :t 1 1 - • .I l..y f- •. •;. 1 k•S.F{ . • 1 : :.. 1 ; Y 1 • -
. „ • ! 1 q 1 1 '
:111 h:1 1ra1 a- �I -}..,�r.�F •J/ ai.n. I Ilal -1n 1
If •. - • 1,
a 1,,, 1.1.:!.: F,• a• .:w :�1 a:•,� rvall m.,1 :�;: 1 1.1.1 • • . :� a
.1,'.-,• :1 .. 11 ' y / Ill A.:. I n • 11 I ..ai ( •./. �l:'.:JI r • t`• • 1 •l I 1 1 1 V1 l 1
Ill 1 • D •..N f- ./ 1 A / r;4..� • PIfiF < yA •il • 1 I)! • 1 7H NI • 1 1
/ ,:,• al !I Il 111 1:. 1.. • 1 ' id vl e.y,a,lA ,� 1y •.•111 all • 11 IId .- •
• �11 ar • 1 11 1 al � I,.- • 1 I.YII 1 • 1 • , .::I�. 1 ;: 1 a..a\ • 1• � � 1 �)
�Y aH • 1 - 1 ! 11 � • • IId.-�. • 111 , N.+ � 1 Vl t .^.I/ . :. aF 1 1 1 1-1t II i • 1•
1•Io l Y • "�I Ul• 1 1 . •. a 1 / 11 r - I• • 'll) 1 � 1 1
1 71 II 1 • • II tAl l.at, I:r • .1 11 ab . ( :� : .�1 Y F :1 I J . 1 al 1 11 � 1.. 1 • 1 •:;.
I • 911 1 Ial/ at .I 11 . /11 11I-K%j wig 't l - • 1 . a
�ILaI% 1 •.1 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 ,I,a.
tar 1 . • I arM1
- 1 1 • • 1 I • � 1 1 . al Nt- t ,.1 1 :ll- ./l F,v,• • 1 d1 • ! 11 ! 1 . � •
•_! , �� a r• / 1 • 1 ,. 1 gall
1 • U : ./ 1 : .atl 1
• 1 1(1,11 1 - • all. all Wi i t
- , 1 • . 1 • 1 1 1 A • 1 • 1 1 I 1 . 1 : :11 Il l^Ih1 . 1 td1 . •:_I • 1 1 1
. Ln • 111 1 1 • anal i• � • I�JI I,Ia :.::a:..=dam - : . a/ u : a
• a , u
�y1 14 I hd. 1 • 1 a� a J n 1 - 11 Mtll : 1 1 • 1 ! al-
1 MI - '. / I A •I I� - 1 • ••1 1 : , : 1 �;:, 11 F,:.. . 1 1 al / t•JI 11 al 1 / I •
• !1 11 �.1 1 1 1 . MUM
1 1 • • - 1, 1 ♦ •. .a 1 I► 11 77 1 � 1
•1 1 , \ 1777,79 1 { 1.' 1 , I;1 . '�1 '.•1 , {- : 1,1 I!.•)1 . 11 • - 1 • /
1 1 1 / \ t - : 1 • 1 1 • I II 1 • 1 (- ITY • lq•
1 : • 1 - dl i \ 1 • 1 .� • I!11,-111 ' It.111 1,• 1 A1 :I 1 q 1 I / 1 1:f •./ Y.
.dlI 1 Itl : I - Li 1.1. • 1 U I 1 -'.. 1 I,d /.1 «,./, • 1 1 I IT'!•l• 1. 1 \ . 1 � I, .
1 '1 1 1 1 • yl: l 1 :. 1 - � 1 - l'b '';i C':! I• IIIS'!. :°1 1 '. .1 1 1 1 {ll % 1 1
-yy to
■ - 1 / \ 1•, • : • 1 /ablll -1 N"11.81 . : y1 :1 1
I I U..:;.- • ltlh;• / e • Y,YJ I.I i 1.' °' '�I I •, f :=1. I..J/ L�1 1 1
• 1 1 / l}. ' 1 1{ • ; 1 1 �O 1 • • M1- 11 Ili,tl 11.::11 •,1 111;I. ." 1 • q�1
i 1 1 1 1 t l o)W N :pl„1 -• 1 I 1 ' 'tl I IUI tF., !'III 1111 ,',M :!11 -II 1 •
1 y• PII 'dl I �l! 1, 1 1 1 I,yl : •111.,.+,1 • - .1 1 •.1. I 1 ./ 1 1 1 y ' �11
♦ : .ti f, I n1 (:. 1 -
•• ski '1.:19 ./
11AW 'i(I)III- Ill ' './ 1 = 1 •n,il ! 1"1;1.: `,I �1^tN IJIA A ',II ! 1 /. 1
l=:,-1 / 1 ' 11 <. !.p"� ' 1,.-. �. '• • 1-1/ "l'. II l-:x .. f I,») . 'fnu 1 • 1 tlf 11 I •1• 1
� • 11 1 - /.% _.' • y• , 1 ' 11 111..T.71 '. l�1Y. • �111 . 1 .11 • • % =1D1 =.1
a gas) oil 11 WPM
i : • • . 1 1 1 11 : 1 { / 11 < • { II.L" I `. i 1 I 11 {lU - 1 1 • •I 1
•1' I U =.•'i 1.• •.=.d1 •t/ll l• :1 1 .I1 1 1 ' I 1,- ��.J1 : lllt =J1 1 1 % 1 1 1
1 ♦:+,.... r I 1' lil/l CI dll :!fIIKQjjpWjtT .1.I '. • ..: slow. 1" 11 Of
11I- t11t�1 It1 ,i�1 • .1111 :./ 1. R .`11.1,--• 1 II.1 ','
• •1 • lI til 1.% l�. �1 1 ♦I Y•. • o: : Ij Ms • 1 yl : loll :11 no 1 11
• • D i 1 • M. .d 1 "
1 - =1111 Lz1 1 % 1 1 1 = • 1 Y �11 ./ 1 1 -
�I � •. 1 =11111 �11 Ir.. y•�
1 • l 1 tl .:J •1P.'♦f: 11 •1 - /. .' 't• :111111 yl 1 : 11 % . 1 1 $ =.411 1 •, / 1 1
1 11 11 l 1 1 P •. 1 1 I Ctl 11 1 - , y • Y I 11 : wtoolo,
11 '"17I �1/ ';I 3 111 1t - I;Y.II -/. (: Ia• y '!1
1 1 . For%RF. y• • • P 1 . 1 1 .•J:,:,1 • " l=,- • N =1 • ..V1:.�1 • lI y 1 •.
• • 1• i. 1 •. .1 • a 1 1 1 : ♦ • • 1 / =J• P11 yl W38 .,• • '- . I -j1
. 11 ♦ h1 - P. : ltll 1 • • Laila
1 • 1 1 1 I ./ t 1 - . =11 S� f Il 1 % Y 1 1 11 =•If. • 11 • •, 1 1 •y : 1 1
l-.1 4=111 yl • IJ • .d it � ♦ yl 1 -1 ♦
1/J. y LV '♦K 11
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Whenever a development is determined to be exempt from the requirement for a substantial
development permit and the development is subject to a U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Section
10 or Section 404 Permit,the Administrator shall prepare a Letter of Exemption in accordance
with WAC 173-27-050, and shall transmit a copy to the applicant and the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
NOTE: EXEMPTION FROM SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXEMPTION FROM THE
POLICIES AND USE REGULATIONS OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT ACT,THE PROVISIONS OF P48-MAST-OR
DD nnD AL.filL'Ai'1',C ASTER PR pgOGg AM-AND OTHER APPLICABLE
CITY, STATE OR FEDERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
7.4 PERMIT PROCESS
1. The Administrator shall provide the necessary application forms for shoreline
substantial development,variance and conditional use permits.
�. Shoreline substantial development permits are a Process iI aolication and sha11 be
processed and subject to the applicable regulations of ChVter 12.01 Kent City Code.
Shoreline conditional_use Rermits and variances are classified as Process III a,*=plications
and shall be subject to the requirements of Chanter 12.01 Kent City Code,
3. Public notice.
A41 Bush 09tiess dW1 iffelude&9W@ffiwt that mAjob*a d4ty days ef the final pablioafien
A mortice of�.,,,t;o�t;on s all be issued for all
shoreline permit puolications as providad for in Kent City Code section 12.01,140.
excepting that the public comment for the notice of application for a shoreline
DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 7.0-Administration 5
1211415E
Kent Shoreline Master Program
==it snarl be not less than thin(3Q)dW =W C 171_27_110(2)(c) The notice of
application shall be Vested on the site per K499Kent City Code 12.01.1011
4. Application review. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for
substantial development pemlits, and recommendations on applications for conditional
use or variance permits based upon: (1)the policies and procedures of the Shoreline
Management Act and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; and(2)
the Kent Shoreline Master Program.
5. Administrator action. The Administrator shall make decisions on applications for
substantial development permits. All such decisions shall be in writing, and shall be
issued no sooner than fojjy_five(45)lra10ndat days from thetgthe City
determines the application to be complete.
6. Public hearings. The Administrator shall schedule an open public hearing before
the Kent Hearing Examiner on an application for a ghotgli ae conditional use UcEmiLor
variance pert-,1xx the nracedures outlined in K�Kmt City Code 12 01 160 and KCC
232. Notices of the hearing shall
he advertised and scheduled in
accordance with the provisions of KCC 12.01.140(Hy,
7. Hearing Examiner action. The Hearing Examiner shall review an application for a
permit and make decisions regarding permits based upon: (1)the Kent Shoreline Master
Program; (2)the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act(Ch. 90.58
RCW) and related sections of the Washington Administrative Code; (3)written and oral
comments from interested persons;eW4)the comments and findings of the
Administrator; and(5)KCC.2 3Z
The Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision within f'eea4een-10 workin¢days
from the date of the hearing, in accordance with KCC 2 32.
8. S#ate Fey4ew.Filing g withDoartment of Ecology.
Atl8,,,++•+licatio s for a permit or
permit revision shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology I'M a final decision
by the City. Final decision by the City hall mean the order, or ruline_whether it be an
approval or denial. which is establiabed after sill IwAl skdministrative=eals related to
the p=it have concluded or the M=rWWV to initiate such a=ls bag lanced When
a substantial deveg=ent R=it aid a conditional use or variance permit is required.
the submitW shall L due concurrently. A a=lete submittal to the Department of
F,cology shall consist of the following:
6 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Administration
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
a. A copy of the complete application pursuant to WAC 173-27-180;
b. Findings and conclusions that establish the basis for the decision including but not
limited to identification of shoreline environment designation, applicable master
program policies and regulations and the consistency of the project with
appropriate review criteria for the type of permit(s) as established in WAC 173-27-
140 through 173-27-170;
C. The final decision of the local government;
d. The permit data sheet required by WAC 173-27-190;and
e. Where applicable, local government shall also file the applicable documents
required by chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act, or in lieu
thereof, a statement summarizing the actions and dates of such actions taken under
chapter 43.21C RCW.
deeisiefi' ne e variance U=it hall
deeiaie�r—Amer iocai auirov�r ^f� ^^^�itio 1 use or va_ a�e� the-City�_
submit the permit to the )e6ar�'�`ent of R^-^ggy�the ent's ano�oval.
annroval with conditional or denial; as dad in WAC 173-27-200. The denartmeIIt
shall transmit its final decision to local govemMag and ft Mlicant AS ANAI
within Jbia(30)calendar dgys of the date of submijW by local government,
9.
' . Each nennit issued by the Ci V
shall contain a= ision that con_strnction nL iant to the permit shall not begin and is
not authorized until twenty-one(21)dys from the date of filling with the Department of
Ecology per WAC 173-2744-190. "Dates of filing, of the QV's finW decision differs
from date of filing for a conditional uge permit or variance. In the case of a variance or
conditional use permit,the "date of filing" means the date the Department of Ecology's
final order on the permit is transmitted to the City.
10. Duration of permits.
Construction.Q*t rice or activity. Shall commence
within two Uj-yeam after approval of the permits.
A rthorization to conduct development ACLWties sh2lI terminate within five(5) -years
Aer the effective date of a shoreline hermit The Administrator may authorize a single
extension before the end of either of these time periods,with prior notice to parties of
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Administration 7
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
record and the Department of Ecology, for up to one(lyear based on reasonable
factors.
11. Compliance with permit conditions. When permit approval is based on conditions, such
conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior to
commencement of a nonstructural activity.
7.5 APPEALS
1. Local appeals. Any decision made by the Administrator on a substantial development
permit, or by the Hearing Examiner on a conditional use or variance permit shall)1�
final unless au gpprAl is made. Decisions may be appealed to the City ouncil bye
applicant,or a private or public organization or indivi
shall be V=essed in sec -'=nce with y&AaL=City Code Section 12.01,190, Such
appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and the Administrator within on fourteen(141
galendar days of the decision being appealed, and must be accompanied by the required
filing fee.
2. Shoreline Hearings Board. After the local appeals process has been exhausted,persons
aggrieved by the grant, denial,rescission or modification of a permit may file a request
for review by the Shoreline Hearings Board in accordance with the review process
established by RCW 90.58.180, and with the regulations of the Shoreline Hearings
Board contained in Ch. 461-08 WAC, The request for review must be filed with the
Hearings Board within 30 Men--one(2 1)days of the date of filing of the local permit
decision with the Department of Ecology.
7.6 VARIANCE PERMITS
1. Purpose. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from
specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the-WaM
PFOgF-9m-Kent'q Master ProgM= and where then are extraordinary or unique
circumstances relating to the gbylical GhE=ter or configgrafionjQLproperty such that
the strict implementation of would impose
unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the Shoreline Management Act
policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020. Construction pursuant to a variance permit shall
not begirt,nor can construction be authorized,except as provided in RGW
I8:58.02AWAC 173-27-190._In all instances,extraordinary circumstances shall be
shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2. Application.
abeve,Shore ine variances are classified as Procen TIT a0 irj9ons and are subject to
the regnirements of the Kent City Code Cha= 12 01, WA . 173-27-180. nd ion
7.4 above.
8 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 7.0-Adminis melon
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. Criteria. Variance permits may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate
all of the following:
a. That the strict Mpp]igati=peeats-of the bulk, dimensional,or performance
standards set forth in K g:Lthe-master program precludes or significantly
interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the
faas4eF pFegFamKcat'q Master Program.
b. That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is
the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural
features and the application of the meow ppegmmKent's Master Pro and
not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
C. That the design of the project isw4-lie compatible with other
a1donT aeuvities M=Lm the area end yv"'h Las planned for the area under the
comUrehensive plan And master progftm. and will not cause adverse effects to
adjacent properties or the shoreline environment.
d. That the variance permit will not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary
to afford relief.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
f. Variance permits for development that will be located either waterward of the
ordinary high water mark or within des;be, s o-sw apsH&Jands, as
+h ,. ._.Tr +'e Mastte Program, may be authorized only
defined in ,_"� .�..... .,,..�--�-
if the applicant can demonstrate items g through e of this section, and:
i. That the strict application of the hulk im sio al. or performance
standards set forth in dais wAmwpfeg mKent's Master ProgLam
preclude ail reasonable permitted use of the property; and
ii. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
g. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For
example, if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area
where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shalleuW also
remain consistent with the policies of FBI:-RCW 90.58,=-RA2W and should
knot ppedaee-cause substantial adverse effects on-IQ-the shoreline
environment.
h Variances from the use regulations of Kent's Master program are=hibited.
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 7.0-Administration 9
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
7.7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
1. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in
varying the application of the use regulations of dw suosf pro ent's
Pror;;nl in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020,4%*7ade ,
PAW
Jn
authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the
City or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use
and/or to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and
Kent's Master Promwn. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the mosteF
pfegcaaxKent's Master Progm may not be authorized
12ursuant to either WAG 173-27-060(1) or(2).
2. Application.
see6en e Can itional I Jae Permits are a Process III armtica ion per
Kent City Code Ch ter 12.01, and section 7.4 above.:
3. Uses are classified as conditional uses if they are (1)designated as such elsewhere in
s faaste-pfe _.vent''Master Progom or(2)consistent with the-anderlyi3g
Standffda,reQuirements of this section and the reairements for conditional use
contained .n ihia master==ram per WAC 173-27-160(31. ---
4. Uses classified as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant can
demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the proposed use b3 i&consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020
and the peliaiese€-die-Kent s Master Program;
b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public
shorelines;:
C. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project w -b�is_compatible
with other pe>seitted•authorjzed uses within the area and with uses planned for
the area under the comDrehensive plan and shoreinne master nroaram::
d. That the proposed use will cause no umvesenel-l}si>iilifiG�ut.adverse effects to
the shoreline environment desigm6en in which it is to be located;:
e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
5. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if
conditional use permits were granted to other developments in the area where similar r,
10 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 7.0-Ad rink tratlon
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses s1 sWLalso remain consistent
with the policies of 4@h:RCW 90.58 RGW-and should shall not produce substantial
adverse effects ee-?,Qthe shoreline environment.
6. Uses which are not classified or set forth in the master p- Kent'g Master Pro
may be authorized as conditional uses,provided the applicant can demonstrate, in
addition to the criteria set forth in section 7.24 above,
Pr -egalali
e€-the PregffiM:_co sistC=with he LCQLirernents of this section a_nd the requirements
for con itionW„sec contained in this master=BE=
7. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this program may not be authorized.
(Note: this is
already stated in 7.7.5 above)
7.8 NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENT
1. Nonconforming development shall be defined and regulated according to the provisions
of WAC "'�99 173-27-080.
7.9 AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER PROGRAM
Any provision of may be amended as provided for
in chapter 90.58 RCW and chapter 1734.92fi WAC. Amendments or revisions to the?1469
Pro Fi,Kent's Master Progm, as provided by law,do not become effective until approved by
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Proposals for shoreline environment redesignations(i.e., amendments to the shoreline maps and
descriptions)must demonstrate consistency with the criteria set forth in WAC 173-16-040 and
this program.
7.10 SEVERABILITY
If any provisions of ,or its application to any person
or legal entity or parcel of land or circumstances, is held invalid,the remainder of the faast
j %Kent's Master Proms, or the application of the provisions to other persons or legal
entities or parcels of land or circumstances, shall not be affected.
DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 7.0—AdnWhistration 11
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
This page is intentionally blank.
12 DRAFT—Kent SMP.Section 7.0—Administradon
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
8.0 ENFORCEMENT
8.1 VIOLATIONS
1. It is a violation of the Kent Shoreline Master Program for any person to initiate or
maintain or cause to be initiated or maintained the use of any structure, land or property
within the shorelines of the City of Kent without first obtaining the permits or
authorizations required for the use by this Chapter.
2. It is a violation of this Chapter for any person to use, construct, locate, or demolish any
structure, land or property within shorelines of the City of Kent in any manner that is not
permitted by the terms of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter,
provided that the terms or conditions are explicitly stated on the permit or the approved
plans.
3. It is a violation of this Chapter to remove or deface any sign,notice, compliant or order
required by or posted in accordance with this Chapter or Chapter 12.12A.
4. It is a violation of this Chapter to misrepresent any material fact in any application,plans
or other information submitted to obtain any shoreline use or development authorization.
5. It is a violation of this Chapter for anyone to fail to comply with the requirements of this
�-' Chapter.
8.2 DUTY TO ENFORCE
1. It shall be the duty of the Administrator to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator may
call upon the police, fire,health,or other appropriate City departments to assist in
enforcement.
2. Upon presentation of proper credentials, the Administrator or duly authorized
representative of the Administrator may,with the consent of the owner or occupier of a
building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued inspection warrant, enter at
reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent or warrant to perform
the duties imposed by the Shoreline Master Program or this Chapter.
3. The Shoreline Master Program shall be enforced for the benefit of the health, safety and
welfare of the general public, and not for the benefit of any particular person or class of
persons.
4. It is the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to place the obligation of complying with
its requirements upon the owner, occupier or other person responsible for the condition of
the land and buildings within the scope of this Program.
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Secdon&0-Enforcement 1
12/14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
5. No provision of or term used in the Program is intended to impose any duty upon the City
or any of its officers or employees which would subject them to damages in a civil action.
8.3 INVESTIGATION AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
1. The Administrator or his/her representative shall investigate any structure,premises or
use which the Administrator reasonably believes does not comply with the standards and
requirements of the Shoreline Master Program.
2. If after investigation the Administrator determines that the Program's standards or
requirements have been violated,the Administrator shall serve a Notice of Violation on
the owner,tenant or other person responsible for the condition. The Notice of Violation
shall provide:
a. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of violation and the damage
or potential damages; and
b. A notice that the violation or the potential violation must cease and desist or, in
appropriate cases,the specific corrective action to be taken within a given time;
and
C. A notice that the required corrective action shall include, if appropriate,but shall
not be limited to,mitigating measures such as restoration of the area and
replacement of damaged or destroyed trees.
3. The Notice shall be served upon the owner, tenant or other person responsible for the
condition by personal service,registered mail, or certified mail with return receipt
requested, addressed to the last known address of such person. If, after a reasonable
search and reasonable efforts are made to obtain service,the whereabouts of the person or
persons is unknown or service cannot be accomplished and the Administrator makes an
affidavit to that effect,then service of the Notice upon such person or persons may be
made by:
a. Publishing the Notice once each week for two (2) consecutive weeks in the City's
official Newspaper; and
b. Mailing a copy of the Notice to each person named on the notice of violation by
first class mail to the last known address if known, or if unknown, to the address
of the property involved in the proceedings.
4. A copy of the Notice shall be posted at a conspicuous place on the property, unless
posting the notice is not physically possible.
5. The Administrator may mail, or cause to be delivered to all residential and/or
nonresidential rental units in the structure or post at a conspicuous place on the property,
2 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Enforcement
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
a notice which informs each recipient or resident about the Notice of Violation, Stop
Work Order or Emergency Order and the applicable requirements and procedures.
6. A Notice or an Order may be amended at any time in order to:
a. Correct clerical errors,or
b. Cite additional authority for a stated violation.
8.4 EFFECTIVE DATE
Any notice of violation issued under this Chapter which contains an order to cease and desist
shall be effective immediately upon receipt by the person to whom the Notice is directed.
8.5 TIME TO COMPLY
1. When calculating a reasonable time for compliance,the Administrator shall consider the
following criteria:
a. The type and degree of violation cited in the Notice;
b. The stated intent, if any,of a responsible party to take steps to comply;
C. The procedural requirements for obtaining a permit to carry out correction action;
d. The complexity of the correction action,including seasonal considerations,
construction requirements and the legal prerogatives of landlords and tenants; and
e. Any other circumstances beyond the control of the responsible party.
2. Unless a request for remission or mitigation of the penalty before the Administrator is
made in accordance with Section 8.8,the Notice of Violation shall become the final order
of the Administrator. A copy of the Notice shall be filed with the Department of Records
and Elections of King County. The Administrator may choose not to file a copy of the
Notice or Order if the Notice or Order is directed only to a responsible person other than
the owner of the property-
8.6 CEASE AND DESIST WORK ORDER
Whenever a continuing violation of the Shoreline Master Program will materially impair the
Director's ability to secure compliance with the Program, or when the continuing violation
threatens the health or safety of the public,the Director may issue a Cease and Desist Order
specifying the violation and prohibiting any work or other activity at the site. A failure to
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Ento►cement 3
12/14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
comply with the Cease and Desist Order shall constitute a violation of the Shoreline Master
Program.
8.7 EMERGENCY ORDER
Whenever any use or activity in violation of this Code threatens the health and safety of the
occupants of the premises or any member of the public,the Administrator may issue an
Emergency Order directing that the use or activity be discontinued and the condition causing the
threat to the public health and safety be corrected. The Emergency Order shall specify the time
for compliance and shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the property, if posting is
physically possible. A failure to comply with an Emergency Order shall constitute a violation of
the Shoreline Master Program.
Any condition described in the Emergency Order which is not corrected within the time specified
is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and the Administrator is authorized to abate such
nuisance summarily by such means as may be available. The cost of such abatement shall be
recovered from the owner or person responsible or both in the manner provided by law.
8.8 REVIEW OF PENALTY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
1. Any person incurring a penalty imposed in a notice of violation issued by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 8.3 may obtain a review of the penalty by making
application for remission or mitigation of the penalty within fifteen(15)days after
service of the notice. When the last day of the period so computed is a Saturday, Sunday
or federal or City holiday,the period shall run until five p.m. (5:00 p.m.)on the next
business day. The application shall be in writing, and upon receipt of the application, the
Administrator shall notify all persons served with the Notice of Violation and the
complainant, if any, of the date,time and place set for the review,which shall be not less
than ten(10)nor more than twenty(20) days after the application is received, unless
otherwise agreed by all persons served with the Notice of Violation. Before the date set
for the remission or mitigation hearing incurring a penalty in the Notice of Violation may
submit any written material to the Administrator for consideration at the review.
2. The review will consist of an informal review meeting held at the Planning Department
offices. A representative of the Administrator who is familiar with the case and the
applicable ordinances will attend. The Administrator's representative will explain the
reasons for the Administrator's issuance of the Notice and will listen to any additional
information presented by the persons attending. At or after the review, the Administrator
may remit or mitigate the penalty only upon a demonstration of extraordinary
circumstances, such as the presence of information or factors not considered in setting the
original penalty. The Administrator may also choose to continue to review to a date
certain for receipt of additional information.
4 DRAFT-Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Enforcement
12114198
r Kent Shoreline Master Program
3. The Administrator shall issue an Order of the Director containing the decision on the
penalty within seven(7) days of the date of the completion of the review and shall cause
the same to be mailed by regular first class mail to the person or persons named on the
Notice of Violation,mailed to the complainant, if possible, and filled with the
Department of Records and Elections of King County.
8.9 EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DATE
The Administrator may grant an extension of time for compliance with any Notice or Order
whether pending or final,upon the Administrator's finding that substantial progress toward
compliance has been made and that the public will not be adversely affected by the extension.
An extension of time may be revoked by the Administrator if it is shown that the conditions at
the time the extension was granted have changed,the Administrator determines that a party is not
performing corrective actions as agreed, or if the extension creates an adverse effect on the
public. The date of revocation shall then be considered as the compliance date.
8.10 APPEAL OF CIVIL PENALTY
1. Right of Appeal. Persons incurring a penalty imposed by the City may appeal the same
to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
2. Timing of Appeal. Appeals shall be filed within thirty(3adays of receipt of the Notice
of Violation unless an application for remission or mitigation is made to the
Administrator. If such appeal is made, appeals must be filed within thirty days of
receipt of the Administrator's decision regarding the remission or mitigation.
8.11 CIVIL PENALTY
1. Additional Relief. In addition to any other sanction or remedial procedure which may be
available, any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provisions of this
Chapter shall be subject to a cumulative penalty in the amount of one thousand dollars ($
1,000). Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required
permit shall constitute a separate violation.
2. Persons Incurring Penalty. Any person who,through an act of commission or omission
procures, aids, or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation
for the purposes of the civil penalty.
3. Penalties Due. Penalties imposed by this section shall become due and payable thirty
(DI-days after receipt of notice imposing the same unless application for remission or
mitigation is filed. Whenever an application for remission or mitigation is made,
penalties shall become due and payable thirty LlUdays after receipt of the
DRAFT—Kent SMP:Section 8.0-Enforcement 5
12(14/98
Kent Shoreline Master Program
Administrator's decision regarding the remission or mitigation. Whenever an appeal of a
penalty is filed,the penalty shall become due and payable upon completion of all review
proceedings and upon issuance of a final decision confirming the penalty in whole or in
part.
4. Enforcement of Penalty. The penalty imposed by this section shall be collected by civil
action brought in the name of the City. The Director shall notify the.City Attorney in
writing of any penalty owed the City and not paid within thirty LUJdays after it becomes
due and payable, and the City Attorney shall,with the assistance of the Administrator,
take appropriate action to collect the penalty.
5. Mitigation of Penalty. The violator may show as full or partial mitigation of liability:
a. That the violation giving rise to the action was caused by the willful act, or
neglect,or abuse of another; or
b. That correction of the violation was commenced promptly upon receipt of the
notice thereof,but that full compliance within the time specified was prevented by
inability to obtain necessary materials or labor,inability to gain access to the
subject structure, or other condition or circumstance beyond the control of the
defendant.
8.12 CRIMINAL PENALTIES
In addition to incurring the civil liability under Section 8.11 above, any person found to have
wilfully engaged in activities in violation of the Shore Master Program shall be guilty of a gross
misdemeanor, and shall be punished pursuant to RCW 90.58.220 by a fine of not less than
twenty-five nor more than one thousand dollars($25.00_-_$1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not
more than ninety(20�days, or by both such fine and imprisonment: PROVIDED,that the fine
for the third and all subsequent violations in any five year period shall not be less than five
hundred nor more ten thousand dollars($500.00-$10,000.00).
8.13_ADDITIONAL RELIEF
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be
liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost
of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The Administrator may request
that the City Attorney shall bring suit for damages on behalf of the City under this section. The
Administrator may also seek legal or equitable relief to enjoin any acts or practices and abate any
condition which constitutes or will constitute a violation of the Shoreline Master Program when
civil or criminal penalties are inadequate to effect compliance.
6 DRAFT-Kent SMP.Section 8.0-Entort enwt
12114198
Kent Shoreline Master Program
APPENDIX A: Kent Shoreline Jurisdiction Maps
DRAFT-Kent SMP:Appendix A 1
12114196
-•
KEN T
• Y� f•, _._� �r� �---L--��=- •;,�__ {✓,
GREEN RIVER
fit
SHORELINE
SHORELINE
As s BxoBEUNs ss of rxE aREu+RsvEss
w. ARE DOWNAT M�.e�al..lIVI�L�NI�Ce
a
.JJ
I •
.� LEGEND
AUZ— s
KENT CITY LIMITS
200, BHDRE BUFFER
GREEN RIVER
i 1
1
I 1 w • _.✓
_ ww
I '
• 1
` l `
� t
Y,I,{MwMI�IY..w.l.IYLT 1.1.
1`�
zz 3
a m f r
€ ❑ D�
152 Rv SE_
,t>: oaaa4a�rnaan
IN
Q '_('•'� 1 1 �•��
�i`O N• l :n'S
RfY_pAl \ N�
•AIY� '1S'•M 4hT - %v ra
-- y c`
DI u
cn
_� a-
-- " o
• Cyr
BOA �l _ y �„ rt• .' ti QC 1
as
��► r R I
-:_ 3S IN rr raj Y",.i• `
Rtl OhlQ Ott—
to
--S_- •,�1:. r, :.� - —r— r 0
�• 1
ev
39 AN SSt
i
11,
f-:�4.tr�s •`' ' o 4 _ -{ ''v ZZ
C'A
9f1
_ ,�• . tit Q—;;i— ' :
to
R n�
SS •tl S[l
it he
ej
N C
N N � I -
yy n
• �ti:� - • - T� ty � �
1poo 9 �' :.a•�..•+!Vo� d`I I` ,
xLam.
get
z
lip
cn
co
NI
N N I
4100
........
Willi
al
.07
r13
C:A
C3 r
Dip
lk Ali
40
as l
17
.... .........
Qgia
pro.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 5
Lake Meridian and by having commercial services on 116th, would decrease traffic flow towards the
other shopping centers. He reiterated safety concerns for the residents within the area and noted that the
property is not suited for single family use. Mr.Bell stated that the developer would pick up the cost
associated with increased traffic. He stated that he hoped the city,developer and property owner would
work out an agreement that would benefit both the property owners,and homeowners.
Sharon Woodford voiced her support for commercial development but voiced her impression that as the
neighbors to the south had not attended the hearing; they must not be concerned with the development on
this property.
Tent'Zimmerman supported staff s recommendation to deny rezoning the property to commercial. She
stated that she empathizes with the neighbor to the east who it not in favor of this property being
developed as a commercial site. Ms.Zimmerman voiced her concern that agreements would actually be
implemented between the various property owners and would like to see the property developed jointly.
David Malik voiced support to rezone the property for commercial.
Ron Harmon reiterated his concern with the neighbor to the east and hopes that the Planning staff will
take this into consideration.
Ron Hannon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of CPA-98-
2 (D)/CPZ-98-4 Costanzo Amendment. Motion carried six to one. K
CPA-98-4/SMP-98-1 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Kevin ONeill stated that this is an amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. He said that the City of
Kent has had a Shoreline Master Program since 1974. He said that Kent's Shoreline Master Program is
governed under the provisions of the Washington State Shoreline Management Act which was passed in
1971. The shoreline program regulates development within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of
shorelines of the state.
Mr. ONeill stated that wlien the Shoreline Management Act was passed and when Kent developed its
first shoreline master program,the only shoreline of statewide significance in the city was the Omen
River. Mr. O'Neill said that back in 1996,the city annexed two shorelines; Lake Meridian and a portion
of Big Soos Creek from Kent Kangley Road to the southern portion of the city limits, which affects 10
parcels.
Mr. O'Neill said that these shorelines are still regulated under King County's Shoreline Master Program.
He said the City of Kent has been using-the County's program on an interim basis since annexation,but
has been aware of the need to update its shoreline master program to bring these two shorelines into
Kent's shoreline program.
Kevin O'Neill said that the other reason Kent has proceeded with updating its Shoreline Master Program
is that back in 1995 the Washington State Legislature adopted the regulatory reform act or ESHB 1724,
requiring that Kent change their regulatory procedures. He stated that the State law governing shorelines
mandates that the goals and policies of the local shoreline master program become part of the city's
comprehensive plan and that the regulatory portion of the shoreline master program be incorporated as
�♦ part of the city's overall development regulations.
Based on this law,the goals and policies in the shoreline program are now defacto part of Kent's
comprehensive plan. Kevin ONeill stated that Planning staff wanted to go through existing policies and
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 6
add in policies that are relevant to the new shoreline areas for Lake Meridian and Big Soos Creek. Mr.
O'Neill stated that updating the shoreline's goals and policies would bring them into compliance with the
remainder of the comprehensive plan.
Kevin O'Neill said that the City of Kent wrote a grant to the State Department of Ecology(DOE)
because of the need to update the shoreline master program. He said that the DOE is helping to fund the
project and has reviewed preliminary drafts of the proposed document. Mr. O'Neill stated that after the
Board makes its recommendation to the City Council and the Council takes final action to adopt a locally
adopted shoreline master program,it will be sent to the State Department of Ecology,He said that the
DOE will complete their own review and could respond with their own recommended changes.
Kevin O'Neill said that shoreline management is different than other regulatory and policy documents in
the City in that the DOE as well as a number of State laws dictate how shoreline programs should be
outlined and how shoreline development should be regulated.
Kevin O'Neill stated that as part of the city's grant,Planning staff put together a citizen's advisory
committee last spring made up of several residents of Lake Meridian as well as other people in the
community familiar with the existing shoreline master program. Mr. O'Neill said the committee was
helpful in helping to formalize issues that should be addressed in the update. He thanked the committee
for their help in assisting the city in drafting a proposal. He stated that two open houses were held this
summer to address the Lake Meridian and the Green River shoreline issues
Kevin O'Neill submitted a letter dated 12/14/98 for the record from John Nason,Architect as Exhibit#2
and a letter dated 12/11/98 for the record from Jill Clifford,Meridian area resident, as Exhibit#3.
Brad Bell asked Mr. O'Neill that since the State has the authority to dictate how shoreline regulations
should be implemented,would this preclude the City from making any changes that the state requires
regardless of the Board's input on those issues.
Mr.O'Neill stated that there are mandates within the Washington State Administrative Code regarding
how shoreline terms are defined as well as what areas should be regulated. For example,Mr. O'Neill
stated that Kent would not be permitted to regulate only the first 100 feet of a shoreline area.
Mr. O'Neill stated that the DOE has prepared a model shoreline master program with recommended
language to assist local governments in the implementation of their own program.
Mr. O'Neill stated that Lake Fenwick was not within the shoreline management area and he assured
Steve Dowell that any existing nonconforming development within 200 feet of the shoreline for Lake
Meridian,Green River or Big Soos Creek would continue to be a legal nonconforming use as long as the
development was legal at the time it was established.
Steve Dowell asked how people were notified of this issue. Mr.O'Neill stated that for the open houses
and the public hearing,people were notified within 200'of Omen River,Big Soos Creek and Lake
Meridian. Kevin O'Neill stated that portions of Mill Creek outside the city limits are a regulated
shoreline but the portion within Kent is not considered a shoreline. Mr. O'Neill explained that streams
are considered a shoreline when the mean annual flow reaches a certain threshold. Steve Dowell asked if
streams and creeks leading into the Green River were considered shorelines.
Mr.O'Neill said that Section 5.7 states that"200'of the creek areas leading into the Green River where
salmon habitats exist would be subject to shoreline management."
.............
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 7
Nancy Eklund,Berryman and Henigar,Seattle,WA stated that she was a planning consultant
assisting the City in this project. She confirmed that 200'of the tributaries or creeks leading into the
Green River are governed under the Shoreline Management Act and would be part of Kent's shoreline
jurisdiction.
Ms.Eklund said that the Department of Ecology has reviewed the draft Shoreline Master Program for the
City of Kent and will require a technical formal review as part of the approval process.
Ms.Eklund referred to the Shoreline Master Program draft at length in defining a jurisdiction's
regulatory area. She stated that regulations are tailored to the body of water they are centered on and that
the City of Kent need's to adjust their regulations to fit Lake Meridian and Big Soos Creek as well as the
Green River area.
Ms.Eklund stated that the City of Kent's new Shoreline Master Program draft has added policies and
regulations pertaining to over water structures and residential setbacks. She stated that these additions
are two of the most significant changes. Ms. Ecklund stated that the draft document has included
language changes to comply with State Law.
Ms. Eklund stated that the SMP draft has included protective regulations within the section titled
"Shoreline Stabilization"concerning salmon habitat. She stated that the inclusion of regulations in this
section would position the city better for future endangered species act regulations. Ms. Eklund stated
that some administrative aspects of the shoreline master program have been restructured to reflect new
regulatory reform changes in the city's local regulations.
Brad Bell asked Ms. Eklund to indicate the new changes that would affect property owners. Ms.Eklund
stated that the areas of primary interest to many folks pertain to Lake Meridian and are included in King
County's shoreline master program.which the city has been governed by. Ms. Eklund stated that even
though King County has implemented changes in their shoreline master program,Kent has continued to
apply those regulations in force at the time of the annexation.
Ms.Eklund referred to Section 6,page 11 of the draft in reference to the allowance for covered moorage.
She stated that under the shoreline program Kent has been administering, covered moorage has=tt been
allowed. She said that under the new King County Shoreline Master program, adjustments have been
made to allow for covered moorage. Ms. Ecklund stated that the draft proposal includes two options:
Alternative F—to not allow covered moorage and Alternative G—to allow covered moorage. She said
that Planning staff is recommending"F"to not allow covered moorage.Ms.Eklund deferred to Mr.
O'Neill.
Mr. O'Neill said that Planning staff typically like to retain preexisting county regulations unless there are
compelling arguments to change them. When Kent annexed Lake Meridian, covered moorage were not
allowed under the County's master program. Mr. O'Neill stated that since that time,King County has
changed their regulations to allow,for what they define as"mechanical boat lift covers"'. He stated that
the county's shoreline master program now allows these covers,but Kent is obligated under state law to
implement shoreline regulations in affect at the time of annexation. Kevin O'Neill explained that two
alternatives were included in the draft as a means to show how boat lifts have been regulated in the
county and how they are currently regulated. He stated that several members of the citizens advisory
committee were in favor of allowing covered moorage under certain conditions as well as a number of
people who attended the open house meetings. He reiterated that Planning Staff recommends"F".
Nancy Ecklund spoke at length on residential setbacks,which are of primary interest to the public. She
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 8
stated that the proposal suggests that residential structures shall be set back using an averaging so that
new development will be sensitive to preexisting buildings and homes on the lake
Terry Zimmerman voiced concern that a statement in Section 4.0 of the Shoreline Element was
contradictory in regards to setbacks and shoreline restoration. Mr.O'Neill stated that these statements
are policies and not regulations and that this proposal sets a policy framework for future regulations.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Donald West,25866136t°Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA said that he has resided on Lake Meridian
since 1958. He voiced concern that existing structures should be grandfathered so that piers, floats and
docks would not have to be removed. He voiced.concem about the definition of a "float" as written in
the proposed draft Mr. West stated that when the county park was reconstructed,the water level of the
creek was raised at least 1.5 feet. He asked if consideration has been given to restructuring the culvert
for the outflow from the creek as his dock is under water at times.
Victor Page, 14607 Southeast 267"Street,Kent,WA stated that his property is located at the shallow
end of the lake. Mr. Page said that his dock is 30 years old and extends beyond the maximum dock
length of 80 feet in order to reach a depth of six feet of water in the summertime. He said that he would
like to see pre-existing docks,buildings as well as allowance for repairs to be grandfathered in.
Steven Crowell,26709148"Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he has communicated with
Kevin Mitchell,King County's Chief Shoreline Administrator and that Mr. Mitchell indicated that
Planning staffs recommendation for"F"was written and adopted in 1978. Mr. Crowell said that he
supports"F" and would encourage the Board to adopt a policy to allow for grandfathering of legal,
nonconforming uses. "
Mr. Crowell submitted correspondence dated 12/8/98 from Mr. Greg White,Meridian area resident for
the record as Exhibit#4. Mr.Crowell read from the correspondence sharing Mr. White's believe that
Lake Meridian is saturated with development and that the addition of permanent boat covers should not
be allowed as they obstruct view and contribute to an overall cluttered appearance. Mr.Crowell stated
that Mr.White indicated his opposition for expansion of dock sizes beyond current regulations and any
changes in rules governing dock positions relative to property lines. He said that Mr.White indicated
opposition to reducing current restrictions on shoreline development.
Casey Gibbs, 14661 Southeast 267t°Street,Kent,WA stated that he created the covered boatlift flap.
Mr.Gibbs stated that Mr. Crowell has two boat docks and one boathouse on his property. He voiced
surprise that Mr. Crowell would raise opposition to the addition of more covers and felt Mr.Crowell was
hypocritical. Mr. Gibbs said that boat covers provide protection from the rain and that boat covers do not
block views when situated correctly.
Mr. Gibbs said he supports Option G to allow covered boat moorage on Lake Meridian. He stated that
he opposes imposing restrictions on dock size citing low water levels as his rational. Mr. Gibbs stated
that the covered boat area should be excluded from the dock length calculation.
Mr. Gibbs stated that he felt it interesting that Planning staff recommends against covered moorage,
when by their own definition they are trying to be consistent with existing regulations which allows for
boat canopies or covers.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 9
Maribelle Lackey, 14410 Southeast 270"Place,Kent,WA said that she has lived on the lake for 23
years. She said that two years ago 78 citizens signed a petition to ban covered boat moorage. She stated
that regulations do not allow for covered boat moorage.
Ms. Lackey stated that a citizens advisory committee has asked that the use of a temporary boat cover be
addressed again. She stated that she disapproves of this nomenclature,as it is too broad a term. She
opposes boat covers as they are unattractive and create a visual barrier. Ms.Lackey stated that the lake
is public property and that these covers would degrade the quality of the lake. She strongly voiced
opposition to any change in the code allowing for over the water structures.
Ms. Lackey submitted a letter for the record dated 12/14/98 from Don and Juanita Bell,Meridian area
resident as Exhibit#5, indicating opposition of boat covers on Lake Meridian.
Mr.Mary Olsen, 14400 Southeast 270th Place,Kent,WA stated that he has been a residenf of Lake
Meridian for several years. He said that covered boat moorage's should be allowed if the purpose is to
protect the boats. Mr. Olsen stated that the moorage do block view and are esthetically displeasing. He
stated that the lake is small and that allowing for more moorage would impact the lake negatively.
Mr. Olsen stated that he supports'F". He stated that terminology in Section G.iv and v needs to be
defined more accurately.
Rita Bailie,20607101st Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that she is the Rainier Audobon Wetland
Chair and served on the citizen's advisory committee. She commended Kevin O'Neill on the diversity of
the committee and stated that Nancy Eklund was supportive and helpful. Ms. Bailie stated that the
committee held a field trip around Lake Meridian.
Ms. Bailie stated that the advisory committee recommended continuation of a 200-foot setback along
Kent's segment of Green River. She stated that she is pleased to see water-based business, agriculture
and more passive recreational priorities in place.
Ms.Bailie stated that setbacks might have to be more actively protected if the Endangered Species Act
should be enacted. She said that future impervious surfaces such as parking areas within that 200-foot
area could be questioned. Ms. Bailie said that under the Introduction in section 1.4, it indicates that one
of the main purposes of the Shoreline Management Program is to "protect,preserve, and restore fish and
wildlife habitats in and adjacent to streams,rivers and lakes within the City of Kent".
Ms.Bailie stated that in Europe and the U.S .river corridors serve as favorite public amenities and in
well-planned river parks,you find wildlife cornucopias. Ms.Bailie said that through the wide use of the
Green River corridor Kent can be known for its beautiful, inviting pastoral corridor as well as its new
regional wetland. She stated that rivers are natural corridors for wildlife dispersal,migration, and
breeding.
Ms.Bailie stated that Planning staffs adequate setbacks would make it possible for species to survive
when the endangered species act is put into affect. She stated that the Green River is a shoreline of
statewide significance as well as international significance in relation to migratory birds,many of which
are threatened.
Ms.Bailie said that the Audubon Society supports the retainage of farmland as a major wildlife habitat
resource. Ms.Bailie stated that farming is a viable economic business largely neglected in Western
Washington. She stated that the Audubon encourage agricultural development along the Green River as
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 10
a valuable resource. Ms.Bailie said that the United States loses 1 million acres of prime farmland yearly
with most of this land located along rivers. She said that many local farms are wetlands with fragile soils
and that the goal of the SMP is to minimize public access. Ms.Bailie stated that farms provide wintering
grounds as well as spring and summer nesting and feeding area for birds.
Ms.Bailie voiced the vision of a number of individuals that 78th Avenue South should be designated as
historical district as this area of Kent originates from the turn of the century with the existence of 8 or 9
historical monuments such as barns, farm houses and an avenue of trees. Ms.Bailie stated that a
historical designation would protect and enhance the enjoyment of the Green River Corridor and trail
system.
Lee Ann Dickson, 14214 Southeast 270th Place,Kent,WA stated that the definition in Section 6.9 of
the draft states that"a definition of a pier is supported by piles above the water while docks float upon
the water." Ms.Dickson stated that she would like more definitive terminology through out the
document in regards to defining piers versus docks. She voiced concern over terminology in the
exemption section as well.
Ms. Dickson said that she would like to see grandfathering of existing piers in order to protect her pier
located directly on the property line.
Ms.Dickson stated that she did not see indications that the SMP draft addressed flooding on Lake
Meridian. She stated that the lake has risen 14 to 16 inches within the past six weeks and half of her
property is under water. Ms. Dickson stated that she intends to have a bulkhead constructed before any
more land erosion occurs on her property due to winter flooding. She noted that the nomenclature within
the SMP does not address land use in regards to erosion due to winter flooding. Ms.Dickson stated that
she opposes covered moorage on the lake.
Tom Ryan,14605 Southeast 266th,Kent,WA stated that he has lived on Lake Meridian since 1953
and that his dock is 120 feet in length in order to reach water with a depth of 5 feet. Mr.Ryan stated that
he has a boathouse attached to his dock,which he shares with his neighbor. He stated that he opposes the
addition of more boathouses on the lake.
Brian McDonough,26441 137th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that his home does not front the
lake but that he has a ten-foot easement down to the water and that he shares a boat with his neighbor.
Mr. McDonough voiced concern with 15 foot setbacks from property lines would like to see a-
grandfather clause that would allow him to keep his dock as it is and repair or rebuild it as required. Mr.
McDonough said that he supports the use of boathouses on Lake Meridian.
Robin Rausch,26430136th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that she resides on Lake Meridian.
Ms.Rausch said that she is the president of the Lake Meridian Community Association and a member of
the citizens advisory committee. She said that she is representing the opinion of people whom did not
wish to attend the public hearing.
Ms.Rausch stated that she sent out surveys pertaining to covered moorage and setbacks to Lake
Meridian residents. She said that the result of the survey indicated a need to change the SMP as it
pertains to covered moorage and dock setbacks.
Ms.Rausch said the survey indicated that many people favored 5-foot setbacks and that a majority of
people supported allowing boat covers. She stated that individuals who were opposed to boat covers
cited view obstructions based on the topography of the land as well as creating environmental issues.
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
w ' Page 11
Ms. Rausch stated that residents favored grandfathering existing structures with the allowance for repair
of existing structures. She stated that residents were concerned with property damage due to the high
water levels and have asked the City of Kent Engineering department to study this issue.
David Malik asked Ms.Rausch what city official told them about the water level problem. Ms. Rausch
stated that several meetings were held with city engineers familiar with the problem. She stated that the
residents were told that an ongoing study would take place and the results of this study would be passed
on to the residents. Ms.Rausch said that they requested pictures of the lake that would provide a
historical perspective of water levels at varying times of the year as well as recent pictures of the lake for
the purpose of comparing changes.in Lake Meridian's water table.
Bonnie Harris,26712138th Place Southeast,Kent,WA said that she has resided on Lake Meridian for
13 years. Ms. Hams stated that she has pictures of the lake during the winter she moved in. She stated
that the lake was frozen. She stated that pictures taken during the same time of year in 1996 shows that
the lake is not frozen and the water table is much higher. Ms. Harris said that the lake has not been
frozen since the late 80's.
Ms.Hams said that when the park was remodeled,the natural drain flow was removed and the gate,
which was used for draining water from the lake,was removed. She stated that she has sustained a
$6300 repair bill for damage to her dock as a result of the high water table. She said her dock currently
floats on the water, lifting the pilings out of the water. Ms. Harris said when the water table decreases,
the pilings settle at different levels.
Ms.Hams stated that at the time damage occurred to her dock, Lake Meridian was-regulated under King
County's SNIP. She said that the City of Kent would allow her to remodel but not rebuild her dock. Ms.
Hams stated that if her dock had been rebuilt, it would have been required to be within the 15-foot
easement,placing the dock in the middle of her property. She stated that at this time,the old dock is
situated on the property line and even though the repairs to the piers have raised their dock by 1.5 feet,
the new dock is now under water. Ms.Harris stated that she supports grandfathering for retainage of
existing docks.
Ms.Harris spoke of her concern over ecological damage to the lake from chemical run off from yards.
She stated that a sewer system runs around the lake and questioned if the storm drains could rum into that
system as opposed to allowing run off into the lake. Ms.Harris voiced her opposition to allow covered
moorage on the lake.
Bill Rausch,26430136th Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he has lived on Lake Meridian
since 1964. He said that he supports adoption of Subsection G to allow covered moorage under certain
conditions. Mr.Rausch stated that the existing regulation,which does not allow covered moorage, is
inconsistent with King County and does not reflect current use nor indicates the desires of Lake Meridian
residents.
Mr.Rausch stated that when the park was redesigned the boat launch was moved further north. He stated
that a culvert system was created to allow for water run off creating higher water levels in the lake about
1.5 feet. Mr.Rausch said that vegetation blocks the culvert inhibiting the free flow of water and that
some minor engineering changes could alleviate the water problems.
Steve Dowell asked Mr. Rausch if it was his impression that the County caused the level of the water to
rise in the lake as a result of putting in a culvert. Mr.Rausch concurred and stated that when the
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes �..
December 14, 1998
Page 12
residents approached the county and asked them to address this problem they did not get a positive
response.
Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion
carried.
Brad Bell complimented Mr.O'Neill and Nancy Eklund for a job well done in respect to the positive
feedback on the inclusion process.
In response to citizenquestions,Mr.O'Neill stated that"grandfathering"was a nomenclature for a legal
nonconforming use. He stated that this issue reverts back to the state law relating to shorelines where it
defines a legal nonconforming development. He proceeded to define what would be allowed under a
legal nonconforming use.
Mr. O'Neill stated that if a nonconforming use were damaged to the extent of not exceeding 75%of the
overall replacement costs reconstruction would be allowed back to the original configuration. Mr.
O'Neill deferred to Environmental Engineer,Bill Wolinski regarding the rising water level of the lake
although this issue does not specifically refer to the Shoreline Master Program.
Mr. O'Neill stated a number of residents have been sensitive to view protection in respect to covered
boat moorage so Planning staff has recommended that moorage not be allowed. Mr. O'Neill felt that
definitions for floats,piers and docks should be consistent as well as cross-referenced throughout the ..
document. He stated that bulkheads would be allowed as long as they did not create more land for the
property owner and were not located waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
Mr. O'Neill addressed dock setbacks from property lines and stated that the 15-foot requirement is taken
directly from the County code. He clarified,that both the existing King County code and the ourrent
proposal allows for docks to be built on a joint property line as long as both property owners are in
agreement.
Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. O'Neill if there were any plans to correct the chemical pollution from lawn
fertilizers and upstream run off into the lake. Mr. O'Neill deferred to Environmental Engineer,Bill
Wolinski and stated that the Public Works department works with the Homeowner's Association in
providing environmental education regarding controlling the use of fertilizers and subsequent water run
off to the lake. Mr. O'Neill stated that Bill Wolinski is in charge oof theenvironmental Neill ta engineering a the
program,which includes flood control and storm water management.
annexation,the City of Kent has worked with the County to understand what has been done in the
watershed.
Mr. Wolinski stated that his department has been analyzing the storm water systems and flooding
problems throughout the entire annexation area. He stated that a comprehensive storm water
management plan has been drafted which addresses the water levels in Lake Meridian and is proposing
several alternatives that would address the water output.
Mr. Wolinski said information would be presented to the public in early 1999 through public hearings on
the comprehensive storm water management plan. Mr.Wolmski said that Kent's existing drainage
ordinances require that a storm water treatment system be created for all new developments.
Nancy Ecklund addressed Steve Dowells's concerns that herbicides are not to be used within 200 feet of
the lake. Ms.Ecklund stated that it was her understanding that there is a distinction between herbicides
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 13
and chemicals and language exists in the model ordinance which distinguishes between agricultural
chemicals and household chemicals.
Sharon Woodford asked Kevin O'Neill if it would be possible to consider covered moorage by
conditional use permit which would require a public hearing to allow surrounding neighbors to give their
opinions. Mr. O'Neill stated that the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program does
provide for a conditional use process requiring a public hearing. He stated that this option is available to
the Board as a mechanism to allow residents to speak.Mr. O'Neill stated that one problem with this
method is that it could create contentious public hearings in front of the hearing examiner.
Mr.Dowell asked Kevin O'Neill the Kent's Shoreline Jurisdiction regarding associated wetlands and
how shorelines and shorelands differ. Mr. O'Neill stated that the definition of shorelands is taken from
the WAC and is defined as"any land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark or any flood plains,
which are within 200 feet of the floodway. He stated that for purposes of Green River, the floodway and
the riverbank are the same. Steve Dowell suggested a change in verbiage to read as"all shorelands and
their associated wetlands" instead of:"all associated wetlands." Kevin concurred.
Mr.O'Neill stated that the narrative regarding the Green River and settlements along the river does not
specifically apply to the Muckleshoots Indian Tribe and is a narrative description of the area's history.
Mr.O'Neill stated that the narrative is taken from the existing shoreline master program. Mr. O'Neill
stated that Kent has coordinated for years with the Muckleshoots Indian Tribe and their use of the Green
River for fishery purposes.
Mr. O'Neill stated that he believed the Muckleshoots Indians do not fish within the City of Kent's
jurisdiction. Mr. Hams stated that the indians net fish in the City of Kent along the golf course,which is
not regulated by the city. Steve Dowell asked Mr.Hams if the Muckleshoots Indians are referred to in
the draft of the SMP as a group that the City is mandated to confer with. Mr.Hams concurred.
Steve Dowell stated that there seems to be confusion associated with the terminology used to define boat
covers and believes there needs to be better clarification. Mr.O'Neill stated that Planning staff was
relying on both the model ordinance and the existing County ordinance in putting those definitions
together. Steve Dowell spoke at length on various definitions regarding moorage,docks and floats.
Kevin O'Neill stated that part of the Board's recommendation could be to clarify certain definitions and
extend deliberations to the next hearing to allow Planning staff to return with amended language for
consideration.
Brad Bell informed Kevin O'Neill that as part of the recommendation,the Board would like to direct
Planning staff to reevaluate the definitions. Mr.O'Neill concurred and stated that staff would look at the
WAC's to assure continuity with State law terminology. He stated that they would look at-the County
shoreline program,the Department of Ecology model ordinance as well as other shoreline master
programs in evaluation of terminology.
Kevin O'Neill stated that after this proposal goes to the City Council it would go to the Department of
Ecology. He stated that if the Department of Ecology feels there are inconsistencies in terminology they
would give their input.
Jon Johnson stated that dock repair should be allowed at 100%and should be included as a legal
nonconforming uses as recommended by staff. He stated that he supports "G"so that the City remains in
conformance with County regulations. Mr. Johnson stated that he supports the use of boat covers with
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 14
boathouses. He said that he supports 5-foot setbacks.
Ron Harmon stated that docks should be allowed to be rebuilt at 100% and that he supports"G"to allow
covered moorage even though he stated that both F and G have merit.
Steve Dowell voiced his support of"F"with the exception of boat covers.
Brad Bell agrees with Mr.Harmon and Mr.Dowell that dock setbacks should be changed from 15 to 5
feet. He said that he supports"F".
Sharon Woodford supports"F"as"G does not allow for view protection. She stated that she approves of
5-foot setbacks.
Terry Zimmerman approves of 5-foot setbacks specifically when lot frontages are small. She stated that
she supports 100%repair for docks that have been destroyed by high water. She stated that she urges the
City to address the flooding issue. She said that she supports "F".
David Malik supports the 5' setbacks with 100%repairs allowed on the docks. He voiced concern with
the high water levels and the chemical pollution problems and would like the City to look at these issues.
Brad Bell stated that he agrees with Mr. Johnson in that he does not see any problem with someone
building an attractive boat-house as long as it did not pbstruct a homeowner's view on Lake Meridian.
Brad Bell stated that those owners who have boat houses and docks should be grandfathered. He
supports 5-foot setbacks for docks as well as 100%repair due to the lake's water level problems.
Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich clarified with Mr. Bell that he was referring to legal
nonconforming use when he voiced support of grandfathering. Mr.Bell concurred.
Mr.Dowell acknowledged Planning staff for their hard work in creating the SMP proposal and thanked
City Council member Sandy Amodt for coming to the public hearing to study this issue.
Fred Satterstrom asked the Board to include the areas that lay within Kent's potential annexation area in
their recommendation to Council regarding the Green River. He asked the Board to include in their
motion-the 200 foot Urban River Resource designation and that it be applied to the entire 200 feet on
both sides of the Green River throughout the PAA(Potential Annexation Area). Mr. Satterstrom stated
that if the Board includes the potential annexation areas,Planning would not have to come back to the
Board for amendments to the Shoreline Management Program every time a portion of the river is
annexed.
Brad Bell stated that he is concerned that a request is being made after a public hearing where the general
public has not had a chance to respond so he does not approve of this request for inclusion of the PAA.
Mr. Satterstrom stated that appropriate notification was mailed throughout the stem of the river and
recipients could have attended the public hearing if they desired.
Steve Dowell stated that he recalled the"Urban Growth Area was referred to in the proposal in narrative
form but not on the map,which should cover the area that Fred Satterstrom,was referring to.
Terry Zimmerman asked Assistant City Attorney, Laurie Evezich to clarify legal issues associated with
this issue. Laurie Evezich asked Brad Bell to reiterate the Board's concerns. Brad Bell stated that
.............
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 15
information provided by the Planning staff was confusing regarding inclusion of the PAA as there was a
narrative included in the proposal but not indicated on the map.
Mr. Bell stated that staff has requested a change in their recommendation after the public hearing took
place: Mr.Bell stated that the public would have no chance to respond to that issue. Brad Bell stated
that as chair,he voiced his objection to this change, as it is the information is not provided with the basic
material. Mr. Bell stated that if the information has been provided, there is no reason to change anything
at this time.
Ms. Evezich said that her understanding of staff s request is that they are not requesting a change to their
recommendation,but asking to incorporate a modification to their recommendation. Ms.Evezich stated
that she did not believe this would be a substantive change and asked to hear Fred Satterstrom's
recommendation.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the request is a clarification of the difference between the text and the
map. He stated that the only areas left in unincorporated King County that Planning could add through
annexation is the shoreline along the Green River. Mr. Satterstrom stated that when Planning staff
generated the map that was provided to the consultant, staff had anticipated that the consultant would
change the map to show the 200-foot within the PAA but that it just showed the 200 foot area inside the
City limits of Kent:
Mr. Satterstrom said that he is requesting that the Board include the shorelines along the PAA of the
:,... Green River within the Urban River Resource Designation in their recommendation.
Ms.Evezich stated that it is within the Board's authority to make this clarification for the record. She
stated that she believes proper notification went out to the public on the areas to be designated.
Terry Zimmerman indicated her concerns to Ms.Evezich about regulating the PAA when this area is
currently under King County's jurisdiction. Ms.Evezich stated that policies could be adopted for PAA's
under the Growth Management Act.
Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to adopt staffs recommendation of
Section F for#CPA-98-4/SMP-9871 Shoreline Master Program with the following changes and
clarifications:
• to change the setback for the docks from 15 feet to 5 feet and
• to change the dock repair threshold from 75%to 100%and
• to allow the map change in regards to the potential annexation area and the 200 foot Green River
issue and
to direct staff to work on the definitions.
Motion carried unanimously.
Kevin O'Neill asked Brad Bell in terms of the repair threshold from 75%to 100%to clarify if it is the
Board's recommendation that the threshold be changed for every shoreline environment or just Lake
Meridian. Brad Bell clarified that this would pertain solely to Lake Meridian.
Brad Bell announced that this is his last meeting as Chair and that Mr.Ron Harmon will take over as
chair January 1, 1999. He thanked the Board members and Planning staff for their support in allowing
him to be their leader and thanked Ms. Evezich for her direction. He thanked the audience for their
Land Use and Planning Board Minutes
December 14, 1998
Page 16
patience in setting through a very lengthy meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Ron Harmon MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The
meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
g
ly Submitted,
ams
„ _....................__
/X�
Kent City Council Meeting
Date January 19, 1999
Category Other Business
1 . SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ALTERNATIVES TASK FORCE
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: City Council wishes to appoint a
citizens task force of no more than eleven people who will
review alternatives for financing transportation improvements
in the City. The Task Force will have representatives from
real estate professionals, developers and home owners . Task
Force members will be appointed at the Council meeting of
February 2 , 1999, and will make their report within 90 days .
3 . EXHIBITS: Memo from Council President Orr
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Council President Orr
(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 1'tJ �/ seconds
that the Council create a Transportation Funding Alternatives
Task Force as outlined in the memorandum from Council President
Orr, and that said task force be directed to study alternatives
for transportation funding, and to report its recommendations
within ninety days .
DISCUSSION:
_ ACTION: m C—
Council Agenda
Item No. 7E
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LEONA ORR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OPTIONS
DATE: January 12, 1999
There has been a great deal of discussion recently regarding the city's method of
collecting fees for financing construction of transportation projects; specifically, corridor
projects. This discussion has been stimulated by the city's practice of entering into
Environmental Mitigation Agreements (EMA) with developers wherein a developer
agrees to pay a certain amount at a future date or participate in a future LID rather than
paying fees at the time of development. These EMAs run with the land and have resulted
in subsequent property owners becoming responsible for the payments when they become
due. The developer is long gone, and the current property owners feel as though they
have been left to pay what should have been paid when the property was developed.
I would like to propose that a community task force be created to investigate the
alternatives for financing corridors and other transportation needs. The task force would
consist of no more than eleven members with representatives from real estate
professionals, developers and home owners. They would explore all alternatives for
transportation funding, and how the impacts of growth can be mitigated. They would
then make a report to the City Council within ninety days.
If this proposal meets with your approval, I would like to confer with Mayor White, and
make appointments to the task force at the February 2, Council meeting. I welcome your
suggestions for appointments to the task force. I will be asking for your consideration of
this proposal at the January 19, meeting.
Council memo.Orr.Trans Task Force
Kent City Council Meeting
�., Date January 19 , 1999
Category Bids
1 . SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES & INFORMATION SERVICES TENANT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2 . SUMMARY STATEMENT: This project was driven by increased
staff requirements in Development Services and the need for a
full-service training room for Information Services . Four bids
were received. Staff recommends entering into agreement with
Springhills Engineering, Inc . for $67, 400, plus tax, including
Alternative No. One for $500 to cover expected overtime .
3 . EXHIBITS: Bid tab
4 . RECOMMENDED BY: Staff
(Committee, Staff, Examiner, Commission, etc . )
5 . UNBUDGETED FISCAL/PERSONNEL IMPACT: NO X YES
6 . EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $67 ,400 plus state sales tax
SOURCE OF FUNDS : Councilmanic Bonds in the Capital Facilities
Plan
7 . CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
Councilmember O&TS4 moves, Councilmember_�seconds
to award the contract to complete the Development Services and
Information Services Tenant Improvement Project to Springhills
Inc . , for $67, 400, plus tax. .� Jt 7L0, (
.e�V�
DISCUSSION:
ACTION:
Council Agenda
Item No. 8A
PARKS FACILITIES
BID TAB
PROJECT:Development Services and Information Services
Tenant Improvement Project
ADD
BIDDER BID ALT. #1 TOTAL
Libby Fredericks, Inc. $67,829 $6,800 $74,629
Springhills Engineering, Inc. $66,900 $ 500 $67,400
Alexander Const. Corp. $64,300 $6,000 $70,300
Red Mountain Company $73,100 $1 ,500 $74,600
REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES AND STAFF
A. COUNCIL PRESIDENT d/l/V dAlkl CAL Qcte kce-
U
B. OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
C. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
D. PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE C-Q�^-� 3310
o" Wed
E. PARKS COMMITTEE
F. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES
December 1, 1998
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Woods, Chair, Sandy Amodt, Tim Clark
STAFF PRESENT: Connie Epperly, Jim Harris, Joseph Lorenz, Brent McFall, Diana Nelson, Fred
Satterstrom, Roger Lubovich, Charlie Lindsey, Michael Sigsbee, Paul Scott, Jed Aldridge, Norm
Angelo, Tom Brubaker, Sue Viseth, Leona Orr, Bob Olson, Marty Mulholland, Keith Mutch, Dea
Drake, Stan Waldrop, John Hodgson, May Miller, Jackie Bicknell
PUBLIC PRESENT: Linda Johnson, Lon Hurd, Jackie Reis
The meeting was called to order by Judy Woods, Chair, at 3:33PM.
Approval of Minutes of November 17 1998
Committee Member Tim Clark made the motion to approve the Operations Committee minutes of
November 17, 1998. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
Approval of Combined Check-Detail Vouchers Dated 11/30/98
May Miller, Finance Director, requested approval of the November 30, 1998 vouchers. Tim Clark
made the motion to approve the vouchers in the amount of$2,744,989.62. The motion was seconded
and carried 3-0.
Kent Regorter/City Newsletter Contract
Dena Laurent, Government Affairs Manager, presented for approval the contract with the Kent
Reporter for publication of a monthly City Newsletter. In the past, the City published a newsletter as
r" part of the Parks &Recreation brochure,but eight months ago when the Kent Reporter began its
publication,they approached the City asking to publish the City Newsletter. After receiving good
community feedback about the Kent Reporter, the City chose to budget for publication of the
newsletter by the Reporter in 1998. Tim Clark noted that the Reporter is sent out to 28,000 Kent
homes and asked if there was any anticipation of additional areas of coverage. Ms. Laurent said that,
on a quarterly basis, bulk mail numbers are received from the Post Office according to routes that fall
in the incorporated boundaries. These are tweaked to keep up with annexations and new construction
that becomes occupied. Committee Member Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee
recommend to the Council approval of the 1999 Kent Reporter contract for publication of a monthly
City newsletter. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
Proposed Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions
Diana Nelson presented the continuation of the Proposed Land Use Fee Schedule Revisions. This
item was continued from the previous Operations Committee to allow Committee members to meet
with staff to discuss some concerns and proposed amendments. Ms.Nelson said Table 1 and Notes 1
include the provisions that were proposed by Councilmember Clark whose concerns were for
affordable housing and mixed-use developments. She said in order to address those concerns,some
of the fees for single family residential development were lowered which allows housing values
under$125,000 to receive a reduced level. Also reduced were fees for minor and major single family
construction on existing dwellings. Another issue was reducing the previously proposed fee for
accessory dwelling units, and to give a fee break or waiver up to 75% of the value for a mixed-use
building where commercial and residential uses were within the same building. Development where
�/ uses were separated in different buildings would not receive the same break.
Ms. Nelson said staff had met with Councilperson Amodt who was concerned about the large
increase in fees all at one time. Ms. Amodt proposed phasing the increase in a six month period. Ms.
Nelson said staff is not recommending the phased approach because they feel it would be preferable �—
to amend fees and deal with public questions and issues once rather than over a period of time. Tim
Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the amended
Planning Department Fee Schedule as shown on Table 1 and Notes 1 of the November 25, 1998 staff
report. The motion was seconded by Chair, Judy Woods.
Mr. Clark said, given the pressures of the Growth Management Act, the availability of land, and the
style of development that has recently taken place, the major problem is the cost of housing and
trying to make affordable housing available. Eighty percent of the population wants greater control
over growth, and a major complaint is traffic congestion. The hope for the City is to attract
participation from the development community for mixed-use development in Kent. People need
affordable housing close to work, and Mr. Clark suggested this could create a different and quality
lifestyle.
Sandy Amodt stated that she is opposed to any increases. She said she understands the costs of
developing property and the need to pass the costs on to consumers, but feels the low-moderate
income housing is still going to get hit with the increases. She understands that City employees are
working time not covered and sees the need to add people. However, she said she also understands
that one-half of the proposed increase would adequately supply two additional people to speed up the
process to customers. Ms. Amodt said she thought the issue should be researched further.
Tim Clark recounted that for some time the City has not raised fees and has been underwriting some
of the costs, which he labeled corporate welfare. Now the City is proposing to set fees that actually
reflect costs. Developers are making the money and they should be paying for the services they are
getting. Ms. Amodt concurred that the issue was like a Catch 22 and said she would be much happier
with a half increase rather than the full increase. She stated she felt doing a five-fold increase would
be like a slap in the face. Her concern is whether people can actually afford to buy homes or
businesses or rent facilities. She said what was done in the past is unfortunate, but asked if the City
really needed to do the increase so quickly. Tim Clark stated there is no such thing as freebies, that
any supposedly free service is a cost to government and comes from taxpayer dollars. The issue is
whether the City will continue to underwrite the services for the development community or whether
developers will now begin to pay for what they have been receiving.
Fred Satterstrom said the City is taking a marketplace approach. The fees are in line with other
jurisdictions where developers do business, and most won't notice the change in fees. He said they
do notice now that Kent doesn't charge the kind of fees other places do. He agrees with Mr. Clark
that the portion they are not paying is born by others, coming from the general fund which is the
taxpayer dollars. The fees, even though they are going up substantially, still will not recover all of
the costs. The City is not proposing to be totally fee supported and there will still be a general
subsidy with some services provided without charge. The"little guys" fees are not going up as
substantially as others,but they will still go up. Some of the new categories for the smaller,cheaper
single family dwellings will remain lower.
The motion was voted on and carried 2-1 with Sandy Amodt voting no.
Software Maintenance Contract ApRroval
Marty Mulholland, Information Services Director,told the Committee that approximately 10 years
ago the City purchased the Finance, Payroll,Personnel, and Parks systems from a company known as
f .iagement Advisory Group (MAG). Over the 10 year period, the City paid MAG for supporting
.e software with a maintenance agreement that.allowed the City to receive updates in the software
vithin the framework of the maintenance agreement, and that also included a help system. MAG will
no longer support these products effective December 31, 1998, and Ms. Mulholland said the
Department has asked the agency that actually created the software to provide the City with a
maintenance agreement. The Center for Information Services has agreed to provide maintenance
services for Finance, Payroll, and for the Production Management System that helps makes it all
work. They will not be supporting the Parks system.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to authorize the
Mayor to sign a contract with CIS for the maintenance of the City's Finance, Payroll, and Production
Management Systems, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. The motion was
seconded and carried 3-0.
Wide Area Network EauiPment Purchase
Marty Mulholland said one of the objectives of the technology plan was to connect all of the City's
outlying facilities to the network. She said the goal of this purchase is to buy the devices that will
allow the other city facilities to plug in. However, another aspect of the network is that some of the
buildings themselves need to be rewired, which will create substantial additional infrastructures
issues. This purchase is a portion of the total wide area network.
Ms. Mulholland introduced Joe Lorenz,Network Manager. Mr. Lorenz said Information Services
worked with consultants from Moss Bay Group who helped the department come up with a wide area
plan to connect the remote sites that would take the City to the next step in deploying the Parks
system. Moss Bay Group also helped to identify and select the infrastructure backbone. The CISCO
product line of routers was identified for use throughout the installation, and staff also identified an
attractive bid from the Washington State Department of Information Services that alleviates the
bidding requirements by purchasing off of the state contract.
Tim Clark asked for a rough idea of what will still not be connected to the network. Joe Lorenz said
the majority of the large sites will be connected, but there are a few small sites like some police
substations and the Green River Resource Center that have just a few employees that will be
connected on a dial-up basis to the network. Sandy Amodt asked how the department would deal
with remote access for the Councilmembers. Mr. Lorenz said they are looking at a dial-in capability
for Councilmembers as well as the remote access locations. Ms. Mulholland clarified that this
equipment purchase would be to support the larger City facilities. Ms. Amodt asked if
Councilmembers would be able to access the City ordinances when the web page is finished. Ms.
Mulholland said that has not yet been undertaken as the Year 2000 Plan has taken precedence over
the web site.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to authorize the Mayor
to sign a contract with Cisco Systems for the purchase of network hardware for wide area
networking, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. The motion was seconded and
carried 3-0.
PC Purchase An rR oval
Marty Mulholland said one technology objective was to eliminate the 486s,which are some of the
oldest computers on the campus. She said with this purchase they will not be entirely deployed by
the end of this year, but should be by the first quarter of next year. Bob Olson, Information Services
Operations Manager, informed the Committee that quotes were received from six different companies
with the lowest from Technology Express at $157,629.90. That quote was for 73 personal computers
with 17 inch monitors to be used by staff, and 14 PCs with 14 inch monitors to be used in the training
facility. He said the unit costs come under budget.
Sandy Amodt moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council to accept the quote of
$157,629.90 from Technology Express for the purchase of eighty-seven Hewlett-Packard Pentium II
personal computers, and authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary documents to complete the
purchase. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
Parks System Software Purchase An rR oval
Marty Mulholland introduced Stan Waldrop, Senior Systems Analyst. Mr. Waldrop informed the
Committee that the old system was not Year 2000 compliant, plus the automated registration system
was not useful at the front counter. A committee of eight was formed consisting of Mr. Waldrop and
several people from Parks & Recreation. The committee decided that citizens' access to any Parks &
Recreation registration information, plus improving customer service at the point where people
interact with cities were the required features they wanted. Two responses were received from
vendors and the ultimately successful one was from Escom Software Services LTD, a large Parks &
Recreation software vendor that has hundreds of selections throughout the U.S. and is very well
thought of in the industry.
Some of the things the new system will provide are an automated, front counter activity registration
system, interest registration, the ability to query facilities to see what's available, and touchtone
registration. This will add functionality to the Parks& Recreation System Environment that's not
currently available, and the idea is to make it as friendly and easy as possible for the citizens to take
advantage of these areas. Tim Clark asked which cities were currently using the program. Mr.
Waldrop answered that Tukwila,Issaquah, and Renton were using the software. He had talked to
Issaquah and Tukwila and also Charlotte,NC, a recent installation of Escom, and they all had rave
reviews. Escom was chosen, not because of the cost or the technical requirements,but because they
have an excellent customer support structure. They have a very high industry profile and service
their customers very well because they want to maintain that profile.
Sandy Amodt asked about the projected completion time. Stan Waldrop said that phase 1 was getting
the current registration project system installed and working in-house to receive facility scheduling
and that would occur sometime around April, 1999. Phase II would be to implement the touchtone
intereet registration and query with a timeframe of approximately June—July. Sandy Amodt moved
that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council authorization for the Mayor to sign a
contract with Escom Software Services Limited for the purchase of a Parks and Recreation System
and Services, subject to City Attorney approval of contract documents. The motion was seconded
and carried 3-0.
TCI McMgr Resolution
Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney,told the Committee about the proposed merger between
AT&T and TCI. Under the terms of the City's franchise agreement,before that merger can take
place, any change of ownership of TCI must be approved by the City of Kent. This resolution
protects the City's interest. Mr. Brubaker said that one disclosure issue to convey was that some
intereet service providers are trying to get access to the broad band intereet services that TCI can
currently provide in some areas. The City has been contacted by some of the services who have
asked to make as a condition to the franchise and the merger approval that TCI or AT&T/TCI commit
to leasing its broad band facilities to those other providers. Mr. Brubaker said it was his opinion and
advice that the City not buy into that request as it would be a regulation not authorized by the City's
franchise under the assignment provision, and would get the City in the middle of the conflict
between those providers. The current resolution has been amended to say that should TCI lease its
broad band services to these other providers, that will be calculated in their gross revenues which will
be subject to the franchise fee.
Tim Clark said one concern is what happens if other services are put on line, would the City lose
control of what actually gets carried through the network. Mr. Brubaker said in his opinion that
since the FCC has so thoroughly covered the field of regulations of cable companies, it's unlikely
there would be any loss of regulatory authority. Lon Hurd from Cable Communications Consultants
said that a clause has been added to make it very clear that because of the discrepancies in the
definition of services, TCI is allowed to the right of cable television services only under this existing
franchise. If they decide to expand upon their uses, they will be required to come back to the City
and ask for additional franchises to provide any additional services.
Mr. Clark asked Mr. Brubaker for clarification of whether TCI could just say they wanted an
additional franchise agreement or if they would have to negotiate a completely new deal. Mr.
Brubaker said it would be starting from scratch for a new deal. He said the Federal Communications
Commission has issued an extensive amount of regulations for the Cable TV Industry and the City's
regulatory authority is very limited. What grows out of the City's franchise authority is the ability to
let TCI lease or use City public right-of-way. Sandy Amodt asked about AT&T's ability to increase
rates. Mr. Hurd said TCI will be regulated in accordance with FCC rules for the lowest level of
services. He said to not expect rates to increase anymore than if the existing ownership were
retained.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council passage of the resolution
approving the proposed merger of TCI and AT&T, subject to certain conditions, specifically the
AT&T agreement that all its cable operations purchased from TCI within the City of Kent will
remain subject to the City's Franchise Agreements. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
HoteUMotel Lodging Tax
Brent McFall, Director of Operations, and members of the Committee, James Eagan and Linda
Johnson were asked to report the findings of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Mr. McFall
informed the Operations Committee that Chair,Judy Woods, was also Chair of the Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee. He reported that the committee was created by the City Council according to
the requirements of state law to consider whether or not the City of Kent should impose on lodging
establishments in the City a 1% lodging tax, and if so, for what purpose those funds should be
utilized. State law constraints are that the funds have to be utilized for tourism promotion purposes.
The committee first met on Oct.22"d and considered proposals with respect to a lodging tax in the
City. They met again on Nov. 9 h and formulated a recommendation to the City Council that a
lodging tax of 1%be levied in the City of Kent and that it be adopted at the Council's earliest
opportunity. The tax is estimated to generate $175,250. The committee is recommending those
funds be utilized using $85,000 for land acquisition for a potential performing arts center; $50,000 to
be available for contracts for services for tourism development and to create marketing; and the
remaining$40,250 revenue to be reserved for contingencies and fund balance.
These funds would be accumulated in a separate fund of the City and dispersed out of that fund so
they would not be co-mingled with the general fund. Any funds accumulated in this fund would stay
with the fund and would be available for future uses compatible with the state statute. The $50,000
tourism development component for contracts and services in the first year is a concept looking at
taking advantage of agencies that already exist or might be created for the purpose, not necessarily
building a capability inside the City to do marketing and promotion of the City. Mr. McFall said the
Chamber of Commerce might be an entity that would contract with the City for certain tourism
development activities. The City would develop a request for proposals that would go out to
potential contractors who would submit their proposals for how they would conduct their tourism
development activities on behalf of the City and at what cost. The committee would review the
proposals and make recommendations to the Council on what agencies to contract with.
Linda Johnson made the comment that the committee didn't all agree on how to spend the money and
it took some serious thought, but in the end they were agreed and worked really well together. Judy
Woods said the committee would meet quarterly for evaluation. Brent McFall said the committee is
composed of three members of the lodging community and three representatives of potential
beneficiaries of the tax and one member of the City Council. The committee's recommendation was
unanimous.
Tim Clark asked if the committee's approach was to look at the long-term investment of the project
with a recognition of what it does in terms of the vitality of the community. James Eagan said he
thinks it is an advantage in promoting the City, and will be able to use the tax dollars to bring more
tourism into the Kent area whether it be through a performing arts center or other avenues. He said
the majority decided that it would be beneficial to all. Judy Woods noted that the committee talked
about other events besides the performing arts center which can be marketed with the revenue. Mr.
Eagan said he would like to see some short-term projects so the City can benefit in 1999.
Sandy Amodt questioned if the committee talked to the hotels and motels in Kent and if there was a
concern that the increase would effect travelers coming into the Kent area. Linda Johnson said the ._
original meeting was with people from all the hotels in the area and they recommended moving
forward with the tax. She said the three motel/hotel people on the committee were selected from that
first group. There were many hours of discussions on the effects of the tax and the consensus was
that there may be some people who would feel the effects but the overall good for the community
outweighed the concern. Ms. Amodt asked what the tax percentage would be after this additional tax.
Mr. McFall said it is currently 11.4%and would be 12.4%after the 1%tax is added.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council adoption of an
Ordinance levying a 1%Lodging Tax and that the 1999 Budget be amended to reflect the estimated
revenue and proposed expenditures of the tax. Tax revenues are to be pledged to capital
improvement bonds for acquisition of property, tourism development activities, contingencies, and
reserves. The motion was seconded and carried. 3-0.
Tenant/Facility Imnrovemenb-Budget
John Hodgson, Parks Director, said that some improvements to facilities were identified in the
Capital Facilities Plan for 1998-99. He requested to move forward with those and to begin the
councilmanic bond process. He said the City doesn't have any more space for the growth of staff as
areas are annexed and the departments grow. Much of the requested work is.to provide necessary
tenant improvements so staff can be moved around the buildings. Some leases have ended at the
Centennial Building and improvements have begun there. In addition to that, Municipal Court was
vacated and now final improvements are needed to move Fire Prevention over there. Renovations are
needed at Fire Station 74 with outside gutters replacing internal gutters and some siding replacement.
The Kent Memorial Park building needs some facilities improvements to bring it up to code. At
Russell Road Park all the asphalting in the park needs to be repaired,the irrigation system needs
replacement and the bleachers need replacement to bring them up to code. Parks also wants to add
some trees at Russell Road.
May Miller said that all year the City has been expecting to issue bonds, but had to wait for the land
purchase to be finalized on East Hill, and to wait for environmental studies to be done. She said
interim funding can be used as long as the Council declares their intent to bond, then the borrowed
money can be reimbursed as soon as the bonds are issued. She thought the bonds would be issued
around March. One legal requirement is to establish the budget and to declare the intent to bond and
to reimburse those expenditures.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend that the Council authorize tenant
improvement budgets of$1,291,000 with "intent to bond" and reimburse expenditures in Spring of
1999. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
1998 Budget Adjustment Ordinance
May Miller explained that twice a year all the Budget changes are gathered into two Ordinances.
This current Ordinance covers all the changes from July through December. It also approves a line of
credit not to exceed $200,000 to cover the housing and community development short-term loan.
The majority of the budget changes have already been approved by Council. The balance of
approximately $645,000 has not been approved by Council previously, but is to make sure there is a
full budget to cover expenditures. The biggest portion of that of over$500,000 is for the City's self-
insurance health claims. Ms. Miller said a budget has to be in place to pay those claims even though
the City will receive some reimbursement. Another change is a small amount for workers comp and
property damage claims,part of which relates to the expenditures for the water damage at the Police
Department. The last part is $41,000 which is the golf management contract fee to pay for the
merchandise sales. Ms. Miller said there were a few other corrections where Capital Projects didn't
get budgeted in the proper place.
Sandy Amodt asked why there were more claims this year. Ms. Miller said she thought claims were
starting to rise all over in the health industry. In addition, some years there is more illness. She
added that she would like to include the Tenant Improvement Budget in the motion. Tim Clark
moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the budget adjustment
Ordinance for adjustments made from July 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998 totaling $15,438,927,
plus the Tenant Improvement Budget previously acknowledged, and to 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. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
1999 Budget Ordinances & Tax Levy Ordinances
Brent McFall said that he and Finance Director, May Miller, have been able to respond and answer
questions on the Budget and make some adjustments based upon changes that Councilmembers
suggested. Some good news is that the assessed value figures have been received from King County
and were higher than the estimates in the area of new construction. This has allowed some available
funds in the Implicit Price Deflator limit of 0.85%on property tax collections to do some of the
suggestions that were heard from Councilmembers: add two additional Police Officers for a total of
five in this budget,and bring the City's funding of the Downtown Partnership to the same level as
past funding in the amount of$32,000 (a$17,000 increase over what was originally in the
recommended budget). The City has also been able to change and move up some of the dates for the
phased hiring that had been originally proposed. Other funds, such as the electronic message
equipment fund to notify people of street projects, and impending paving projects are now in the
budget. Mr. McFall said there was a request from Mr. Clark to use some unappropriated funds in the
Capital Improvement Fund to buy some development in agricultural production lands.
An inadvertent item was funds for the senior activity bus of$66,000. These funds were in the
equipment rental reserve to replace the unit,but didn't get in the equipment rental replacement list.
This Ordinance adds it to the list. Another item is that the King County Fire District Board of
Commissioners finalized its budget with the result of an increase of funds to the City of Kent under
the City's contract of$156,000. The Board of Commissioners specifically requested the City utilize
those funds for Arson Investigator and Emergency Management Coordinator assignments in the Fire
Department and also for an Inspection Supervisor assignment. Judy Woods asked if this would be
ongoing revenue. Brent McFall said it would be and had to do with King County's assessed values
also coming in higher than expected. He said they have also stayed within the Implicit Price
Deflator. Staying within the price limits of the Implicit Price Deflator limits of Referendum 47 has
resulted in a significant property tax rate reduction.
May Miller explained the technical corrections for the Budget which includes the Hotel/Motel Budget
previously approved. She said there was one correcting addition to the beginning and ending fund
balance of$14,415. This budget is the preliminary budget plus the adjustments.
Tim Clark asked if the need for the additional arson inspector was due to the increased population the
City is serving which has created more demands. Chief Norm Angelo said that experts recommend
the minimum of three fulltime fire arson investigators for a City between 50,000-100,000 people.
Kent has more than its share of activity and has extremely good investigators who have been very
effective in sending the message to the community that you don't do arson in Kent. Because of the
work load and level of activity that's been encountered,not only growth in the City but density and
the type of activities have pushed us to the point where the current two arson investigators are in
overload. The number of incidences of arson and fire investigation have gone up. At the same time,
the issuance of successful prosecution of individuals has also gone up.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the Council approval of the 1999
Budget including technical adjustments as presented. The motion was seconded and carried 3-0.
Brent McFall explained that the City had about$285,000 more in property tax revenue than had been
estimated because of the higher assessed value from King County. May Miller said the original
amount of increase for Referendum 47 was$129,123. That stayed the same but a Refund Fund
which has to do with errors and adjustments of$100,000 and a little bit higher value on the new
construction and on the annexations of Del Mar and Meridian Valley make up the difference.
Ms. Miller said that before Referendum 47.there only had to be one ordinance,but now two separate
ordinances are required. The first Ordinance is the Referendum 47 Ordinance. The law requires a
hearing with a set date and that the City state how many dollars it will levy higher than the dollar
amount over last year. To protect the right of future councils,the levy base at 6%needs to be
protected. Each year Council will decide what the percentage will be up to 6%. The second
Ordinance just deals with the dollar amount. The General Fund amount is$17,175,994 which is the
total amount calculated by adding all the pieces—last year's levy,the $129,000,the new
construction, the annexations. In addition, there is a debt service fund that totals$1,832,413.
Tim Clark moved that the Operations Committee recommend to the council adoption of the
Ordinance stating that a public hearing on the tax levy was held Nov. 17, 1998,that the property tax
increase is $129,122 over last year's regular levy which is 0.85%, equal to the Implicit Price Deflator,
also to protect the Council's future right to levy the maximum allowable. The motion was seconded
and carried 3-0.
Tim Clark moved to recommend adoption of the tax levy assessing property taxes of$17,175,994 for
the General Fund and$1,832,413 for the Debt Service Fund.
Kent Downtown Partnership Update
Linda Johnson, Kent Downtown Partnership Director, made the final quarterly report for the year.
She said this has been a very busy year for downtown Kent with all the construction, new businesses,
people coming and going,the train station, 20 Year Strategic Action Plan and all of the other things
the Partnership has worked on the last year.
Ms. Johnson said a new bakery is coming to the corner of I" Ave. and Gowe St. The building's been
sold and will probably see a total redevelopment in the next eight months. That property has been in
pretty poor repair for some time and the new owners are going to put a substantial investment into it.
Ms. Johnson said the holiday season open house went very well for Kent's merchants. On Saturday,
a parade will start at 4:00 in the afternoon and begin on First Ave and follow Meeker. When the
parade is over, the lights will be lit in the park.
Ms. Johnson said the Kent Downtown Partnership has been going for seven years. Tim Clark asked
what the total participation was in the Partnership. Ms. Johnson said the number of people who
actually contribute in dollars is around 100. People who contribute in sweat equity, which the
Partnership does allow, is probably 120-130. Then there are people who don't really participate, but
KDP offers them services and there are a lot of people in the downtown area that are serviced but that
aren't true members of the organization. Ms. Johnson said the number of calls from people interested
in coming into the community has doubled from last year. Density wise in downtown Kent,there are
only two spaces for lease that are retail spaces. There are two fairly large office use spaces that are
for lease in the downtown. One of them is not listed on the multiple listing and the other one has just
been listed. Rumor is that a tenant has been found for the space next to Starbuck's.
October Financial Report
May Miller handed out the October Financial Report and said the numbers are consistent with the
budget.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:48PM.
...................
REPORTS FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Y
Via!
o
CONTINUED COMMUNICATIONS
A.
.........................
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A) Property Acquisition
B) Potential Litigation